Is this right?

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Should we ignore the ones who do?

No. We should out them on well researched and unbiased BBC documentries.

You obviously didn't get a long enough bitching sesh in the kitchen with colleague #3. Interrupted? You shouldn't take your work home with you. ... bitching about the system, of course. Not colleague #2

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If everybody in britain is given a house for life thats fine, if only certain people get a house for life then thats not.

Then maybe that should be the argument. Security of tenure for all. Take the housing act back to the pre 1988 days. After all, we all want security, don't we?

sjaypink

DexterA wrote: »

Yes, I've been around the block more times than a car racing Le Mans.

Hmmmmm, Stella. You've just reminded me of another Youtube avenue to wander down. I was running out of ideas

macaque_2

ukcarper wrote: »

I don’t quite understand why people are crying for better security on private lets and the opposite on social housing.

Also I would have thought that most people well of enough to buy would buy their council house under right to buy if forced to move.

Perhaps it is because security for private tenants is woefully inadequate and in the case of social housing security is given to people with no legitimate claim.

Charity should be given on the basis of genuine need, not to people with second homes, high incomes or large savings. The size of the council house should reflect the needs of tennant rather than the wishes of the tennant. People who sublet their council homes should be barred for life.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

No. We should out them on well researched and unbiased BBC documentries.

You obviously didn't get a long enough bitching sesh in the kitchen with colleague #3. Interrupted? You shouldn't take your work home with you. ... bitching about the system, of course. Not colleague #2

Nice dodge.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Then maybe that should be the argument. Security of tenure for all. Take the housing act back to the pre 1988 days. After all, we all want security, don't we?

Erm yes we all want security.

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Nice dodge.

Fuck Off Jimbo :A
Rub a couple brain cells together, create some static Show me the crowd of SH tenants with second homes and i'll personally give 'em a thoroughly good talking to :cool:

But, for the purposes of this thread, I do not intend to either debate ot 'dodge' any issues regards a particular circumstance which probably applies to far less than 1% of the discussed

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Fuck Off Jimbo :A
Rub a couple brain cells together, create some static Show me the crowd of SH tenants with second homes and i'll personally give 'em a thoroughly good talking to :cool:

But, for the purposes of this thread, I do not intend to either debate ot 'dodge' any issues regards a particular circumstance which probably applies to far less than 1% of the discussed

I was just saying it was a nice dodge thats all, i think it was executed quite smoothly.

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I was just saying it was a nice dodge thats all, i think it was executed quite smoothly.

Thanks. Well, some would say I'm a Pro, but I deny that...

How old are you then Jim? And why havn't you just settled down with one of your local [STRIKE]slags[/STRIKE] golden key holders, instead of being on here, ...moaning.. feeling sorry for yourself ?

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Thanks. Well, some would say I'm a Pro, but I deny that...

How old are you then Jim? And why havn't you just settled down with one of your local [STRIKE]slags[/STRIKE] golden key holders, instead of being on here, ...moaning.. feeling sorry for yourself ?

I dont really want one of the rats as a missus.
I would find it quite embarrasing seeing the missus walk to the shops in her pyjamas whilst pushing our little keanus pram with him just wearing a nappy.