Is this right?

Graham_Devon

Blimey, this still going?

Have to say, it's amusing to see wee willy now laying in to ex tenants, as they saved up and stated they specifically moved on to give others a chance. So they get what they class as abuse too.

I'm begining to think the guy is a wind up merchant. No one can have so many personalities and talk in such unconnected ways.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Blimey, this still going?

Have to say, it's amusing to see wee willy now laying in to ex tenants, as they saved up and stated they specifically moved on to give others a chance. So they get what they class as abuse too.

I'm begining to think the guy is a wind up merchant. No one can have so many personalities and talk in such unconnected ways.

Where have I "laid in to" anyone? The argument that social housing is allocated on the basis of need has long been explored. Clearly those in the greatest housing need require the greatest assistance from society/state to discharge that need. Those who desire social housing purely as a method enabling them to save for a deposit are clearly not in need when compared to the existing groups identified by current legislation.

ILW

You are right about need, problem is that in the real world there are many that engineer "need" to get improved housing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Whatever system you use, there are those that will abuse it. Doesn't actually make the system wrong.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Whatever system you use, there are those that will abuse it. Doesn't actually make the system wrong.

A system that actually encourages "bad" behaviour is a broken system.

Wee_Willy_Harris

If I break the speed limit, I get to my destination sooner and the chance of being caught is slim. Is that an argument for doing away with speed limits?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If I break the speed limit, I get to my destination sooner and the chance of being caught is slim. Is that an argument for doing away with speed limits?

I would not want to do away with social housing, just change the way it is allocated and run. Get a little more moral judgement into who gets the places and how they retain them. A nice HA place should be a reward for socially responsible behaviour, not the opposite.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Where have I "laid in to" anyone? The argument that social housing is allocated on the basis of need has long been explored. Clearly those in the greatest housing need require the greatest assistance from society/state to discharge that need. Those who desire social housing purely as a method enabling them to save for a deposit are clearly not in need when compared to the existing groups identified by current legislation.

The other council house thread you are involved in, where the poster you were talking to came back and stated they didn't really feel the need for the abuse?

Or is this something else you are going to deny?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The other council house thread you are involved in, where the poster you were talking to came back and stated they didn't really feel the need for the abuse?

Or is this something else you are going to deny?

You mean the one where I described the poster who describes social housing tenants "scum" and Parasites" as a muppet? I'm comfortable with that.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You mean the one where I described the poster who describes social housing tenants "scum" and Parasites" as a muppet? I'm comfortable with that.

No, strangely enough. Dancing the hotstep again though I see.

Class act.