Council house debate

Jimmy_31

wrightk wrote: »

bet he doesnt even know what CBL stands for. and if he doesnt he's scurrying to google it now

Thats just put you onto my clever ar5e list.

wrightk

take it from me. you know nothing about the way in which social housing is allocated and the process involved. if you did, you wouldnt be making such foolish and silly comments on here

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

You watched that tv program on council housing yet.

You mean Panorama. The one with the people complaining about not being able to get a council house. In fact, they sounded a bit like you.

ska_lover

Why do debates often start of sounding intelligent, yet as I scroll through the pages they turn into name calling slanging matches?

This is why I come here. I love it. Keep up the good work.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You mean Panorama. The one with the people complaining about not being able to get a council house. In fact, they sounded a bit like you.

Yes that one.

Graham_Devon

wrightk wrote: »

every statement you make is answered with fact you have chosen to ignore all the answers given and rabble on showing no knowledge of the area at all. just a misguided grudge

Just so that you are aware, as you seem intent on ignoring everything and merely asking for proof.

The BBC council programme DID include a part where advisors advise working people not to bother.

The BBC council programme DID show that unemployed people and those that put themselves in positions through their own choice get further up the list.

Ignorance is bliss. But it aint great in debate.

casualwalks

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The BBC council programme DID show that unemployed people and those that put themselves in positions through their own choice get further up the list.

.

I watched the program and at no time did it state they (I presume you mean the young men in the family of 9) got further up the list because they were unemployed. The program showed that they were rehoused due to overcrowding.

The young couple who were both unemployed and who were expecting a baby weren't given council housing, so being unemployed didn't mean they received council housing. Fortunately for them there were other alternatives.

Being unemployed is not a determining factor in establishing prioirty need for Local authority housing, however, over crowding is.

Tippytoes

casualwalks wrote: »

I watched the program and at no time did it state they (I presume you mean the young men in the family of 9) got further up the list because they were unemployed. The program showed that they were rehoused due to overcrowding.

The young couple who were both unemployed and who were expecting a baby weren't given council housing, so being unemployed didn't mean they received council housing. Fortunately for them there were other alternatives.

Being unemployed is not a determining factor in establishing prioirty need for Local authority housing, however, over crowding is.

And the BBC is unbiased and can be trusted to tell it as it is? Look chaps, especially wee willie winkie and jimmie. I have no axe to grind in terms of my housing situation. I'm OK thanks to working my butt off and going without when I was young. I am absolutely telling the truth when I say that immigrants (irrespective of working status, sponging status, babies, overcrowding blah blah blah) have priority when it comes to social housing. I know what I'm talking about. For my sins, it's my job. And, the reason they are priority? They can and WILL play the race card if their demands aren't met. A certain Mr Powell forecast that this would happen and he was right. Like I said, I'm alright Jack. But, I do feel very sorry for those of you who will probably never have what you deserve, because the current and previous governments have sold this country down the river.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Tippytoes wrote: »

And the BBC is unbiased and can be trusted to tell it as it is? Look chaps, especially wee willie winkie and jimmie. I have no axe to grind in terms of my housing situation. I'm OK thanks to working my butt off and going without when I was young. I am absolutely telling the truth when I say that immigrants (irrespective of working status, sponging status, babies, overcrowding blah blah blah) have priority when it comes to social housing. I know what I'm talking about. For my sins, it's my job. And, the reason they are priority? They can and WILL play the race card if their demands aren't met. A certain Mr Powell forecast that this would happen and he was right. Like I said, I'm alright Jack. But, I do feel very sorry for those of you who will probably never have what you deserve, because the current and previous governments have sold this country down the river.

Cobblers. If what you said was even partly true, please explain why thee are fewer BME social housing tenants, as a percentage, than there are in the wider population?

Tippytoes

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Cobblers. If what you said was even partly true, please explain why thee are fewer BME social housing tenants, as a percentage, than there are in the wider population?

Thank you for your polite response. I'll conclude my input to this discussion by saying:

Whose percentage figures are you quoting? Official fudged/massaged figures? The same that would have the suckers believe inflation is running at 2.5 %? Don't forget, we haven't yet got to the stage where long-standing tenants are thrown out to make way for newcomers. It may well come in due course. In the meantime there is an element of waiting for older tenants to vacate properties by popping off. It is fact that a disproportionately high percentage of new builds are offered to immigrants - with just a few going to the indigenous (in case someone claims discrimination).