BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

leveller2911

ninky wrote: »

what i'm talking about is not the moral rights and wrongs of giving lazy !!!!!!!s a 'free' home but rather a situation that suits me. i'm quite happy for the stupid, lazy and !!!!less to be given !!!!!! council homes if that's what they want because it keeps the streets looking nice and it means i don't have to endure them struggling to work out the correct change to give me at the tills of m&s. it means their poor sprogs are fed and housed and maybe if they've fared well and come out better in the genetic lottery despite their useless parents they might get half a chance to make a better life for themselves. if not shove them in a social house and give them enough to keep the value cider flowing.[/QUOTE]


Good to see your not tarring all in Social Housing with the same brush Ninky...The picture you paint above is not the norm in Social Housing ,in fact from my experience its about 2% if that......

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hard work ninky.

Those 2 lads are small fry, yes.

But extrapolate that across the country.

even if you extrapolate across the country it's still not exactly bailing out the banks is it? or even a fraction of the tax philip green avoids by putting topshop business in his wife's name and shipping the proceeds into monaco.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

even if you extrapolate across the country it's still not exactly bailing out the banks is it? or even a fraction of the tax philip green avoids by putting topshop business in his wife's name and shipping the proceeds into monaco.

Ok, I give up.

Banks would have crippled the country if they hadn't have been bailed out. Philip Green pays tax, and employs loads of people who also pay tax.

It's difficult to compare this to two lads sitting on a sofa whinging about their lot while not giving a thing back to the country.

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, I give up.

Banks would have crippled the country if they hadn't have been bailed out. Philip Green pays tax, and employs loads of people who also pay tax.

It's difficult to compare this to two lads sitting on a sofa whinging about their lot while not giving a thing back to the country.

the moral high horse comes into play again.

capitalism requires demand. these lads provide demand. for the shop owner of their local kebab shop they are providing demand. that's a service to society. by removing benefits you are not suddenly going to turn them into useful model workers capable of meeting their own demands - we only have to look to the past to see that. so the best thing for it is to tap their demand resource by providing them with the means to meet some of them. via taxation this also stops the majority of the population getting too rich which would lead to wealth hoarding, reduced requirement for credit and economic contraction.

RuthnJasper

I watched this programme last night on the iPlayer (I'm in a Housing Association property, for which I was on a waiting list for over 7 years and cannot afford a TV. I'm in full-time work and have never claimed a single penny in benefits. I just cannot afford to house myself in the present climate and my parents don't want me).

Some of the cases featured DID make me angry, though not as angry as I'd anticipated - apart from the total sh*t who was sub-letting lovely Council flats in central London, trousering several £100s per week whilst living with a rich'n'thick here in England and owning a chateau in France ("PC" Hoult). Gitwizard. :mad:

On the whole, it made me feel so incredibly lucky to have the small things that I DO have. My house is VERY tiny, to be sure, but it is warm, safe, and I can have my dog Jasper with me. I feel I have been so very fortunate. It does make me FUME when I see unwanted babies being popped out for the sole purpose of securing extra luxuries for the idle parents, though. I have worked hard for everything for myself since I was 15. I'm not where I hoped I'd end up - but I have NO desire to play the system and stitch-up other, more deserving, folk just so that I can have a few extra luxuries.

I felt very sorry indeed for Jawad, the chap in the programme who was a good tenant, paying his rent, and didn't realise that his "landlord" was an illegal sub-letter, as well as for Nathan (the chap who had damp throughout the house and pooled water in the cellar where the fuse-box was - and the most incredible respect for the two London Housing Officers, June and Paul, who must have to deal with distressing circumstances on a daily basis.

State-funded assistance, whether financial or otherwise, is really a privilege and not a right. People should focus on what they DO have, rather than what they feel they SHOULD have.

asbokid

brit1234 wrote: »

It may be a little bit harsh but if I wasn't employed I wouldn't get my girlfriend pregnant.

If you do find yourself out of work, I can put a bun in her oven while you sign on.

ninky_2

RuthnJasper wrote: »

People should focus on what they DO have, rather than what they feel they SHOULD have.

that's as may be but focusing on what people should do over what people do do is not a very effective way of looking at things i find.

RuthnJasper

ninky wrote: »

that's as may be but focusing on what people should do over what people do do is not a very effective way of looking at things i find.

Oh yes, you're quite right Ninky, I honestly can't disagree. Guess I was just theorising a bit.

asbokid

B'stard wrote: »

I don't read The Sun newspaper, but I remember that it was mentioned on Have I Got News For You that Bob Crow lived in subsidised housing while earning a six figure salary.

http://www.sunvote.co.uk/cms/news/166769/should_bob_crow_live_in_a_subsidised_council_house

Most of the Tory (and Liberal) scum in the Cabinet live in subsidised housing. And we are not talking about modest housing association dwellings.

chucky

RuthnJasper wrote: »

State-funded assistance, whether financial or otherwise, is really a privilege and not a right. People should focus on what they DO have, rather than what they feel they SHOULD have.

you'll find that where parents have benefited from the benefits system, their children will probably follow suit and not feel any responsibility social or even personal.

this is more deep rooted and engrained in culture than many people realise; most people believe benefits are an entitlement and not a privilege. it won't be changing in the current generation IMO, especially with the high number of unemployed both young and old.