Is this right?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Then build more social housing. At the end of the day, people will need housing, regardless of tenure. If we need tower blocks, then we need tower blocks.

Unlimited land and bringing back the tower block problem, you are a genius.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Nah, it's exactly the same.

Living in your world, I'd agree with you. Afterall, you are the beacon of truth.

Asking and implying are the exact same things. Thanks for letting me know. I was just off to ask a question in the motoring forum. I'll go and imply it instead. Maybe I could start with "wondering if anyone could answer my implication" instead of "wonder if anyone could answer my question". Won't look like a kn*b from the outset at all.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Let me re-phrase that for you.... Should families in social housing be prevented from having more children than they already have and should those who marry anyone in social housing give up any existing children?

I can re phrase it as well.

Should families in social housing keep having children if they know that there is already a housing shortage.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Not forever though eh, like i said we live on an island, this island can only sustain so many people and at some point something will have to be done in regards to people having as many children as they want

But you are saying even if they only have to children they should not be able to have a house because they are not saving to buy their own.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I can re phrase it as well.

Should families in social housing keep having children if they know that there is already a housing shortage.

Why not? The housing shortage is hardly their fault.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Did the council employee DENY them access to the waiting list?

Oh dear what a weak attempt at dodging what the issue is.

You said that councils DO NOT DISCOURAGE people from going onto the waiting list and you have video evidence that you are in fact 100% completely wrong.

We can do this as many times as you want.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Plenty of green left in Surrey.

Is it unlimited.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Crazy idea, I know, but they could build some more?

What happens when the building plots have all been used.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

So you do think people on minimum wage should not be able to have a home and kids.

For the umpteenth time. No.

For the umpteenth time, if they are on that wage, they will be getting help of some forum with their housing costs, especially with the costs you talk of.

For the umpteenth time, I take issue with then having more and more kids and putting themselves into a situation where they are overcrowded. It's not good for the kids either. I've already stated 3 or more.

I don't know how much clearer I can be really. I'm not sure it really matters how clear I am on the matter. It seems you are just going to try to go round and round in circles however clear I make the position.

You keep asking me the same question, but when I ask you if they should just have as many kids as they like, you say no, and agree with myself. We've already been here some time back.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Oh dear what a weak attempt at dodging what the issue is.

You said that councils DO NOT DISCOURAGE people from going onto the waiting list and you have video evidence that you are in fact 100% completely wrong.

We can do this as many times as you want.

Once should be enough, just tell me the post number where I said that and I'll let you have the point.