Support for mortgage interest (SMI) extended AGAIN

Graham_Devon

Percy1983 wrote: »

Anyway, I want people kicked out on the streets for saying 12 months, but you are caring for saying 12 months?

I have probably missed something here?

I think I may have missed something too.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

No I wouldn't. Is this going somewhere or is this the forumonics you keep telling us about?

The forumonics I have been going on about has just been displayed and lit up in lights.

After all that complaining and suggesting others want people chucked out....you find out that actually, chucky wants a 12m cap....6m LESS than the one I proposed, the same as others he directed this slur at proposed, yet after all that slur and bashing, he is in total agreement.

That, is forumonics. You cannot get a better representation of it than that. Even you thanked chuckys post in agreement, because it's chucky saying it, but you have been hounding me specifically for saying it.

All it is, is one poster against another, regardless of if they come out 10 pages later to suggest they completely agree with what you have been saying all along. Whole thread could have been 10 pages shorter.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The forumonics I have been going on about has just been displayed and lit up in lights.

After all that complaining and suggesting others want people chucked out....you find out that actually, chucky wants a 12m cap....6m LESS than the one I proposed, the same as others he directed this slur at proposed, yet after all that slur and bashing, he is in total agreement.

That, is forumonics. You cannot get a better representation of it than that. Even you thanked chuckys post in agreement, because it's chucky saying it, but you have been hounding me specifically for saying it.

All it is, is one poster against another, regardless of if they come out 10 pages later to suggest they completely agree with what you have been saying all along. Whole thread could have been 10 pages shorter.

I'm happy to go with your definition of forumonics - you are the clear undisputed master.

Have a thanks by the way - I didn't know you got so upset if you didn't get one.

That Chucky's a Nazi. I'd go for an 18 not 12 month limit but have some reservations about the process for dealing with people at the end of this time.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That, is forumonics. You cannot get a better representation of it than that. Even you thanked chuckys post in agreement, because it's chucky saying it, but you have been hounding me specifically for saying it.

sorry to disappoint Devon but this forum isn't about you or even me. people are free to do what thy want.

just because i think SMI finishing after 12 months is a good idea - i don't believe people should lose their homes after 12 months. i don't believe the state should have to pay for it. that's why i believe 12 months is enough time.

however, i think the lenders could put a premium on the borrower for those that need longer - maybe extend the mortgage by an extra year for each year they are unable to repay capital when unemployed.

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

sorry to disappoint Devon but this forum isn't about you or even me. people are free to do what thy want.

just because i think SMI finishing after 12 months is a good idea - i don't believe people should lose their homes after 12 months. i don't believe the state should have to pay for it. that's why i believe 12 months is enough time.

however, i think the lenders could put a premium on the borrower for those that need longer - maybe extend the mortgage by an extra year for each year they are unable to repay capital when unemployed.

Interesting point there.

By not paying SMI the government are NOT throwing people out onto the street. They are simply not paying their mortgage anymore, it still remains the choice of the recipient if they are 'thrown out on the street'.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

That Chucky's a Nazi. I'd go for a 18 not 12 month limit but have some reservations about the process for dealing with people at the end of this time.

Well then we are in agreement.

And I really, honestly, don't see the need for all the biting and yapping when all along, we actually, agree there should be a cap in place.

Can you honestly say you now, after agreeing with me specifically on the 18m cap, that all the mud flinging about me wanting people chucked out of homes was justified?

I understand if you now need to revert to pretending I'm somehow upset, or get upset easily as another swipe, but please, all I ask is that you do it if you really don't agree, or if I have really suggested I was innocent families and their kids living in cardboard boxes. Until that time, what really, is the point?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

TBF graham, you are as guilty as anyone when you step into arguments and defend your bear allies, no matter what. I couldnt believe my eyes when you defended geneer, one of the worst posters on here, simply because he is a member of the bear gang.

I wrote a post complaining about the state of the forum, with a paragraph specifically moaning about him.

Don't think that's defending, personally. If it is, I have obviously got defence wrong! I only felt the need to suggest it's not really geener that instigates it. Hamish is flying off round other forums doing exactly the same to geener on geeners main forum (and others apparently).

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well then we are in agreement.

And I really, honestly, don't see the need for all the biting and yapping when all along, we actually, agree there should be a cap in place.

Can you honestly say you now, after agreeing with me specifically on the 18m cap, that all the mud flinging about me wanting people chucked out of homes was justified?

I understand if you now need to revert to pretending I'm somehow upset, or get upset easily as another swipe, but please, all I ask is that you do it if you really don't agree, or if I have really suggested I was innocent families and their kids living in cardboard boxes. Until that time, what really, is the point?

Lot's of 'me's and 'I's in there - not a swipe just an observation.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Lot's of 'me's and 'I's in there - not a swipe just an observation.

It's pretty obvious you wish to carry something on.

But I'm leaving it now. You are free to your opinion, but I'm not sure what that above is supposed to even mean.

We all agree, and I shall leave it at that. Just haven't really got a clue what all this, and the above is all in aid of.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

just because i think SMI finishing after 12 months is a good idea - i don't believe people should lose their homes after 12 months. i don't believe the state should have to pay for it. that's why i believe 12 months is enough time.

There is no other option....or shouldnt be, if they have qualified for SMI in the first place?

That doesn't mean that because I would like to see a cap placed on taxpayer expense, we WANT to see people chucked out. It's just there is no alternative option....and that is the sole reason they are on SMI in the very first place....to stop them losing the house.