Another Family given a 5 bedroom house for lying about being.........................

carolt

ninky wrote: »

you don't know the man involved. the fact he was in prison at the time suggests he possibly wasnt' exactly an innocent character.

i'm not suggesting that we should feel racial guilt actually. however, the feeling of entitlement (or lack of it) by virtue of place of birth that has been expressed in some posts is the opposite side of the coin that suggests collective responsibility for wrongs done.

And I pointed out that each view was equally balmy.

Whether or not you originate from Somalia, commititing fraud to get a house is wrong.

Contrary to your post here, a few posts up, you did exactly suggest "that we should feel racial guilt" and that that excused this woman's actions.

The character of her husband is also entirely irrelevant; it's not his character we're discussing.

The fact is, that if everyone followed your suggestions to the letter, so that everyone who had ever been wronged (in their minds at least) by a richer power or an unpleasant husband decided that they were thereby entitled to a life of leisure and the house of their choice, we would run out of nice houses very pronto.

Whilst I don't feel that capitalism is a perfect way of apportioning goods fairly, I can hardly feel your alternative has much merit either.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

Contrary to your post here, a few posts up, you did exactly suggest "that we should feel racial guilt" and that that excused this woman's actions.

.

no i didn't. i said it was not hard to see why some immigrants felt historically justified to take what they could. i didn't say i agreed with 'an eye for an eye' philosophy. kindness and forgiveness are both virtues.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

And I pointed out that each view was equally balmy.

Whether or not you originate from Somalia, commititing fraud to get a house is wrong.

Contrary to your post here, a few posts up, you did exactly suggest "that we should feel racial guilt" and that that excused this woman's actions.

The character of her husband is also entirely irrelevant; it's not his character we're discussing.

The fact is, that if everyone followed your suggestions to the letter, so that everyone who had ever been wronged (in their minds at least) by a richer power or an unpleasant husband decided that they were thereby entitled to a life of leisure and the house of their choice, we would run out of nice houses very pronto.

Whilst I don't feel that capitalism is a perfect way of apportioning goods fairly, I can hardly feel your alternative has much merit either.

we will have to disagree as the character of the husband and the woman's background do matter imo. personally i have more sympathy for someone who shoplifts for food if they are poor and have suffered than i do if they are a millionaire. there is such a thing as a mitigating circumstance in my world. perhaps the judge was privvy to such facts and the sun newspaper is not (or has chosen to ignore them).

carolt

ninky wrote: »

no i didn't. i said it was not hard to see why some immigrants felt historically justified to take what they could. i didn't say i agreed with 'an eye for an eye' philosophy. kindness and forgiveness are both virtues.

Well, I daresay lots of criminals mentally justify their actions, but need this concern the rest of us?

It doesn't make it any less wrong.

I don't feel it's my place, as a private citizen, to 'forgive' the crimes of others. They don't only affect me (although obviously they do, in a small way, insofar as I am a taxpayer and would love a huge free council house but am at the very bottom of that long list she's pushed herself to the top of...) and so it is not for me to 'forgive'.

Nothing wrong with forgiveness as a concept. It just isn't appropriate in the context of a criminal act.

Not sure how kindness is relevant here - I'm not going round and beating the woman up, am I? If you wish to be 'kind', feel free to buy the lady a house.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

we will have to disagree as the character of the husband and the woman's background do matter imo. personally i have more sympathy for someone who shoplifts for food if they are poor and have suffered than i do if they are a millionaire. there is such a thing as a mitigating circumstance in my world. perhaps the judge was privvy to such facts and the sun newspaper is not (or has chosen to ignore them).

Speaking as someone who has had to put my children into over-cramped accomodation and worried about being able to afford basic essentials, it just doesn't wash. I didn't steal then or commit fraud, and I don't accept that it is just fine in this case.

wageslave

ninky wrote: »

we will have to disagree as the character of the husband and the woman's background do matter imo. personally i have more sympathy for someone who shoplifts for food if they are poor and have suffered than i do if they are a millionaire. there is such a thing as a mitigating circumstance in my world. perhaps the judge was privvy to such facts and the sun newspaper is not (or has chosen to ignore them).

So it is acceptable to accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit as long as they aren't a "nice" person?

Bliddy hell ninky. Are you serious?

ILW

The person I feel for is whoever should have got that house and didn't due to this woman commiting fraud. It is so wrong that she keeps the place on so many levels.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

Nothing wrong with forgiveness as a concept. It just isn't appropriate in the context of a criminal act.

Not sure how kindness is relevant here - I'm not going round and beating the woman up, am I? If you wish to be 'kind', feel free to buy the lady a house.

of course you missed that i was also referring to forgiveness in terms of historical wrongs.

as for kindness, perhaps allowing this lady to stay in the house with her children is not causing such a great a harm to others as evicting her might.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

of course you missed that i was also referring to forgiveness in terms of historical wrongs.

as for kindness, perhaps allowing this lady to stay in the house with her children is not causing such a great a harm to others as evicting her might.

What about the family she stepped over who would have got the place if she had not submitted a fraudulent application. They may not agree with you.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

of course you missed that i was also referring to forgiveness in terms of historical wrongs.

as for kindness, perhaps allowing this lady to stay in the house with her children is not causing such a great a harm to others as evicting her might.

Of course I did!

So what you actually meant was that she should forgive our historical wrongs?

Thanks, but I actually don't feel I need to be forgiven by a fraudster.

Unbelievable.