Asylum hotel provider profit
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9r5m74de8o
Why are the BBC going after the man that runs the asylum hotels? It's a failing of successive governments and you cannot blame someone from providing a service they have asked for. Was the company given the contract in a fair and open way?
Why are the BBC going after the man that runs the asylum hotels? It's a failing of successive governments and you cannot blame someone from providing a service they have asked for. Was the company given the contract in a fair and open way?
article said:
Since 2019, Clearsprings and the two other providers that cover the rest of the UK have made a combined profit of £383m from the asylum contracts, according to the National Audit Office.
hidetheelephants said:
The article seems to be majoring on non-compliance with contract clauses, namely serving edible food and providing toilet paper. Getting slagged as a s
tty rachman tribute act is reasonable in the circumstances, if they don't want the bad publicity they can spend a bit more money.
I got this from the articletty rachman tribute act is reasonable in the circumstances, if they don't want the bad publicity they can spend a bit more money.BBC said:
There is no suggestion the terms of the Home Office contracts have been breached in any way.
I totally get why it seems immoral, and the bloke that runs the company is now a billionaire due to running these asylum hotels, but as long as it was all above board (from a legal sense) I don't see why we can knock him from making money off of this. We should be blaming our governments for the stty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.s1962a said:
I totally get why it seems immoral, and the bloke that runs the company is now a billionaire due to running these asylum hotels, but as long as it was all above board (from a legal sense) I don't see why we can knock him from making money off of this. We should be blaming our governments for the stty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.
He's getting pelters for being a disgusting parasitic bottomfeeder, that is not a criminal offence but it is news.tty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.It seems badly worded but I'd say if the residents are being immiserated by the food served to them it's not meeting their cultural or dietary needs and is a breach of contract. Inadequate or rationed toilet paper is a simple breach and why the BBC are equivocating isn't clear.
govt contract said:
Food and Beverage Services: At least three varied meals per day, along with snacks and drinks, must be provided to meet dietary and religious requirements. Essential personal hygiene items and toiletries should also be available. Food services must comply with safety legislation (e.g., ISO 22000) and accommodate dietary, cultural, and religious needs.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 7th October 09:01
AyBee said:
Government contract hugely profitable and not held to standards shocker!
I suspect it's this. Plenty of froth around about how expensive housing asylum seekers are, but the other side of the coin, not much comment on how well the hotel operators are doing out of this. Gold plated revenues, guaranteed incomes, no trip advisor comments to worry much about, a constant stream of customers and a client that probably pays little to no attention to the standards or quality being delivered for that high cost. Not unlike PPE - get the money out the door and buy the capacity and gloss over the means or outcomes.
I'm sure no asylum seeker hotel owner is pushing for this solution to end. I bet it's the best business they've ever had.
Teach a man to fish and all that....
If the government weren't so intent on creating an underclass of easy votes dependant on handouts they'd have the folk in the hotels receiving occupational training to prepare them for life in the wider community, back in their country of origin or wherever else they would ideally find themselves providing a positive contribution to society.
As for the conditions in the hotels with regards to cleanliness, well they were hotels previously which you'd think would have certain levels of cleanliness. Who knows when the mattresses got pissed, shat and cummed on.....
And:
If the government weren't so intent on creating an underclass of easy votes dependant on handouts they'd have the folk in the hotels receiving occupational training to prepare them for life in the wider community, back in their country of origin or wherever else they would ideally find themselves providing a positive contribution to society.
As for the conditions in the hotels with regards to cleanliness, well they were hotels previously which you'd think would have certain levels of cleanliness. Who knows when the mattresses got pissed, shat and cummed on.....
And:
Andrea from South Amerca said:
Food that is past its expiry date is sometimes served, she told us, and meals often lack fruit and vegetables, and contain mainly heavy carbohydrates such as bread, chips and rice.
Welcome to England. And way to offend East and South East Asians, who eat a lot of rice while you're at it.....s1962a said:
I totally get why it seems immoral, and the bloke that runs the company is now a billionaire due to running these asylum hotels, but as long as it was all above board (from a legal sense) I don't see why we can knock him from making money off of this. We should be blaming our governments for the stty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.
If the contract says "three meals a day" and the examples in the article turned up would you say that's acceptable?tty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.Forget that it's asylum seekers - imagine its your kids school and those are the sort of meals that turn up.
Contract world v "sniff test" is often very different.
butchstewie said:
s1962a said:
I totally get why it seems immoral, and the bloke that runs the company is now a billionaire due to running these asylum hotels, but as long as it was all above board (from a legal sense) I don't see why we can knock him from making money off of this. We should be blaming our governments for the stty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.
If the contract says "three meals a day" and the examples in the article turned up would you say that's acceptable?tty contracts, and of course for allowing in these migrants in the first place, but thats another topic.Forget that it's asylum seekers - imagine its your kids school and those are the sort of meals that turn up.
Contract world v "sniff test" is often very different.
s1962a said:
Agree with that - my point was that this is squarely the fault of the government and the departments that create these contracts, and monitor/enforce them. Going after the bloke thats providing the service seems a bit upside down. If he's not fulfilling his contract then yes go for him, otherwise tighten up the contract and hold him accountable for providing the service being paid for.
Not sure it is.As I said replace asylum seekers with school, care home, something a lot of people probably care about a bit more and ask yourself if you think those conditions and meals are something you'd consider acceptable?
Then ask yourself if you think that's solely the responsibility of the department awarding the contract or if there's an assumption of moral and ethical and "good faith" from the companies involved.
I really can't bring myself to be bothered by the company involved being "outed".
butchstewie said:
Then ask yourself if you think that's solely the responsibility of the department awarding the contract or if there's an assumption of moral and ethical and "good faith" from the companies involved.
hmm, I can think of some examples that we don't seem to care about enough about immoral practices in business- Supermarkets not paying farmers properly so they can keep their prices low. In some cases they pay less than the cost of production
- Corporations like Amazon creating the same products others are selling and undercutting them (i.e. Amazon basics), and not advertising the other one
- Companies buying leases/management contracts and hiking up prices
- Tech companies exploiting labour in far east countries
Morals and good faith only seem important when it hurts the bottom line of the company, and bad publicity does do that sometimes. I personally see no issues with companies making a profit as long as it's not against the law. If they are doing something wrong, change the law or don't do business with them.
You have a choice with most of those though.
I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer
)
I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer
)butchstewie said:
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer)
I find that surprising when it is coming from you...so, you can abandon your principles when something is convenient to you.You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer
)I (almost) stick to what I believe. I don't use Amazon unless I can't buy anywhere else.
I don't use Deliveroo or similar, as I don't agree with their operation, neither am I too lazey to go to the take-away.
I have been 'caught out' with Milwaukee toolboxes - it is a current dilema. I switched to Packout, only to find they are made in Israel. It appears they are single sourced, so I don't have much opotion.
As to the hotels - yes, services should be to a decent/suitable standard WITHOUT the minute details of the contract being checked and enforced. I think there is a reasonable expectation that they would be performing as required without having to monitor them.
However, it looks a little odd, as I understand it, the Company in the BBC report doesn't have any hotels. It seems to imply they are contracting out that provision. Therefore, they should be doing any compliance checking.
butchstewie said:
You have a choice with most of those though.
I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer)
I've heard French cuisine is very good I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer
)
bigglesA110 said:
AyBee said:
Government contract hugely profitable and not held to standards shocker!
I suspect it's this. Plenty of froth around about how expensive housing asylum seekers are, but the other side of the coin, not much comment on how well the hotel operators are doing out of this. Gold plated revenues, guaranteed incomes, no trip advisor comments to worry much about, a constant stream of customers and a client that probably pays little to no attention to the standards or quality being delivered for that high cost. Not unlike PPE - get the money out the door and buy the capacity and gloss over the means or outcomes.
I'm sure no asylum seeker hotel owner is pushing for this solution to end. I bet it's the best business they've ever had.
Giant marquees are good enough for weddings and VIP events.
Place some Nightingale beds in them. Or is it against ECHR rules ?
Whatever happened to all those new Nightingale beds?
s1962a said:
hmm, I can think of some examples that we don't seem to care about enough about immoral practices in business
- Supermarkets not paying farmers properly so they can keep their prices low. In some cases they pay less than the cost of production
- Corporations like Amazon creating the same products others are selling and undercutting them (i.e. Amazon basics), and not advertising the other one
- Companies buying leases/management contracts and hiking up prices
- Tech companies exploiting labour in far east countries
Morals and good faith only seem important when it hurts the bottom line of the company, and bad publicity does do that sometimes. I personally see no issues with companies making a profit as long as it's not against the law. If they are doing something wrong, change the law or don't do business with them.
Agree.- Supermarkets not paying farmers properly so they can keep their prices low. In some cases they pay less than the cost of production
- Corporations like Amazon creating the same products others are selling and undercutting them (i.e. Amazon basics), and not advertising the other one
- Companies buying leases/management contracts and hiking up prices
- Tech companies exploiting labour in far east countries
Morals and good faith only seem important when it hurts the bottom line of the company, and bad publicity does do that sometimes. I personally see no issues with companies making a profit as long as it's not against the law. If they are doing something wrong, change the law or don't do business with them.
+ Uber Eats etc employing boat loads of boat invaders.
Many are riding the scooters under shared provisional licenses, according to Westminster plod.
s1962a said:
Agree with that - my point was that this is squarely the fault of the government and the departments that create these contracts, and monitor/enforce them. Going after the bloke thats providing the service seems a bit upside down. If he's not fulfilling his contract then yes go for him, otherwise tighten up the contract and hold him accountable for providing the service being paid for.
Absolutely the tories have screwed up with these contracts if the operator can become a billionaire in a few years off the back of them without being in breach. Not good taxpayer value for money.But as always the public sector seems unable to play in the real world of commerce and get turned over by better brains than theirs. Either it is incompetence or they DGAF because its taxpayer money and there is no consequences to them.
Although it seems unfair to vilify someone taking advantage of the 'system' we clearly have an ongoing problem with public procurement/waste that the governments of the day are unable to competently manage, so perhaps demonising those who are profiting is the only way to change behaviours?
Camoradi said:
butchstewie said:
You have a choice with most of those though.
I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer)
I've heard French cuisine is very good I'm not a huge fan of certain companies so I try not to give them any more of my money than I find acceptable.
Amazon have a lot of poor practises but I've chosen to use them because as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day.
You get the idea.
What choice does an asylum seeker have about the accommodation and meals they're offered?
(let's start from the premise we're being sensible so "don't come here in the first place" isn't the right answer
)
I also particularly like the.... "as much as I disapprove of some of their practises I like being able to get pretty much anything I want delivered the next day."
Laughable.
Er…I would politely suggest that some, ie most of you on this thread haven’t spent much time in these or similar hotels to these if/when on biz trips about the country and you end up in a such a place for the night.
The food was usually rubbish, ie the same standard as being complained at now. The bedrooms would, at times, not be cleaned properly, bins not emptied etc. I’ve had damp towels in a “clean” room, threadbare towels, hand towels for bath towels etc. Mouldy walls, non working lights. Breakfast that…well, just no. Due to this I now have Best Westerns and Britannia on my “Hell no” list, ironically Days Inn who are one of the cheapest actually provide a basic but decent service. I refuse to eat in any Beefeater attached to a hotel.
Oh and cheap hotel toilet paper. Yeah. You learn that lessons very quickly.
Finally there is the lesson of Merchant Gardner, Sodexho, etc. Not too long ago, ie within the last decade, they were famous for institutionally having their meals cost 38p per portion. This was to some of, allegedly, the UK’s blue ribbon company canteens and their professional staff.
The pt being here that what some of you think is dbl standards, or unfair or racist or immoral or anything else is actually the most socially equal story I’ve heard for a while. Whatsmore everything being reported either I have direct experience of or swapped the tales with colleagues.
Yes, cheap, crap hotel life really is cheap and crap. Welcome to the same bks the rest of us have had to put up with at some pt!
These days I impose my own minimum standards and I tell all clients we book the logistics, nobody gets to impose a hotel on me or my resources.
The food was usually rubbish, ie the same standard as being complained at now. The bedrooms would, at times, not be cleaned properly, bins not emptied etc. I’ve had damp towels in a “clean” room, threadbare towels, hand towels for bath towels etc. Mouldy walls, non working lights. Breakfast that…well, just no. Due to this I now have Best Westerns and Britannia on my “Hell no” list, ironically Days Inn who are one of the cheapest actually provide a basic but decent service. I refuse to eat in any Beefeater attached to a hotel.
Oh and cheap hotel toilet paper. Yeah. You learn that lessons very quickly.
Finally there is the lesson of Merchant Gardner, Sodexho, etc. Not too long ago, ie within the last decade, they were famous for institutionally having their meals cost 38p per portion. This was to some of, allegedly, the UK’s blue ribbon company canteens and their professional staff.
The pt being here that what some of you think is dbl standards, or unfair or racist or immoral or anything else is actually the most socially equal story I’ve heard for a while. Whatsmore everything being reported either I have direct experience of or swapped the tales with colleagues.
Yes, cheap, crap hotel life really is cheap and crap. Welcome to the same b
ks the rest of us have had to put up with at some pt!These days I impose my own minimum standards and I tell all clients we book the logistics, nobody gets to impose a hotel on me or my resources.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff