Rant and query regarding neighbours

C_Mababejive

fluffnutter wrote: »

Quel surprise.

Au Contraire..i do recall that we have crossed swords before and your location clearly indicates where you stand but i do think that i have given a balanced response.

As i say,this isnt personal. It isnt about people or individuals. Its about the system and the natural order of things.

Do you think for instance that a good Socialist such as Prescott or Blair would be twitchy if the next door semi was bought by a social landlord?

Allowing for the fact that these two would not lower themselves to live in a semi,I am quite sure that they too would not like it. But then again,they are both wealthy enough to not have to endure it so the question will never arise.

Perhaps if it is possible,the OP could amend his post to include a Poll which asks, if you were house hunting, would you buy a semi or terraced which had adjoining property owned by a social landlord

eeeeeee

mupette i would be proud to have a strong willed woman ; it dosent matter what your financial circumstances are .I thought this thread was about some chap who isnt best pleased about some houses near him being bought by social housing ? not a run down on labour did this ... tories did that ... lib dems sat on the fence lauging at all of them

eeeeeee

is this just another one of those ... "lets put a provocative statement on mse and let everyone rip each other too shred threads ? he op dissapeared pretty quick on this?

C_Mababejive

fluffnutter wrote: »

Move then. Far too many people whinge and whine about this country whilst never lifting a finger to try to make it a better place. If you don't like it, leave.

I fear we are digressing a little but i wonder if you could tell me how i could make the country better and also what you have done to try to make it better?

LittleMissAspie

ska_lover wrote: »

Teddy Ruxpin, I do hope you get lumbered with the tiny percentage who are scumbags - and the worst of the worst move into these houses on 'your' road.

I hope he gets lumbered with some owner occupied scumbags on the other side, THAT will teach him a lesson.

darkpool

most people in council houses are honest decent people. but let's be honest, a lot of people on benefits are pure scum.

yes, if i wanted to buy a house having some smack head in the same building would put me off.

Mupette

eeeeeee wrote: »

mupette i would be proud to have a strong willed woman ; it dosent matter what your financial circumstances are .I thought this thread was about some chap who isnt best pleased about some houses near him being bought by social housing ? not a run down on labour did this ... tories did that ... lib dems sat on the fence lauging at all of them

Well i am trying to get to a point that although i am a benefits sponger/scum/dolehopper or what ever the word is this week, not all people are lazy, dirty people, in fact that happens in any class....

seems they dont want to admit that on here.

I don't choose to live on benefits.. unfortunately i am in a position that this is my only option, for the time being at least. But the snobs will all be glad to hear when i marry next year i will no longer be able to claim some of the benefits i so eagerly sponge

C_Mababejive

Mupette wrote: »

sounds like your making excuses and blaming others.

so why can't i live next door to The Carrathers?

You CAN live beside the Carruthers' becuase the system has been engineered to allow that to happen whereas the system used to be more closely aligned to the Capitalist doctrines of aspiration.hard work and reward.

jhxmt

C_Mababejive wrote: »

You CAN live beside the Carruthers' becuase the system has been engineered to allow that to happen whereas the system used to be more closely aligned to the Capitalist doctrines of aspiration.hard work and reward.

Logical fallacy: false dichotomy.

Your argument assumes that "being in social housing" equates to "not working hard" and "not having aspirations".

Given that it is perfectly possible to both be in social housing and be a productive member of society*, surely the determiner of who lives where should not be their housing status, but their productivity?

That would, presumably, be the ideal of capitalism that you're describing?

* If this assumption is not acceptable, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why.

fluffnutter

C_Mababejive wrote: »

You CAN live beside the Carruthers' becuase the system has been engineered to allow that to happen whereas the system used to be more closely aligned to the Capitalist doctrines of aspiration.hard work and reward.

Yeah, fabulous. Hard work = reward at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism's made a whole lot more people miserable than it's ever made happy.