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

sjaypink

tillycat123 wrote: »

The money that is thrown at the parents to try and teach them to be parents is sickening

This is true, but the costs of taking a children into LA care (and keeping them there until 18, or progressing to adoption stage) is far, far more expensive than some baby equipment, toys & parenting courses.

mattcanary

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whats bizzare is that you state that "all people on here think all people living in council housing don't work".

I think someone needs to re-read the thread and actually read what's written.

It's clear that this is what you and several others on this forum have been insinuating from your I'm holier than thou pedestals

Graham_Devon

mattcanary wrote: »

It's clear that this is what you and several others on this forum have been insinuating from your I'm holier than thou pedestals

Clear in your mind, obviously.

Not a mind I wish to argue the toss with as obviously it's infallable.

[Deleted User]

I think we could remove some of the incentives for breeders and scroungers by moving them every six months and making sure that its at least 50 miles away each time including the first one. Breaking the communities of these scroungers would help destroy the benefits culture as they would have to make an effort to enjoy some stability. Obviously people who are working or disabled would not have to move.

Long term I think that would produce incentives to work and gradually relocate people from high unemployment areas to areas with better opportunities, which would be best for both areas.

Just a thought off the top of my head, what do you think?

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43459022]I think we could remove some of the incentives for breeders and scroungers by moving them every six months and making sure that its at least 50 miles away each time including the first one. Breaking the communities of these scroungers would help destroy the benefits culture as they would have to make an effort to enjoy some stability. Obviously people who are working or disabled would not have to move.

Long term I think that would produce incentives to work and gradually relocate people from high unemployment areas to areas with better opportunities, which would be best for both areas.

Just a thought off the top of my head, what do you think?[/QUOTE]

I don't think that bright idea came from your head.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I don't think. That bright idea came from your head.

You missed a full stop. I've corrected it for you.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43459564]You missed a full stop. I've corrected it for you.[/QUOTE]

There was no need. I prefer it if my posts aren't corrected by people so slow they have to whistle before they go to the toilet so that they know which end to shlt through.

Shakethedisease

and the expert said "have you tried wiping it off"?

He may well have done..but the 'expert' I saw specifically mentioned how dangerous the spores were. Oh, and you conveniently failed to mention the 4 inches of water in the basement where the electricity meter was !

That house was in appaulling condition.

[Deleted User]

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

There was no need. I prefer it if my posts aren't corrected by people so slow they have to whistle before they go to the toilet so that they know which end to shlt through.

Yes, if people that thick have to correct your posts it doesn't say much for you does it?

There is a tragic irony to the supposed intellectual arrogance in your posts despite the lack of intelligence within them.

Shakethedisease

[quote=[Deleted User];43459022]I think we could remove some of the incentives for breeders and scroungers by moving them every six months and making sure that its at least 50 miles away each time including the first one. Breaking the communities of these scroungers would help destroy the benefits culture as they would have to make an effort to enjoy some stability. Obviously people who are working or disabled would not have to move.

Long term I think that would produce incentives to work and gradually relocate people from high unemployment areas to areas with better opportunities, which would be best for both areas.

Just a thought off the top of my head, what do you think?[/QUOTE]

That you're probably living in the wrong century...workhouses and splitting up families ( using them as free labour ) was popular 100 or so years ago. But thankfully things have progressed a little. It's only people like you that look back on these times as some sort of 'golden age'. Where those that are fortunate like to give the less fortunate a good kicking when they're down. Most of us have moved on... That's what I think.