Is this right?

chewmylegoff

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Somebody who leaves school and then gets a job and goes to that job day in day out and then saves a house deposit then buys a house so that they are not a burden to the state.

I will answer what i feel will be said next ie but letting them have a council house will make them a burden to the state. yes it will but only for the length of time it takes them to save a deposit for their own house and not a lifetime of being a burden

Ok, so someone on minimum wage earning what £11k a year with no prospect of being able to save for a house would therefore be disqualified from social housing in accordance with your definition of a hard working person.

If social housing is only a means by which the govt assists people to save for a deposit, wouldn't it be more efficient to just give "hard workers" some free money to use as a house deposit and sell all te social housing off?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You wouldn't know the truth if it stood in front of you wearing an "I am the truth" t-shirt and screaming "THE TRUTH" in your face while showing you it's birth certificate and passport.

I have told you were to find video evidence of the truth but you have to ignore it at all costs because you are one of them people who have a pathological fear of being wrong.

chewmylegoff

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Are you saying that crime would not be reduced if the consequences were much harsher, 5 years for shoplifting would stop a lot of shoplifters wouldnt it.

Punishments are much more severe in the USA. Doesn't seem to have marginalised crime there.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You need to define scumbag. How can you tell, when a 19 year old single mum takes a tenancy, what she will do with the rest of her life. It must be more than an assumption because I know you don't approve of them either.

You cant, but ten years down the line when she has spat out 5 more kids all by different fathers and never had a job you can, thats when action should be taken because its blatantly obvious that they are sponging scumbags

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I have told you were to find video evidence of the truth but you have to ignore it at all costs because you are one of them people who have a pathological fear of being wrong.

No. It's because I have taken the trouble to educate myself enough to know the truth. You should try it sometime. It might make you look less of a tit.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Punishments are much more severe in the USA. Doesn't seem to have marginalised crime there.

England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.


However, offenders are locked up for shorter periods than in comparable countries – raising questions about claims made by Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, that too many criminals were being jailed.

The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.

For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

You cant, but ten years down the line when she has spat out 5 more kids all by different fathers and never had a job you can, thats when action should be taken because its blatantly obvious that they are sponging scumbags

But in order to change the system, you have to assume that they are going to be scumbags.... and I know you hate to assume.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

For someone so keen on answers, why did you post a link and part of a story that doesn't provide one?

Jimmy_31

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Ok, so someone on minimum wage earning what £11k a year with no prospect of being able to save for a house would therefore be disqualified from social housing in accordance with your definition of a hard working person.

If social housing is only a means by which the govt assists people to save for a deposit, wouldn't it be more efficient to just give "hard workers" some free money to use as a house deposit and sell all te social housing off?

Yes thats a good idea.

Hard workers are rewarded.

Scumbags end up homeless and eating out of a bin.

Would need to save some houses for the genuinely disabled and ill people though.

I wish you were running the country.

Jimmy_31

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Punishments are much more severe in the USA. Doesn't seem to have marginalised crime there.

Has it taken scumbags off the streets.