Is this right?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So where are the next generation going to live when all the council houses and private rents in their area have gone, this is the point im getting at, if people cant afford a house in their area in the future then they will have to move to an area where they can afford a house.

If they wont move to another area then what is there option.

Wasn't that always the case?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Single mothers who end up being single by CONSTANTLY making stupid decisions should not be given a free house, they should be put into some kind of hostel and be taught the basic lessons in life.

Perhaps the same rule should be applied to single men. After all, someone is getting these single mums pregnant.... Maybe even you Jimmy?

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

No not quite . I think there are more and more people like you who are very easily manipulated, played off and therefore distracted. This is why we are becoming a more fractured and unhappy society.

See, I would hope to see people, especialy younger - not being ageist, but the traditionally more radical and passionate - people being able to take an objective view and realise this kind of perspective which is taken on board by so many without question, is so blatantly not right.

Somethings gone wrong. But seems no-one wants to find out realy what that is. Just want to be spoonfed easy answers. Its the 'workshy scum', its the 'ratty single mums' its the 'immigrants'. The newspaper said so. My mate said so.
Of course, most of them aren't bothered what you think, as they're one way or another being pacified by the systems. I could go on but I sense to most this is now verging on having a paranoia vibe .

But just think, between your anonymous internet whinging, their quiet scrounging.... what else is going on? Are there only the likes of 'you' and the likes of 'them' in the country? Whos pulling the strings? Who is -'scuse the pun- really benefitting?

BTW, I'm probably not far off your age. And I don't have a i-pad

If i was easily manipulated then i would have bought a house during the boom along with everybody else who were manipulated by the media, i chose not to buy because asking prices were a joke, thats one example for you and i also know the state this country is in because i have got eyes and ears and know what is wrong with it, lazy scumbags are playing a very big part in it along with the greedy people who are also playing a very big part in it but david cameron will not listen to what i have to say will he so there is not much i can do about it.

I really cant see where you are going with the rest of your post, are you asking me to find the mr big behind this countrys mess and kill him or something.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

OK then, if it's the lowest common denominator you want, let's remove security for everyone, including those selfish owner occs who insist on living in a house far too big for their immediate needs. Lets make them sell up, and if they don't then we slap a compulsory purchase on them at 20% below market value. That would get the housing market moving again. Might even be to your advantage as a FTB to get houseprices moving towards a more realistic level.

If somebody has worked hard to buy their house then it is there right to keep it.

You forgot to reply to the part were i asked you have you watched that tv program.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And who pays the housing provider for the upkeep, new builds, regeneration, modernisation etc etc etc?

The same person who pays to house scumbag layabouts.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Perhaps the same rule should be applied to single men. After all, someone is getting these single mums pregnant.... Maybe even you Jimmy?

Obviously, i didnt think i needed to spell that out for you.

I do not have any children.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If somebody has worked hard to buy their house then it is there right to keep it.

You forgot to reply to the part were i asked you have you watched that tv program.

But if they are under-occupying it, surely they are blocking the housing market for the next generation and should move to a smaller house. They might even free up some equity so that we can all save on some of their means tested benefits, like pension credits.

And yes, I did see the programme where the overcrowded family got priority due to overcrowding, the couple in the uninhabitable private rent got re-housed because their home was uninhabitable and the couple with the flat they couldn't afford found a cheaper private rent. But I noticed that none of the people featured got any priority because they were unemployed.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Obviously, i didnt think i needed to spell that out for you.

I do not have any children.

I think you should have to prove that.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

The same person who pays to house scumbag layabouts.

I see. So you don't want people to work hard in order to buy anymore.....

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If somebody has worked hard to buy their house then it is there right to keep it.

....... You want the taxpayer to fund it for them. Does that mean you would be happy to take their under-occupied house off them now that owner/occs are parasites too?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I think you should have to prove that.

But i have provided evidence to you before on another point were you called me and my friends liars and you just choose to ignore it over and over again for some reason, so im not wasting my time finding ex partners who now have children and dna testing them to prove im not the father.


I can add up so i know i havent got a little keanu knocking around, plus im not one for going with the rats anyway.