Is this right?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, we judge people not on what they do, but on what we think they might do. Ever read 1984? It IS fiction, by the way.

You have just confirmed that you are thick.

READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IN PREVIOUS POSTS.

I think things are moving too fast for you at the moment so you can take a break if you need one.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

Are you saying that people who can only earn the minimum wage through no fault of their own should not be allowed to have children.

Are you saying people should be allowed to have as many children as they want even if they have no means to provide for them.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's not a council handbook. It's legislation. Look it up.

Id rather watch a video on it.

Jimmy_31

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I take it that your sarcastic response is an admission that your proposal for allocating social housing is illogical, impractical and unworkable.

No its a good idea, its better than the governments idea of helping people buy a house, you know that one were the house builder adds 20k to the price and then the government gives you a loan to pay it back to them

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Are you saying people should be allowed to have as many children as they want even if they have no means to provide for them.

No I'm saying thier should be housing available for them

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Id rather watch a video on it.

Or a cartoon? I know legislation is complicated. You probably find it all a bit boring unless it's explained to you by Janet and John, but you really should make the effort. It's far better than the ignorance you currently spout.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Answered some posts ago. Look it up.

I cant remember seeing you write a post that said........... yes im sorry i was wrong to call you and your friends liars as i have just checked that video and it turns out that the fella from the council is shown to be discouraging people putting their names down on the housing list which goes completely against what i was saying.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

surely follows on from what you are implying

Nope. It doesn't at all.

As willy won't answer the question, she was overcrowded due to having several children, in a 3 bed house. Several children AFTER being awarded a 3 bed house. (Can't remember if it was 7 or 8 children now).

The two lads who slept on the sofas, appeared not to work. Indeed, when another thread on the housing forum did some facebook searching it was pretty much fact that they didn't work. (hence this has nothing to do with minimum wages) but were old enough to work and had left school. The two of them combined could have worked and rented a house. They did nothing to help the situation they were in.

As I said, nothing to do with minimum wages.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

No I'm saying thier should be housing available for them

What build more houses so people can keep having children that they cant support.

Wouldnt things just keep on getting worse like they are doing.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Or a cartoon? I know legislation is complicated. You probably find it all a bit boring unless it's explained to you by Janet and John, but you really should make the effort. It's far better than the ignorance you currently spout.

Thats the thing, im not ignorant because i see what goes on everyday because i have an army of scumbags on my doorstep.

You have said that the council do not discourage people from putting their names on the housing list, you know because of legislation or rules or whatever you want to call it, turns out thats a load of 8ollox though doesnt it.