The workers paying £650 a month to live in a Glasgow slum
 |
| BETTER OFF: Slovakian Roma Lucas Dudi is one of the lucky ones in Govanhill,. Picture: James Galloway |
Lucas Dudi has no complaints about life in Glasgow. "My accommodation is good. Everything is good. There is no work in Slovakia. There is work in Glasgow, and so I came here."
Like many migrant workers from Slovakia, Dudi is employed in low-status food-handling, paid at rates that do not appeal to many Scots but are attractive to incomers from a country where unemployment sits at around 10%. He works in potato processing. Fellow Slovakians are employed in meat-packing plants, other food-processing jobs, and car washes.
But Dudi, who shares a comfortable ground-floor corner flat in Govanhill with his family, is one of the luckier ones. Thousands of Slovakian workers and their families have arrived in Glasgow since 2004, when their country joined the EU. Most are Roma - ethnic gypsies from the very east of Slovakia, fleeing persecution and exclusion as well as unemployment.
The challenge posed to social services on the south side of Glasgow by the influx has been immense. Migrant families have placed a strain on the NHS and schools, and have also posed a challenge for the police.
Through partnership working, most of these agencies say great progress has been made in tackling the most serious problems. But others warn that the Slovakian Roma continue to put up with overcrowding, "slum" accommodation and exploitation from employment agencies.
Paradoxically, as a group they make few direct demands on local services, because Roma people tend to be deeply suspicious of authority and have low expectations of social support. But they have brought significant special problems. By contrast with, for example, Polish migrant workers - who tend to be well organised and whose numbers include more English speakers - Slovakian Roma are excluded at home and used to steering clear of government agencies. As a result, when the first families arrived in Scotland, they sought out out neither schools nor immunisation for their children. Most agencies struggled to communicate with them, and translation remains the biggest problem.
Different agencies make different estimates of the numbers who have come here, ranging from around 1000 individuals up to 3000 or perhaps more. Most are in privately rented accommodation, often of dubious quality - a situation exacerbated by overcrowding. Outreach workers have encountered a family of 14 living in a two-bedroom flat, and other flats housing three families at once. This creates problems with sanitation, in particular plumbing and refuse disposal.
Poor quality it may be, but the housing doesn't come cheap. Some are paying as much as £650 a month for a basic flat, and such homes are often tied to employment, with accommodation withdrawn if work dries up.
Anne Lear, director of Govanhill Housing Association, is alarmed by the failure to address the conditions endured by Slovakian migrants. Lear, whose organisation has refurbished some 2000 tenement properties in the area, fears much good work could be undone if old, unimproved tenements are allowed to continue to deteriorate.
The housing association is carrying out a detailed survey of one of four key street blocks that provides homes for most of the Slovakian migrant worker population, within a border formed by Calder Street, Dixon Avenue, Westmoreland Street and Annette Street. They include some very poor properties, Lear says. "We still have scenes of poverty comparable to 1960s slums," she says.
"In some houses there are appalling conditions. People are still paying up to £650 a month for an unimproved flat that might have cockroaches, rats, bed bugs or a leaking roof, or where the cooker has to be used in lieu of heating."
Much of this is not new, she argues. Conditions for existing residents were very hard before the latest arrivals. "We reckon there are 600 unimproved flats in the area. The problems aren't new but the population change makes it more difficult."
Govanhill's base population is about 10,000 people, Lear says. So, depending on whether there are 1000, 1500 or 2000 Slovakian Roma here, that is an increase of between 10% and 20%. "If you have a 20% increase in people using schools, social work, housing and so on, there are bound to be pressures," she says. But it is housing that is key to tackling the issue: "We'd like to see central and local government make a commitment to upgrading the remaining tenements."
You don't have to look long in the closes in streets on either side of Allison Street, Govanhill's main thoroughfare, to uncover pretty squalid conditions. One close is open to the skies, with rain falling on to stairs and down walls, and a group of pigeons in residence on the top landing. Much of the stair is caked with bird excrement.
Piles of rubbish, discarded toys and leaking soil pipes are not uncommon in back courts. Some closes have smashed windows all the way up, with stair railings broken and "secured" with plywood. Others have signs up warning that council officers have laid rat poison.
The Slovakians also share their closes with some less desirable local residents. Graffiti indicates that the sea of discarded needles in one close has probably been left by indigenous addicts.
The council has difficulty tackling some of the overcrowding as residents, for fear of losing their homes, will often collude with landlords by saying all those living within a given flat are related, sidestepping the need for it to be registered as a house of multiple occupancy.
Communication problems are slowly being addressed. Govanhill Housing Association has engaged a Slovakian student from Glasgow University to do outreach work. Meanwhile, two Slovakian workers, Lydia Zelmanova and Marcela Adamova, were employed by Oxfam and the charity Glasgow Braendam Link to help migrant families access services and to offer them emergency advice. Although Zelmanova returned to Slovakia last month, the positions have been formalised and taken over by the local Community Health Care Partnership, employed by the NHS, and her replacement is being sought.
Before she left, Zelmanova told The Herald that gaps in the system were leading to exploitation and benefit fraud. Although the posts are mainly intended to provide a parallel arm to health and social services, much of the advice she offered related to employment, she said. "People will pay to come over and get work for several weeks, but then there will be none. They are told that if they want a second job they will have to pay £50-200," she explained.
Zelmanova added that what she called "white horse" frauds were common. Workers whose employment has ended are sent home, she said, while gangmasters continue to claim benefits such as child tax credits. Adamova said several such cases had been reported to the authorities.
Such problems are best tackled by giving people lessons in English so they are less dependent on their exploiters, the Slovakian workers say. These are now being offered, but demand exceeds provision.
Adamova said accommodation is also a problem that is hard to tackle, partly because migrants tolerate conditions British tenants would not. "Many Slovakians would not say they were overcrowded, because it is common with all of us for three generations to live in two rooms."
However, the drop-in workers do believe landlords are exploitative. Many tenants have no written agreements and rents are high. "If work ends, the agency will not pay for rent,"Adamova explained. "In the end we have homeless people".
Mike Dailly, principal solicitor of Govan Law Centre, says that while it isn't the whole answer, the law should still be able to make life a lot better for migrant workers. That is why plans are advanced for a law centre in Govanhill, he says. "Everyone is ripping them off. Lawyers don't have all the solutions but people have rights.
"There is a lot of manipulation and the Roma are putting up with slum living conditions. A lot of people in the statutory agencies are well aware of the extent of the problems. These are members of an ethnic people who have really been scapegoated over the years and there is no way we should be allowing this to go on in Glasgow."
Plans for the law centre have significant backing and it could be up and running in a couple of months if those behind it can secure sufficient financial support.
While the centre will help Slovakian migrants, it would be for everyone in the area, Dailly stresses. "It would be for everybody who meets our criteria of being in need." Such an approach could help stave off local tensions, he argues.
One of the challenges for police has been the different social attitudes of the Roma and other Govanhill residents. In particular, many of the Slovakian families like to gather on the streets in the early evening and later at night, causing no harm but upsetting some other residents.
"It is all of these things together that create social tension and you get people fighting," says Dailly. "The community can end up going into decline if this is not addressed."
stephen.naysmith@theherald.co.uk
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 7:52am Tue 1 Apr 08
This would be the same hard working Roma's who a week after EU sucession where found outside burger king begging and pan handling along princes street? They certainly have entrepeneurial spirit just mis directed.
What amazed me was they could aford the flights across and viewed begging as a job and the big issue as a career in publishing.
I note their is no mention in this article that councils up and down the land are having to weld shut manhole covers and drains due to mainly Romas nicking them for scrap. Glad i don't ride a motorbike.
I have every respect for all. But only those who make an effort and as we are talking about Romas as a group in this article I am less than impressed by their outlook than I am polish people who have arrived.
The people described think nothing of living 20 to a house and all comers contributing regardless of where the cash came from.
Before I get flamed. I am a descendant of romany gypsies.
This would be the same hard working Roma's who a week after EU sucession where found outside burger king begging and pan handling along princes street? They certainly have entrepeneurial spirit just mis directed.
What amazed me was they could aford the flights across and viewed begging as a job and the big issue as a career in publishing.
I note their is no mention in this article that councils up and down the land are having to weld shut manhole covers and drains due to mainly Romas nicking them for scrap. Glad i don't ride a motorbike.
I have every respect for all. But only those who make an effort and as we are talking about Romas as a group in this article I am less than impressed by their outlook than I am polish people who have arrived.
The people described think nothing of living 20 to a house and all comers contributing regardless of where the cash came from.
Before I get flamed. I am a descendant of romany gypsies.
Posted by: fatzdomingo, Glasgow on 8:07am Tue 1 Apr 08
Exactly how did he figure out that Glasgow was a good place to go to?
Exactly how did he figure out that Glasgow was a good place to go to?
Posted by: JC on 9:27am Tue 1 Apr 08
is there not an issue then if people are coming from slovakia with no job prospects, or arriving here and finding no employment and if they are ctizens of another country, in the EU and not poltical refugees, should they not simply go back there? it seems that the there is a limited duty on this country to help people who find themselves in this postion? Also 1. the gangmasters should be rounded up and jailed. 2. Maybe the cooncil will be looking at the housing situation for all it's residents- but aren't a lot of these flats private accomodation anyway?
is there not an issue then if people are coming from slovakia with no job prospects, or arriving here and finding no employment and if they are ctizens of another country, in the EU and not poltical refugees, should they not simply go back there? it seems that the there is a limited duty on this country to help people who find themselves in this postion? Also 1. the gangmasters should be rounded up and jailed. 2. Maybe the cooncil will be looking at the housing situation for all it's residents- but aren't a lot of these flats private accomodation anyway?
Posted by: kotb, glasgow on 10:03am Tue 1 Apr 08
My friend works in a city centre job agency and not one Roma has ever tried to find work via this route.
Certainly many have made their way to the offices of the BIg Issue though. That doesn't present the same problems somehow.
In Sauchiehall Street an old man sells the Big Issue - he has not even bothered to learn the phrase, 'Big Issue please' or similar.
What is the point of him being here in Glasgow?
Why should we let people with little or probably no intention of finding work come here?
Don't we have enough problems of our own?
My friend works in a city centre job agency and not one Roma has ever tried to find work via this route.
Certainly many have made their way to the offices of the BIg Issue though. That doesn't present the same problems somehow.
In Sauchiehall Street an old man sells the Big Issue - he has not even bothered to learn the phrase, 'Big Issue please' or similar.
What is the point of him being here in Glasgow?
Why should we let people with little or probably no intention of finding work come here?
Don't we have enough problems of our own?
Posted by: Paul, Castle Douglas on 10:45am Tue 1 Apr 08
Agree with the above comment. Nothing wrong with people from Slovakia, Poland , Czech or anywhere coming here to find work. If they can get a job, well done to them. If not, then what would YOU do? Go home likely.
But to come over here, declare yourself homeless and beg for money??? Nah, that's taking the mick a little!
If you pay taxes in this country then you are entitled to the benefits that brings when you need it.
If you don't or have never paid tax here, then what can you expect in return?? nothing, I'd say. And that's what you should get.
Agree with the above comment. Nothing wrong with people from Slovakia, Poland , Czech or anywhere coming here to find work. If they can get a job, well done to them. If not, then what would YOU do? Go home likely.
But to come over here, declare yourself homeless and beg for money??? Nah, that's taking the mick a little!
If you pay taxes in this country then you are entitled to the benefits that brings when you need it.
If you don't or have never paid tax here, then what can you expect in return?? nothing, I'd say. And that's what you should get.
Posted by: Cochrane, Glasgow on 1:21pm Tue 1 Apr 08
The Government report published yesterday from the House of Lords Economic Committee is essential reading for anyone interested in this subject.
I quote from Andrew Green chairman of Migrationwatch UK; www.migrationwatchuk
.org
Today's report on immigration from the House of Lords Economic Committee strikes a devastating blow against years of blatant government propaganda. It rejects outright the Government's argument that a high level of immigration is of economic benefit to the UK.
Now, at last, after the first major inquiry of its kind in this country, our view has been endorsed by the considered verdict of one of the most heavyweight committees of Parliament, including, as it does, two former Chancellors, a former Governor of the Bank of England, and several distinguished economists as well as captains of industry and finance.
The committee's findings are devastating. The report takes each of the arguments that the Government has been putting forward for years, and tears them to shreds one by one. It is a watershed in the debate on immigration.
Most pertinently, the Government's key claim that immigration increases Britain's overall gross domestic product (GDP) is dismissed as "irrelevant and misleading" - even though, as the report points out, it is a claim that has been "persistently emphasised".
Far from focusing on GDP, the report says, the real issue is whether immigration has boosted income per head of population; and concludes that the effects on per capita income are "very small, whether positive or negative".
So if the Government's principal argument in favour of unprecedented immigration - namely that it has made us individually richer - is found to be disingenuous, how can it justify the extra 2.5 million immigrants it has permitted to enter Britain on its watch? Particularly in the light of the all-too-evident strains on public services that this influx has caused.
It is no good repeating yet again the Government's claim that immigration has contributed £2.5billion to the Exchequer, for this too is questioned. The report concludes that the impact on the Exchequer "is likely to be small".
And what of the Government's argument that immigration is needed to fill job vacancies? Such claims, the committee judges with admirable restraint, are "analytically weak". Immigration, it continues, is unlikely to be an effective tool for reducing vacancies other than in the short term.
In fact the employment statistics prove the committee's point beyond doubt. It is some five years since the Government started to argue there were 600,000 vacancies that needed to be filled by immigration. In that time, we have had net foreign immigration into Britain of nearly one-and-a-half million and guess how many vacancies we still have - 600,000!
The reason, as the report points out, is that immigrants fill some vacancies but their extra demand for services and goods creates others. The Government's argument on job vacancies would, therefore, lead to a continuous cycle of immigration.
How about the Government's claim that, because we are an ageing population, we need immigrants to provide the wealth that will pay our pensions?
This, too, is dismissed with contempt. It "does not stand up to scrutiny," says the report, for a reason that should be obvious to the Government: namely that immigrants themselves grow old and draw pensions.
The way to tackle pensions, the committee suggests, is not unlimited immigration but an increase in the retirement age.
In last-minute evidence to the committee, the Government stressed the "dynamic" economic benefits from having a more diverse society. This sounds plausible in theory, says the report, but there is no empirical evidence.
Taking the report as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more comprehensive demolition of the Government's case for massive levels of immigration - a policy pursued in the face of deep public concern.
Why then has it taken so long to blow these false government claims out of the water?
Part of the answer lies in a widespread reluctance even to discuss immigration.
A recent Newsnight poll of white British adults found that 77 per cent felt that they could not criticise immigration without being labelled racist. Times are now changing, thank goodness, but the multicultural enthusiasts have had it all their own way for far too long.
Why has the Government continued to pursue its immigration policy when it must have known that it was deeply flawed?
Some ministers may have believed their own propaganda on multiculturalism. Others, notably Gordon Brown at the Treasury, were keen to see impressive economic growth figures (yes, Britain's GDP does improve with increased immigration but, as the committee itself pointed out, not income per head). And, of course, it helps to keep inflation down to have a ready supply of cheap labour from overseas.
Furthermore, the importation of skills covered up the Government's own failures over the education and training of Britain's workforce.
One has to ask, too, whether there could be a political aspect. Immigrant communities are predominantly Labour voters. If they had all been budding Conservatives, one wonders whether the situation would have been allowed to continue for so long.
There is one more question raised by this report. Where was our supposedly independent Civil Service while the Government's misleading claims were being repeatedly trotted out? Political aspects are not matters for the Civil Service, but it does seem to have been complicit in the output of misleading information over a period of some years.
Here, I think, one can detect the malign influence of political advisers who have undermined both the independence and the self-confidence of the Civil Service. In the past, it has not always paid to stand up to government ministers; it certainly doesn't pay to do so now.
Set on its political course of increased immigration, all seemed to go swimmingly for the Government as it trebled the number of work permits and later lifted all restrictions on the entry of East European workers.
Then the politics started to fall apart as the white working class, which felt threatened by immigrants prepared to accept lower wages, began to desert Labour, often for the BNP - a development largely explained by the same Newsnight poll which found that 58 per cent of the white working class felt that "nobody speaks out for people like me in Britain today".
The Government is now in a serious bind. Its traditional supporters are deserting, 80 per cent of the public disbelieves it on immigration and, with this report, its underlying justification is in ruins.
We should not be misled by the Government's claims to be introducing the most far-reaching immigration reforms for a generation. Having lost control of our borders (and allowed the asylum system to collapse into chaos), the Government's response so far has been to form two more committees to assess the economic 'need' for, and the social impacts of, immigration.
This will not remotely restore confidence. It does not address the real issue which, as the report says, is how much net immigration is desirable. The committee calls for an explicit and reasoned indicative target around which immigration policies can be adjusted, but this is something the Government seems unable to address, perhaps for ideological reasons.
What we need is not more committees but a clear shift of policy towards the concept of "balanced migration" between immigration and emigration. Setting this as the key objective would provide a sensible way forward for a public increasingly desperate for practical solutions to a developing crisis.
Achieving such an objective would stabilise the population of the UK at 65 million, quite enough for a small island, thus easing the growing pressures on our health, education and transport services and on our environment as a whole. It would also ease the very serious strains on our society about which the Government seems to be in denial.
The Government report published yesterday from the House of Lords Economic Committee is essential reading for anyone interested in this subject.
I quote from Andrew Green chairman of Migrationwatch UK; www.migrationwatchuk
.org
Today's report on immigration from the House of Lords Economic Committee strikes a devastating blow against years of blatant government propaganda. It rejects outright the Government's argument that a high level of immigration is of economic benefit to the UK.
Now, at last, after the first major inquiry of its kind in this country, our view has been endorsed by the considered verdict of one of the most heavyweight committees of Parliament, including, as it does, two former Chancellors, a former Governor of the Bank of England, and several distinguished economists as well as captains of industry and finance.
The committee's findings are devastating. The report takes each of the arguments that the Government has been putting forward for years, and tears them to shreds one by one. It is a watershed in the debate on immigration.
Most pertinently, the Government's key claim that immigration increases Britain's overall gross domestic product (GDP) is dismissed as "irrelevant and misleading" - even though, as the report points out, it is a claim that has been "persistently emphasised".
Far from focusing on GDP, the report says, the real issue is whether immigration has boosted income per head of population; and concludes that the effects on per capita income are "very small, whether positive or negative".
So if the Government's principal argument in favour of unprecedented immigration - namely that it has made us individually richer - is found to be disingenuous, how can it justify the extra 2.5 million immigrants it has permitted to enter Britain on its watch? Particularly in the light of the all-too-evident strains on public services that this influx has caused.
It is no good repeating yet again the Government's claim that immigration has contributed £2.5billion to the Exchequer, for this too is questioned. The report concludes that the impact on the Exchequer "is likely to be small".
And what of the Government's argument that immigration is needed to fill job vacancies? Such claims, the committee judges with admirable restraint, are "analytically weak". Immigration, it continues, is unlikely to be an effective tool for reducing vacancies other than in the short term.
In fact the employment statistics prove the committee's point beyond doubt. It is some five years since the Government started to argue there were 600,000 vacancies that needed to be filled by immigration. In that time, we have had net foreign immigration into Britain of nearly one-and-a-half million and guess how many vacancies we still have - 600,000!
The reason, as the report points out, is that immigrants fill some vacancies but their extra demand for services and goods creates others. The Government's argument on job vacancies would, therefore, lead to a continuous cycle of immigration.
How about the Government's claim that, because we are an ageing population, we need immigrants to provide the wealth that will pay our pensions?
This, too, is dismissed with contempt. It "does not stand up to scrutiny," says the report, for a reason that should be obvious to the Government: namely that immigrants themselves grow old and draw pensions.
The way to tackle pensions, the committee suggests, is not unlimited immigration but an increase in the retirement age.
In last-minute evidence to the committee, the Government stressed the "dynamic" economic benefits from having a more diverse society. This sounds plausible in theory, says the report, but there is no empirical evidence.
Taking the report as a whole, it is hard to imagine a more comprehensive demolition of the Government's case for massive levels of immigration - a policy pursued in the face of deep public concern.
Why then has it taken so long to blow these false government claims out of the water?
Part of the answer lies in a widespread reluctance even to discuss immigration.
A recent Newsnight poll of white British adults found that 77 per cent felt that they could not criticise immigration without being labelled racist. Times are now changing, thank goodness, but the multicultural enthusiasts have had it all their own way for far too long.
Why has the Government continued to pursue its immigration policy when it must have known that it was deeply flawed?
Some ministers may have believed their own propaganda on multiculturalism. Others, notably Gordon Brown at the Treasury, were keen to see impressive economic growth figures (yes, Britain's GDP does improve with increased immigration but, as the committee itself pointed out, not income per head). And, of course, it helps to keep inflation down to have a ready supply of cheap labour from overseas.
Furthermore, the importation of skills covered up the Government's own failures over the education and training of Britain's workforce.
One has to ask, too, whether there could be a political aspect. Immigrant communities are predominantly Labour voters. If they had all been budding Conservatives, one wonders whether the situation would have been allowed to continue for so long.
There is one more question raised by this report. Where was our supposedly independent Civil Service while the Government's misleading claims were being repeatedly trotted out? Political aspects are not matters for the Civil Service, but it does seem to have been complicit in the output of misleading information over a period of some years.
Here, I think, one can detect the malign influence of political advisers who have undermined both the independence and the self-confidence of the Civil Service. In the past, it has not always paid to stand up to government ministers; it certainly doesn't pay to do so now.
Set on its political course of increased immigration, all seemed to go swimmingly for the Government as it trebled the number of work permits and later lifted all restrictions on the entry of East European workers.
Then the politics started to fall apart as the white working class, which felt threatened by immigrants prepared to accept lower wages, began to desert Labour, often for the BNP - a development largely explained by the same Newsnight poll which found that 58 per cent of the white working class felt that "nobody speaks out for people like me in Britain today".
The Government is now in a serious bind. Its traditional supporters are deserting, 80 per cent of the public disbelieves it on immigration and, with this report, its underlying justification is in ruins.
We should not be misled by the Government's claims to be introducing the most far-reaching immigration reforms for a generation. Having lost control of our borders (and allowed the asylum system to collapse into chaos), the Government's response so far has been to form two more committees to assess the economic 'need' for, and the social impacts of, immigration.
This will not remotely restore confidence. It does not address the real issue which, as the report says, is how much net immigration is desirable. The committee calls for an explicit and reasoned indicative target around which immigration policies can be adjusted, but this is something the Government seems unable to address, perhaps for ideological reasons.
What we need is not more committees but a clear shift of policy towards the concept of "balanced migration" between immigration and emigration. Setting this as the key objective would provide a sensible way forward for a public increasingly desperate for practical solutions to a developing crisis.
Achieving such an objective would stabilise the population of the UK at 65 million, quite enough for a small island, thus easing the growing pressures on our health, education and transport services and on our environment as a whole. It would also ease the very serious strains on our society about which the Government seems to be in denial.
Posted by: moragneil, glasgow on 1:40pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Having lived in Govanhill for over 3 years, and witnessed this "squalor" for myself, the article is, in part, accurate. However, the majority of what I witnessed was brought upon by the immigrants themselves. Our flat was in an OK close on Allison street until around 10 people moved in to a 1st floor flat meant for 2. My flatmate caught a small child defecating in the close, I walked out the front door one sunday morning to witness a naked male vomiting into the street from the 1st floor window, my boyfriend stood behind a lady at an ATM where 4 small children punched and kicked a lady who would not give them money, my female flatmate and I were unable to walk along the street without groups of loitering, unsavoury-looking men leering and making unintelligible comments. The "piles of rubbish, discarded toys" were dragged INTO our back area BY these people, and the place was always subsequently an absolute disgrace. Now I'm not saying the area was exactly 'high-brow' before, but I know for certain that these particular issues were a direct result of their arrival. I cannot believe that the Herald could publish such a blatantly one-sided article.
Having lived in Govanhill for over 3 years, and witnessed this "squalor" for myself, the article is, in part, accurate. However, the majority of what I witnessed was brought upon by the immigrants themselves. Our flat was in an OK close on Allison street until around 10 people moved in to a 1st floor flat meant for 2. My flatmate caught a small child defecating in the close, I walked out the front door one sunday morning to witness a naked male vomiting into the street from the 1st floor window, my boyfriend stood behind a lady at an ATM where 4 small children punched and kicked a lady who would not give them money, my female flatmate and I were unable to walk along the street without groups of loitering, unsavoury-looking men leering and making unintelligible comments. The "piles of rubbish, discarded toys" were dragged INTO our back area BY these people, and the place was always subsequently an absolute disgrace. Now I'm not saying the area was exactly 'high-brow' before, but I know for certain that these particular issues were a direct result of their arrival. I cannot believe that the Herald could publish such a blatantly one-sided article.
Posted by: fedup, glasgow on 2:24pm Tue 1 Apr 08
I have to agree with moragneil - I'm surprised and extremely annoyed by the fact that this article is very one-sided.
I've lived in the area for about 7 years and the close we live in on Dixon Avenue was to quote a rep from one of the absentee landords/property management agencies who are making money from all this misery said "It was an explemary close a year ago." Now, due to the tenants that [bold]they[/bold] brought in who are Romas, the close has been vandalised beyond recognition. For example, there were up to 50 bins bags being left to collect in the cellar area over the New Year, which brought in rats and all sorts of vermin. When I spoke to the family, they just laughed at the fuss I was making in asking them to make sure all the rubbish went in the back courts. They've vandalised the front security door, live in overcrowded circumstances in a 2-bed flat by choice - whenever they're due an inspection or visit from someone at the Council or the like, they shift themselves to relatives who live in the wider area to dodge the other issues, there's constant shouting, loud music, banging, general noise pollution, kids urinating and defecating in the close, ripped rubbish bags in the back courts, condoms in the close, spitting in the close and onto the street from their flats. We're now the only resident tenants in our close and we have to put up with this?! The landlords are still making the cash and not paying for their share of the upkeep of the property.
There's a lot of people who need to get the finger out and start sorting this mess out and quick. I for one don't see the economic benefits of this type of immigration - none of the council services seem to have any authority to help local residents who just want to live a quiet life and bring up their families in safe, clean and relatively trouble-free communties.
I have to agree with moragneil - I'm surprised and extremely annoyed by the fact that this article is very one-sided.
I've lived in the area for about 7 years and the close we live in on Dixon Avenue was to quote a rep from one of the absentee landords/property management agencies who are making money from all this misery said "It was an explemary close a year ago." Now, due to the tenants that
they brought in who are Romas, the close has been vandalised beyond recognition. For example, there were up to 50 bins bags being left to collect in the cellar area over the New Year, which brought in rats and all sorts of vermin. When I spoke to the family, they just laughed at the fuss I was making in asking them to make sure all the rubbish went in the back courts. They've vandalised the front security door, live in overcrowded circumstances in a 2-bed flat by choice - whenever they're due an inspection or visit from someone at the Council or the like, they shift themselves to relatives who live in the wider area to dodge the other issues, there's constant shouting, loud music, banging, general noise pollution, kids urinating and defecating in the close, ripped rubbish bags in the back courts, condoms in the close, spitting in the close and onto the street from their flats. We're now the only resident tenants in our close and we have to put up with this?! The landlords are still making the cash and not paying for their share of the upkeep of the property.
There's a lot of people who need to get the finger out and start sorting this mess out and quick. I for one don't see the economic benefits of this type of immigration - none of the council services seem to have any authority to help local residents who just want to live a quiet life and bring up their families in safe, clean and relatively trouble-free communties.
Posted by: behr, glasgow on 3:02pm Tue 1 Apr 08
It sickens me that any reporter can talk of the local undesirable local residents while talking of Slovakian families gathering and causing no harm but upsetting some other residents.
Gathering and causing no harm?
Yeah sure, just like the Buckfast brigade gather and cause no harm.
Ask the local police about that one - informally.
I moved out of the South Side because of the influx. It was becoming more and more difficult to get doctors appointments for my girlfriend and I wanted my children to attend a school where any pupils who didn’t speak English at least made the effort to learn some.
We had neighbours who had decided to make no attempt to fit in and we had a man playing an accordion for hours at a time outside our ground floor flat. When asked to move on he refused, acknowledging my request with only a shrug. Some eastern European children also caused havoc on a nightly basis – setting fire to bins etc and the noise from overcrowded neighbours was unbearable and made our lives hell - the final straw being excrement pushed through our letterbox after I'd given some kids a row when I caught them in my backyard firing shots with an air gun. (a cat had recently been maimed with shots from such a weopon)
But who bothered about our plight from any government or local agency?
Nobody.
Instead we get well paid journalists bleating on about the mistreatment of people with no links to Britain. Let's face it, the more money spent helping them the more of their friends and family will come here and the more money - again - will have to be spent.
Personally I preferred living next to the local undesirables as did most of my long-term neighbours.
It sickens me that any reporter can talk of the local undesirable local residents while talking of Slovakian families gathering and causing no harm but upsetting some other residents.
Gathering and causing no harm?
Yeah sure, just like the Buckfast brigade gather and cause no harm.
Ask the local police about that one - informally.
I moved out of the South Side because of the influx. It was becoming more and more difficult to get doctors appointments for my girlfriend and I wanted my children to attend a school where any pupils who didn’t speak English at least made the effort to learn some.
We had neighbours who had decided to make no attempt to fit in and we had a man playing an accordion for hours at a time outside our ground floor flat. When asked to move on he refused, acknowledging my request with only a shrug. Some eastern European children also caused havoc on a nightly basis – setting fire to bins etc and the noise from overcrowded neighbours was unbearable and made our lives hell - the final straw being excrement pushed through our letterbox after I'd given some kids a row when I caught them in my backyard firing shots with an air gun. (a cat had recently been maimed with shots from such a weopon)
But who bothered about our plight from any government or local agency?
Nobody.
Instead we get well paid journalists bleating on about the mistreatment of people with no links to Britain. Let's face it, the more money spent helping them the more of their friends and family will come here and the more money - again - will have to be spent.
Personally I preferred living next to the local undesirables as did most of my long-term neighbours.
Posted by: JC on 4:14pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Although it's a UK government issue, we have a 'first minister' who takes a rose tinted view of immigration which is basically let everyone come here, at the opposite extreme of 'send them all back' The problem is that everyone can see that on the one hand there are some migrants who work hard, integrate, learn English quickly etc and others who do the exact opposite and who basically have no reason to be here, and cause nuisance. Quite frankly the government should have some kind of stricter migration policy. The other problem is that anyone who takes a viewpoint other than 'let everyone in' is branded a racist etc which plays into the hands of the BNP bigots.
Although it's a UK government issue, we have a 'first minister' who takes a rose tinted view of immigration which is basically let everyone come here, at the opposite extreme of 'send them all back' The problem is that everyone can see that on the one hand there are some migrants who work hard, integrate, learn English quickly etc and others who do the exact opposite and who basically have no reason to be here, and cause nuisance. Quite frankly the government should have some kind of stricter migration policy. The other problem is that anyone who takes a viewpoint other than 'let everyone in' is branded a racist etc which plays into the hands of the BNP bigots.
Posted by: kotb, glasgow on 4:48pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Just realised.
Stephen Naysmith is having a laugh, isn't he?
April the first and all that.
Not a very good joke though.
So how about sending a real journalist to talk to locals rather than to folk who benet from situations like this?
Just realised.
Stephen Naysmith is having a laugh, isn't he?
April the first and all that.
Not a very good joke though.
So how about sending a real journalist to talk to locals rather than to folk who benet from situations like this?
Posted by: DAVE, Glasgow on 5:49pm Tue 1 Apr 08
To all the above posters ................ etc.
This disease-ridden situation has been brought about by Glasgow’s City Councillors who refuse to speak out against the influx of immigrants to this city. They invite immigrants to come here and welcome them when they arrive. The councillors do not give a **** about the indigenous Glasgow people - they follow the party line - open door policy for all to come to Britain and this means Glasgow.
The only way MPs, MSPs and councillors will speak out against the immigrant and asylum problem will be when their jobs, wages, expenses and perks are under threat. That threat will come from other political parties, namely UKIP and the BNP.
Want to halt the asylum and immigration disease?
[bold]VOTE THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY.[/bold]
To all the above posters ................ etc.
This disease-ridden situation has been brought about by Glasgow’s City Councillors who refuse to speak out against the influx of immigrants to this city. They invite immigrants to come here and welcome them when they arrive. The councillors do not give a **** about the indigenous Glasgow people - they follow the party line - open door policy for all to come to Britain and this means Glasgow.
The only way MPs, MSPs and councillors will speak out against the immigrant and asylum problem will be when their jobs, wages, expenses and perks are under threat. That threat will come from other political parties, namely UKIP and the BNP.
Want to halt the asylum and immigration disease?
VOTE THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY. Posted by: Cookie, Glasgow on 6:05pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool.
No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.
Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool.
No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.
Posted by: DAVE, Glasgow on 7:17pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Cookie, Glasgow, commented ...
[quote]Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool. No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.[/quote]
Cookie, instead of resorting to the usual lowlife insults, why don’t you comment on the article if you disagree with me. Attempts to rubbish other posters’ comments through insult do not work. The BNP is growing through necessity - the old chants of ‘racist‘ do not work.
Cookie, Glasgow, commented ...
Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool. No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.
Cookie, instead of resorting to the usual lowlife insults, why don’t you comment on the article if you disagree with me. Attempts to rubbish other posters’ comments through insult do not work. The BNP is growing through necessity - the old chants of ‘racist‘ do not work.
Posted by: Cochrane, Glasgow on 7:18pm Tue 1 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Cookie[/bold] wrote:
Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool.
No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.[/quote] Perhaps you are right.
The fact remains that the majority of people in Glasgow are very unhappy at the current situation - and for good reason.
If the speak out about uncontrolled immigration they are automatically branded a racist.
I am deeply unhappy about the changes in Govanhill.
I am not a multiculturalist.
I would like an immediate end to mass immigration and dumping of asylum seekers in Glasgow's poorest areas.
I would like the Council to first and foremost look to the needs and future of native Scots.
Who do you suggest I vote for?
Cookie wrote:
Dave - your a nasty sad sad cowardly fool.
No-one in Scotland is buying the nonsense which your selling.
Perhaps you are right.
The fact remains that the majority of people in Glasgow are very unhappy at the current situation - and for good reason.
If the speak out about uncontrolled immigration they are automatically branded a racist.
I am deeply unhappy about the changes in Govanhill.
I am not a multiculturalist.
I would like an immediate end to mass immigration and dumping of asylum seekers in Glasgow's poorest areas.
I would like the Council to first and foremost look to the needs and future of native Scots.
Who do you suggest I vote for?
Posted by: Al on 8:54pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Again we see another mainstream media outlet pushing a one sided agenda led view of events. It's incredible the power one journalist has at his or her fingertips. I guarantee the writer of this piece lives nowhere near the scene.
Again we see another mainstream media outlet pushing a one sided agenda led view of events. It's incredible the power one journalist has at his or her fingertips. I guarantee the writer of this piece lives nowhere near the scene.
Posted by: DAVE, Glasgow on 10:40pm Tue 1 Apr 08
Cochrane, Glasgow, asked:-
[quote]Who do you suggest I vote for?[/quote]
Labour, Scot Nat, Cons, Libs are no use - they will bring no change. UKIP are conning the public, if elected they will bring little change.
BNP will bring the troops home, get us out of Europe, sort out the asylum and immigration farce, guaranteed.
BNP will never form a government in Britain but they will have elected reps. in positions to bring about change.
Cochrane, if you want an end to mass immigration, if you are given the opportunity, vote BNP.
Cochrane, Glasgow, asked:-
Who do you suggest I vote for?
Labour, Scot Nat, Cons, Libs are no use - they will bring no change. UKIP are conning the public, if elected they will bring little change.
BNP will bring the troops home, get us out of Europe, sort out the asylum and immigration farce, guaranteed.
BNP will never form a government in Britain but they will have elected reps. in positions to bring about change.
Cochrane, if you want an end to mass immigration, if you are given the opportunity, vote BNP.
Posted by: porker, stirling on 9:06am Thu 3 Apr 08
I`m sorry but i`m tired reading these articles.There are Scots[remember them?] living in severe poverty and low life expectancy who must come ,first although i`m sure Mr Naysmith would strongly disagree.
I`m sorry but i`m tired reading these articles.There are Scots living in severe poverty and low life expectancy who must come ,first although i`m sure Mr Naysmith would strongly disagree.
Posted by: gmac, Germany on 7:54am Fri 4 Apr 08
Native citizens of Glasgow will not work for the very low wages on offer, for agricultural labour, to work at potato factories, etc.
Native Glasgow citizens do not want to work in the entertainment nor hospitality industry, due to low wages.
As a consequence of the above there are employment vacancies. The council obtains tax revenue from business, any business. Therefore it is in the interest of the council to encourage immigrants into the Glasgow area, as said immigrants will work for low wages. Due to the fact that immigrants work for low wages, the agricultural,, potato and other low value business remain solvent, thus the council wins more tax revenue.
Native citizens of Glasgow will not work for the very low wages on offer, for agricultural labour, to work at potato factories, etc.
Native Glasgow citizens do not want to work in the entertainment nor hospitality industry, due to low wages.
As a consequence of the above there are employment vacancies. The council obtains tax revenue from business, any business. Therefore it is in the interest of the council to encourage immigrants into the Glasgow area, as said immigrants will work for low wages. Due to the fact that immigrants work for low wages, the agricultural,, potato and other low value business remain solvent, thus the council wins more tax revenue.
Posted by: GladS, Glasgow on 8:55pm Fri 4 Apr 08
While I agree that migrants to this country should be treated in a decent manner by private landlords et al, so should native citizens.
My elderly neighbour rented her flat from a private landlord for 46 years. She was a registered tenant and the flat was sold on several times without any of the landlords doing any repairs to the flat. Every time it rained her carpets were soaked as her windows were in desparate need of repair. Her bathroom looked like something that you would find in a under-developed country. three of her ceilings collapsed and were not repaired.
She had used all avenues open to her to complain about the state of her flat, but no-one seemed to be able to get anything done. The flats are now being done up - but she died a year too soon.
What are the authorities doing to ensure that other older people are not subject to the same degrading living conditions that my neighbour had to suffer? Her landlord's final reply before she died was "if you don't like it, move! there are plenty other people who will want the flat if you don't."
While I agree that migrants to this country should be treated in a decent manner by private landlords et al, so should native citizens.
My elderly neighbour rented her flat from a private landlord for 46 years. She was a registered tenant and the flat was sold on several times without any of the landlords doing any repairs to the flat. Every time it rained her carpets were soaked as her windows were in desparate need of repair. Her bathroom looked like something that you would find in a under-developed country. three of her ceilings collapsed and were not repaired.
She had used all avenues open to her to complain about the state of her flat, but no-one seemed to be able to get anything done. The flats are now being done up - but she died a year too soon.
What are the authorities doing to ensure that other older people are not subject to the same degrading living conditions that my neighbour had to suffer? Her landlord's final reply before she died was "if you don't like it, move! there are plenty other people who will want the flat if you don't."
Posted by: Eric Muldownie, London on 5:02pm Sat 24 May 08
For years and years now some Scots have chastised the English for making complaints about uncontrolled immigration and the problems that some of them bring to the UK.
Now that you're getting a taste of we have have thrust upon us and the shoe is on the other foot, how does it feel?
After all , " A man's a man for A' that ".
For years and years now some Scots have chastised the English for making complaints about uncontrolled immigration and the problems that some of them bring to the UK.
Now that you're getting a taste of we have have thrust upon us and the shoe is on the other foot, how does it feel?
After all , " A man's a man for A' that ".