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

[Deleted User]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You haven't said how you'll prove which is which.



And who exactly is going to employ alcoholics, drug addicts or 'breeders' with 2 or 3 children (and provide childcare for them). Won't the children's schooling suffer tremendously as well being moved every 6 months ? You'd be damning those children to a terrible education, if they even bother after the first 3 or 4 moves... and ultimately to endlessly repeat the cycle which you claim you're trying to stamp out.

Face it. It's a terrible idea.

The alcoholics and the drug addicts are unemployable. But there is no reason to give them DLA that just funds their habits. Moving them away from the people that are likely to have got them on drugs in the first place is likely to help those that want to give up.

The reality is that the children of the breeders are disadvantaged anyway. It is their parent's fault. If the state is to support them long term then finding suitable foster parents or care would probably be better for the child. Their parents are obviously not responsible enough.

Jimmy_31

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What's all the bleeding fuss about then?

Also, maybe ive misunderstood, but it's a bit odd that you're happy to be paid to install kitchens for these parasites. Doesn't that just make you a willing part of the supposedly corrupt system you're complaining about? Perhaps instead you should set up a political party and get voted into power by exposing this terrible scandal, then you can have all the single mothers thrown into a pit or something.

The fuss as you call it is me talking about council housing and the benefit system and how it needs to be looked at, I'm a tax payer so I think I am entitled to express my opinion on the matter even if I am not looking for freebies.

I install kitchens for tenants but yes quite a large number of them are parasites, if you had took note of what I have said about these kitchens you will notice that the problem isn't with the parasites getting a kitchen as such,the problem is that they are being given kitchens that are way beyond what's needed, do the councils really have to spend thousands of pounds a year on cornice and pelmet, no they don't, they could just fit a solid kitchen with no fancy bits that is a lot cheaper and will last a lot longer.

I apologise for working within a corrupt system but i would be very happy if the system wasnt corrupt.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

It does matter because earlier in this thread you insisted that all council tenants are unemployed, and their reward for choosing not to work is to get a houseful of new furniture every 3 years as part of their tenancy....

...We then moved to white goods only...
...Then to maybe a cooker if the parents were unable to feed their children...
....which would have nothing to do with the council or the HA as a landlord, and so no relevance at all to a social housing discussion...

You also stated that you and your work mates tell everyone about all this new shiny furniture every few years, and these people are amazed that it goes on! Well, I'm not surprised, as it isn't true!

I KNOW there are many, many problems with social housing, and with the lifestyle of SOME living within. It just really pees me off when someone spots a Brighthouse delivery on a council estate, reads one of the daily mail hate articles, hears the likes of yourself and your mates down the pub and the ignorance is fed and fuelled even more :cool:

I cant remember saying every single council tenant was unemployed.

What im talking about is the vast numbers of council tenants who dont work and have never worked.

A lot of the Immigrants get the furniture not every council tenant.

I base what i say on the fact that i have been surrounded by council tenants my whole life and the vast majority of them choose not to work because thay cannot be ar5ed to work and the vast majority of single mothers in my area are single mothers by choice in my opinion because getting pregnant from one night stands with strangers is only going to end up one way.

See what you can twist what i have written in this post.

Jimmy_31

mattcanary wrote: »

You would have access to it - if you had bothered putting your name on the housing register several years ago and then followed up that interest (if you live within a local authority area that has adoped choice-based letting). You didn;t - your loss.

Of course you could put your name on the list today if you wanted to. Instead of bleating on about how hard done by you are and slamming everyone that lives in social housing - regardless of what their individual circumstances are. You're an ignorant idiot!

Why would i put my name down at the housing if i dont want a council property, im saving a deposit for a house of my own.

If i had put my name down for a council flat then i would have been taking away that flat from someone who genuinely needed it, im a single working man who works away from home for most of the year and when i am home i stay at my parents. If i had been given a flat then that flat is no longer available to a single working person who needs it ie somebody who needs cheap housing because they have not got the option of staying with parents.

I know of 2 lads who i went to school with who have to private rent because the council will not house them, so as you can guess it is taking a very long time for them to save up a house deposit, there are plenty of one bed flats in my area that theses 2 lads could live in if the system didnt reward scroungers as a lot of these flats have been given to lads i went to school with who have still yet to do a days work in their lives.

Whatever way you look at it the system needs to be changed you ignorant fool.

Jimmy_31

mattcanary wrote: »

One other point - why do so many people here think that all people living in council housing don't work?
And also why do they think that everyone in private rented housing work??!!

Bizarre...

They dont its just you coming to your own conclusion.

ILW

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You haven't said how you'll prove which is which.



And who exactly is going to employ alcoholics, drug addicts or 'breeders' with 2 or 3 children (and provide childcare for them). Won't the children's schooling suffer tremendously as well being moved every 6 months ? You'd be damning those children to a terrible education, if they even bother after the first 3 or 4 moves... and ultimately to endlessly repeat the cycle which you claim you're trying to stamp out.

Face it. It's a terrible idea.

Fair point, but how can it be justified that an alcoholic or drug addict gets a higher level of benefit payouts than someone who just cannot find a job due to there being none around?

Shakethedisease

Fair point, but how can it be justified that an alcoholic or drug addict gets a higher level of benefit payouts than someone who just cannot find a job due to there being none around?

I reckon if you google for 'how much crime in the UK is associated with addiction' you'll find the answer to that.

I don't know the figures, but would assume that it costs the taxpayer more to solve, punish and compensate for crime related to addiction, than to pay out higher benefits such as DLA to them ?

ILW

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I reckon if you google for 'how much crime in the UK is associated with addiction' you'll find the answer to that.

I don't know the figures, but would assume that it costs the taxpayer more to solve, punish and compensate for crime related to addiction, than to pay out higher benefits such as DLA to them ?

So on that basis, should we give car thieves BMWs to keep them from stealing?

Jimmy_31

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I reckon if you google for 'how much crime in the UK is associated with addiction' you'll find the answer to that.

I don't know the figures, but would assume that it costs the taxpayer more to solve, punish and compensate for crime related to addiction, than to pay out higher benefits such as DLA to them ?

Oh its too expensive to punish and reform criminals, best to leave the benefits system the way it is then, or fix the benefits system and then there will be plenty of money to punish criminals.

You cant keep giving people benefits just because they might go out and steal thats just stupid, plus what about the thousands of people who are on benefits and also commit crimes to get money ?.

I think you will find that lots of people who are addicted to say heroin do recieve benefits but also steal everyday of their lives because the benefits they get is not enough to fund a 40 quid a day smack habit and by your way of thinking this person should get more benefits to cover the shortfall of income they need to buy their drugs.

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

So on that basis, should we give car thieves BMWs to keep them from stealing?

It would work.

I can just see the letters to the government, buy me a beemer or I will steal one and it will be your fault.