Is this right?

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

Mixed sex children cannot share beyond a certain age.

Did you not read beyond a certain size

On second thought have you been drinking, as I can’t make any sense out of your last couple of paragraphs?

His whole post makes sense to me, especially the last two paragraphs.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So are you suggesting that people in surrey should stop having children if they cant buy a house of their own because the north will not be able to support them all in regards to having work available to them, that is a good idea if you are thinking about the future of this country because at some point the population is going to be to much for the country to sustain.

I think its china that limits how many children people can have because there are not enough resources to go around. At some point in the future an MP is going to be saying that the country is to small and people need to stop having children because there will be no work or homes available to them.

No I'm suggesting they should be given social housing do you think that paces like Surrey would be able to function without shop assistants hospital porters etc.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I watched the TV program and I don’t think it is typical and I personally can’t understand why the two older boys didn’t go and get a room in a shared house and claim LHA. My gripe with Jimmy is that he seems to think that no one should be given a council house unless they intend to save for a house of their own and he is not arguing for them to not be given bigger house he is arguing for them to be chucked out on the street.

Whether it's typical or not, it doesn't get around the fact that THAT is what the discussion was, or is about, and THAT is the context jimmy, I, and others were talking in.

I'm not sure I have seen an argument specifically stating he wants to see people chucked out onto streets, but am open to being proven wrong. I have seen arguments from him that don't match my personal thoughts. But what he seems to be suggesting is that if people want to have MORE kids after being allocated social housing, then they should pay their own way, like most of the population.

He seems to be suggesting if people want to complain they are overcrowded, get up and go to work, which match my thoughts entirely.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Are you suggesting that families in social housing should be prevented from having more children than they already have and that those who marry anyone in social housing must give up any existing children?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In the middle of all of this, theres loads of stupid "are you implying, are you saying, are you suggesting" which is only serving to wind people up.


.

what does that mean

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure I have seen an argument specifically stating he wants to see people chucked out onto streets, but am open to being proven wrong. I have seen arguments from him that don't match my personal thoughts. But what he seems to be suggesting is that if people want to have MORE kids after being allocated social housing, then they should pay their own way, like most of the population.

.

you can't have read many all of his posts

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

No I'm suggesting they should be given social housing do you think that paces like Surrey would be able to function without shop assistants hospital porters etc.

They will all get social housing, or help of some sort. Whether thats a fully blown council property, LHA, or housing benefit based on their household income.

This is already happening. Not something anyone, so far in this thread has taken issue with. It's having MORE chidren while in recepit of help and then wanting more help that is the issue.

I'm off to bed. All this putting words in peoples mouths is just silly.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

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.

Well, no. It's the law. That's what legislation is. And it over-rides your friends gossip.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They will all get social housing, or help of some sort. Whether thats a fully blown council property, LHA, or housing benefit based on their household income.

This is already happening. Not something anyone, so far in this thread has taken issue with. It's having MORE chidren while in recepit of help and then wanting more help that is the issue.

I'm off to bed. All this putting words in peoples mouths is just silly.

Please go back and read Jimmy's posts

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

what does that mean

It means this...conviniently directly above your post.

Surely even you can see the sheer desperation at the end of that post.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Are you suggesting that families in social housing should be prevented from having more children than they already have and that those who marry anyone in social housing must give up any existing children?