The Rotunda in Birmingham - BTL failure poster boy.

amcluesent

>does not have to immediately equate to chavs and dole-scroungers.<

Fair point. Slackes, stoners and casuals will no doubt be get a flat on the social.

mewbie_2

amcluesent wrote: »

>does not have to immediately equate to chavs and dole-scroungers.<

Fair point. Slackes, stoners and casuals will no doubt be get a flat on the social.

OK, I think I'm getting the hang of it. Instead of being populated by gits, toffs, yuppies, and nobs they will now be inhabited by yokels, gimps, likely lads and dingbats.

JonnyBravo

mewbie wrote: »

I don't want to be picky but social housing does not have to immediately equate to chavs and dole-scroungers.

I understand chav to mean people with no class (but possibly loads of money), so they might well have owned these flats in the first place.

As for dole-scroungers - does that mean everyone on the dole is a scrounger? Or all scroungers are on the dole? I guess a sizeable percentage of people on benefits may have no choice in their situation.

Actually I did mean to be picky.

You've been reading too many fairy stories.

Of course it is not the case that social housing doesn't have to equate to chav's and scroungers.
Equally it's of course true that not everyone has a choice about being on benefit (depends on your definition of "sizeable percentage" I guess).

However, views like amcluesent's come about as large proportions of the population do fit these categories.
Generalisation's of course are just that, but usually have some basis in fact.


Of course we'll now get lots of people saying that they fit one of these criteria yet don't have any of the less desirable characteristics.


It's a bit like dogs who bite people.
Everyone says their dog doesn't bite people.
But dogs still bite people.

JonnyBravo

mewbie wrote: »

OK, I think I'm getting the hang of it. Instead of being populated by gits, toffs, yuppies, and nobs they will now be inhabited by yokels, gimps, likely lads and dingbats.

:rotfl:

Dingbats???

Definitely.

:rotfl:

Generali

mewbie wrote: »

OK, I think I'm getting the hang of it. Instead of being populated by gits, toffs, yuppies, and nobs they will now be inhabited by yokels, gimps, likely lads and dingbats.

Class war isn't something I'm going to miss about England.

JonnyBravo

Generali wrote: »

Class war isn't something I'm going to miss about England.

Sure cos they have none of that in Aus :rolleyes: .... just cos you won't be mixing with the original indiginous population doesn't mean it won't be happening.

Generali

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Sure cos they have none of that in Aus :rolleyes: .... just cos you won't be mixing with the original indiginous population doesn't mean it won't be happening.

Which class you put yourself in isn't a defining part of the vision you have of yourself nor of the way others view you in most countries. In England it is. Maybe India too although I can't say as I've never been.

England is the only place I know where almost every person can instantly identify which class they feel they are a part of.

Pssst

These rents and many like them are still too high. The rental market needs to readjust in the same way as house sellers will have to.

hethmar

Wouldnt it be a great consequence of this credit crunch if blocks of flats became, in the majority, owner/occupied.

Mozette

Very funny. And not for any of the reasons you think.