New House Misery

JuniorSherlock

The trouble with this thread is that the finger of blame seems to be pointed at the poor for wasting taxpayers money and 'scrounging'. Yet money paid out to claimants is nothing compared to the millions, nay billions of tax that is avoided every year by people such as Topshop owner Sir Philip Green and the names WikiLeaks are due to release of mass tax evaders ranging from politicians to pop singers. Don't forget too the expenses scandal whereby our money was being used to pay for champagne lunches, grand hotel suites and duck ponds for people who could easily afford to pay for these things themselves. So what if the jobless so-and-so down the road has just spent £500 on a new HD TV, that amount is spent over lunch in one day by George Osbourne and his cronies at our expense.

The poor are an easy target but it is not the poor who have led this country to recession, that was the fault of the greedy rich.

You may not want to live amongst the poor and those of you with money can choose not to. Lucky you. I understand the stigma of council house estates, kids running amok with weapons, Wayne and Waynetta type parents (I myself was threatened by a Waynetta type in the playground of our primary school in front of my 6yo son for telling her teenage son off when he hit a mother in the stomach with a football) and late night parties. However it's so very easy to just condemn and judge, but not so easy to tackle the problem. It's very much a self fulfilling prophecy; if you label them as scum then they will believe themselves to be scum and will act as scum. Let us not forget the heroes amongst the working classes who work hard to make a difference in their own communities, doing a job that the government should be doing if it gave a fig, like these boys. There are many, many more like them who go unnoticed.

Yes it can be tempting to choose a nice middle class area to live in and then bury your head in the sand about the problems down the road; so long as they don't affect you personally why should you care? Then all you have to do is tut at all these lazy single mums who were labelled as no good from day one and have grown up with that belief. Let's lay all our problems squarely on their shoulders because they are much easier targets than the rich tax cheats.

ILW

Fair point, but I would suggest that the rich tax cheats do tend to contribute quite a lot to the country and economy, whereas a 17 year old slapper who choses to have 3 kids by 3 differnt fathers is nothing but a cost on all the people trying to do the right thing.

JuniorSherlock

ILW wrote: »

Fair point, but I would suggest that the rich tax cheats do tend to contribute quite a lot to the country and economy, whereas a 17 year old slapper who choses to have 3 kids by 3 differnt fathers is nothing but a cost on all the people trying to do the right thing.

Yes and people like you who label them as slappers just perpetuate the general view that others have of them and that they have of themselves. I have worked with these people, I have taught their children and I see that vicious circle going round and round. Some of these teenage girls actually have children just to find out what it's like to be loved. Because they don't experience any love in their lives at all.

Society tells them they are slappers, they are no good, they don't deserve anything but contempt and that is a view they grow up with and something they believe about themselves. It takes a very strong person to break free from that circle but plenty of people do and they not only break free but become outstanding people in their own communities.

But according to people like you, they are all wasters. So it's fine for your footballers to cheat and swindle money from the taxpayer because they contribute what exactly? A few stories for the tabloid press? Their accounts are abroad, they have homes abroad, they holiday abroad, the things they buy are from abroad because it's cheaper and they can't even take England to the World Cup.

I shall stop now before someone else makes a crass and offensive comment about single mums without thinking about those reading this who are directly affected by such callous comments.

seven-day-weekend

ILW wrote: »

We seem to have gone to a situation where the term "deserving" is now considered too judgemental.

I agree. I for one have no problem with it.

ILW

The country would be much better off if we had thousands of Phillip Greens creating employment and wealth rather than thousands of Vicky Pollords creating a need for benefits and housing. Sadly we seem to have a system which discourages the former and positively encourages the latter. How can that be right?

Not all single mums are slappers, but some are.

seven-day-weekend

JuniorSherlock wrote: »

Yes and people like you who label them as slappers just perpetuate the general view that others have of them and that they have of themselves. I have worked with these people, I have taught their children and I see that vicious circle going round and round. Some of these teenage girls actually have children just to find out what it's like to be loved. Because they don't experience any love in their lives at all.

Society tells them they are slappers, they are no good, they don't deserve anything but contempt and that is a view they grow up with and something they believe about themselves. It takes a very strong person to break free from that circle but plenty of people do and they not only break free but become outstanding people in their own communities.

But according to people like you, they are all wasters. So it's fine for your footballers to cheat and swindle money from the taxpayer because they contribute what exactly? A few stories for the tabloid press? Their accounts are abroad, they have homes abroad, they holiday abroad, the things they buy are from abroad because it's cheaper and they can't even take England to the World Cup.

I shall stop now before someone else makes a crass and offensive comment about single mums without thinking about those reading this who are directly affected by such callous comments.

Whilst agreeing that unless the problem is addressed it perpetuates, (and I admire anyone who attempts to tackle it) these are not the only people who are 'needy' though, are they?

There are plenty of others who through no fault of their own find themselves in straitened circumstances. Some of these are traditional nuclear families. Their needs for some reason are not classed as important.

I just think they should have an equal bite of the cherry, that's all.

ILW

JuniorSherlock wrote: »

I have worked with these people, I have taught their children and I see that vicious circle going round and round. Some of these teenage girls actually have children just to find out what it's like to be loved. Because they don't experience any love in their lives at all.

.

Why not get a cat?

JuniorSherlock

ILW wrote: »

The country would be much better off if we had thousands of Phillip Greens creating employment and wealth rather than thousands of Vicky Pollords creating a need for benefits and housing. Sadly we seem to have a system which discourages the former and positively encourages the latter. How can that be right?

Not all single mums are slappers, but some are.

I disagree. The former is very much encouraged, particularly by the Tories.

This government encourages greed. We have ministers on treble figure salaries, with up to 3 homes in the UK, who think nothing of claiming hundreds of thousands on expenses, including expecting us to pay the mortgage on their second and third homes, telling single mums that they have no right to one home and no right to be taking money from the taxpayer.

Ironic?

If you compare the benefits system with the millions wasted by local governments on so-called 'non-jobs'; the billions of owed tax that is squirrelled away and the millions claimed on expenses you'll find the true cause of the huge debt we find ourselves in.

And with governments cutting funding to carers of disabled children, cutting funding to community projects there to help such teenagers out of the vicious circle of poverty, cutting jobs, allowing the privatisation of companies such as Cadbury which results in more job losses and cutting grants to help teenagers stay on in education then you will find more and more people reliant on benefits. It is a situation that this government has created.

JuniorSherlock

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst agreeing that unless the problem is addressed it perpetuates, (and I admire anyone who attempts to tackle it) these are not the only people who are 'needy' though, are they?

There are plenty of others who through no fault of their own find themselves in straitened circumstances. Some of these are traditional nuclear families. Their needs for some reason are not classed as important.

I just think they should have an equal bite of the cherry, that's all.

I agree. The priority system is flawed. However on the other side of the coin, when my best friend fled from her abusive husband with her children she didn't get accommodation just like that. She had to stay in a refuge with other women and fill out countless forms only to be told that the waiting list was very long and because her children were not of primary school age she wasn't a priority.

The whole system needs a shake-up. There aren't enough affordable houses and Housing Associations are selling off homes to make money. Yet there are more than 870000 empty homes in the UK and enough commercial properties to provide another 420000 homes (BBC).

ILW

Oddly I agree with most of what you say.
I do not see MPs and many civil serveants as wealth or employment creators.
People who set up and run businesses which employ a lot of people are good for all of us though.
I am also a bit old fashioned and would like to see a little more judgement as to the deserving poor and those that are just !!!!less.
I do agree with higher disability benefits etc, but cannot see the logic of encouraging indiscriminate breeding with no means of self support.