Statistics from the Labour Party-affiliated Institute of Public Policy Review have revealed the latest claims by the anti-white ‘Equalities and Human Rights Commission’ to be a pack of anti-British lies, BNP News can reveal.

A report entitled “Britain’s Immigrants, An economic profile”, produced by the IPPR in September 2007 for Class Films and Channel 4 Dispatches, shows that huge numbers of immigrants living in Britain are in social housing, contrary to the EHRC’s claims.

The IPPR report shows that 80% of Somalis, 49% of Turks, 41% of Bangladeshis, 39%  of Ghanaians, 35% of Jamaicans, 33% of Iranians, 29% of Nigerians, 21% of Ugandans, 20% of Zimbabweans, 15% of Filipinos, 15% of Pakistanis, 14% of Sri Lankans, 12% of Kenyans, and 9% of Chinese immigrants live in public housing.

These figures are, of course, already three years old, and the figures are likely to have increased substantially since then, as Third World immigration has continued unabated since the IPPR compiled those figures.

Despite these figures showing clearly that immigrant groups occupy a massively disproportionate amount of public housing compared to their percentage of the population, the EHRC has, in its latest outpouring of hate against the BNP, commissioned the IPPR to quickly manufacture new statistics which try to prove that immigrants are not given precedence in the housing queue.

The IPPR quickly obliged the EHRC, and, ignoring its own earlier report which showed precisely how many immigrants are in receipt of social housing produced the new figures which claimed that “only 1.8 percent of social tenants had moved to Britain within the past five years.”

Unfortunately for the EHRC, the IPPR’s earlier report shows their new claims to be the politically motivated lies which they are.

Even according to the ‘new’ figures, the EHRC has admitted that 87.8 percent of social housing claimants are “British-born.” This, of course, means nothing, as the IPPR’s earlier report specifically classified second and third UK-born immigrants as claimants of social housing in its figures.

Even discounting that deliberate ‘British-born’ distortion, the EHRC has been forced to admit that ten percent of current social housing claimants are “foreigners who had been living in Britain for more than five years.”

Another factor which has allowed the EHRC to distort the figures even more is the fact that hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum seekers, both those awaiting decisions and those whose applications have already been rejected, do not live in social housing.

Asylum seekers are accommodated in private residential hotels, paid for by the taxpayer, and do not thus feature in the social housing statistics.

The EHRC also claimed that it found no evidence of ‘queue jumping’ by immigrants. This is also a deliberate distortion. Currently, social housing is allocated on the basis of ‘need’ and specifically the size of the family which is seeking accommodation.

In the 2007 IPPR report, a study was made of the immigrant groups’ percentage claims for child support. The higher the percentage, the greater the number of children – and once again the figures show clearly that immigrant groups will automatically ‘queue jump’ for social housing over indigenous British people who have fewer or no children.

The IPPR study found the following percentages for the “proportion of population claiming child benefit by country of birth” in 2005/2006:  Somalia 40%, Bangladesh 33%, Pakistan 29%, Portugal 27%, Turkey 26%, Uganda 25%, Kenya 24%, Ghana 24%, Nigeria 22%, Sri Lanka 21%, Iran 20%, Cyprus 20%, Philippines 17%, India 16%, Jamaica 16%, Zimbabwe 16% and the UK 14%.

Furthermore, the IPPR report produced a percentage list of ‘economically active’ sections of each immigrant community, which also dramatically influences the allocation of social housing. Preference is given to those who can least afford housing, so the higher the unemployment rate amongst a particular group, the higher up on the ‘needs list’ it will feature.

This in turn will also automatically ‘queue jump’ these groups over those who are working, even if only in low paid jobs.

Once again, the IPPR figures from 2007 reveal precisely who is working and who is not. The figures below are the country of birth followed by the total unemployed for each community: Uganda 23%, Kenya 23%, Nigeria 24%, Sri Lanka 27%, India 29%, Portugal 30%, China 31%, Jamaica 31%, Cyprus 32%, Iran 49%, Pakistan 55%, Bangladesh 56%, Turkey 59% and Somalia 81%.

Finally, the most compelling argument against the false EHRC claims lies in the fact that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has seen fit to announce a ‘policy change’ in social housing to give preference to local populations over immigrants. Effectively Mr Brown was admitting that the previous policy was to discriminate against British people in favour of immigrants – otherwise why the need for the policy change?

* The 2007 IPPR report is available for download by clicking here.