Is this right?

chucky

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I think i should start a thread

please don't...

Jimmy_31

chucky wrote: »

please don't...

Why not, are you sick to death of going into threads and telling people to stop talking about something that a group of completely different people talked about in the past.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Good point, also i wish everybody would stop banging on about how to save money because we have had countless threads on that as well

From what I can tell this woman is paying her rent so I assume you want her chucked out and someone who can’t pay put in her place.

chucky

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Why not, are you sick to death of going into threads and telling people to stop talking about something that a group of completely different people talked about in the past.

no.

step away from the keyboard James, you'll feel much better for it...

macaque_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I am just wanting to know what the point of this thread is and what specifically it is you are complaining about.

Do I think she needs subsidised housing? No. Do I want to start another debate on this when this has been done to death? No.

Do I think that she should be moved to a one bed flat because her three bed house is being knocked down? Absolutely not. This is a separate issue and if you cannot separate them you shouldn't have started this thread, as there are enough general rants on the matter of council housing in this forum already.

You seem to be suggesting that once a subject has been aired, it should never be raised again? I don't agree. If people are abusing a system, the problem should be aired daily until the problem is resolved.

Charity is the measure of a civilised society and council housing is a form of charity. Recipients of charity should be grateful to the tax payers (or others) and not make strident demands.

chewmylegoff

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Just because some other people have 'done it to death' does that mean the discussion must end as soon as someone points out that it's been 'done to death'?

If you feel it's been 'done to death' then step aside and let other people debate a current situation.

Well it's normal practice not to start a new thread to debate the same thing again, use the existing threads. Anyway what I perhaps should have said is "I don't see why you started a new thread". Obviously I am not the thread police.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

From what I can tell this woman is paying her rent so I assume you want her chucked out and someone who can’t pay put in her place.

You shouldnt assume things.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Oh i know its not going to apply to her, yet anyway, once we are down to very very low levels of council houses then hopefully the ruling will apply to lifelong council tenants as well.

Yes we all want an easy life, you are getting pretty good at stating the obvious.

what do you mean by this then.

Graham_Devon

Yes, rent will be being paid, just as Bob Crow no doubt pays his rent.

However, it's massively reduced rent. When you put two people next to each other, and one gets to pay far less for a 3 bed, at taxpayer expense, and another gets to pay more rent, simply because they don't have the opportunity to do the same (as council houses are often hoarded by those that don't actually need them), then I personally think there is something not right. Especially when one person getting reduiced rent has one or more other houses.

I didn't realise it was a subject not to be spoken about. Therefore I apologise.

ukcarper

I don’t quite understand why people are crying for better security on private lets and the opposite on social housing.

Also I would have thought that most people well of enough to buy would buy their council house under right to buy if forced to move.