We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council evictions begin
Comments
-
Quite:T
I do see that owner-occupiers seem to be getting off more easily. There could be an obvious reason for that, ie owner-occupiers are probably much less likely to get up to anything like rioting. Once one owns ones own home - then you have a "stake in society". If there was one thing Margaret Thatcher (who I'm no great fan of incidentally....) recognised was that if people have their own home then they have a lot more to lose and will have a stake in Society staying stable. So - as a matter of interest - how many owner-occupiers were out there rioting? I'd be willing to bet there werent many - if any....:cool:
Also - owner-occupiers arent taking anything from Society. Council tenants are taking subsidised homes from us and it behoves them not to "bite the hand that feeds them". Owner-occupiers arent getting any help from Society - even MIRAS vanished quite some years ago now. We get no help at all - and if we become unemployed there comes a point (think its 2 years into unemployment if it goes on that long) where Society refuses to give us any money towards mortgage interest and WE lose OUR homes (despite having done nothing wrong).
This post seems very confused? am I missing something here?I do see that owner-occupiers seem to be getting off more easily. There could be an obvious reason for that, ie owner-occupiers are probably much less likely to get up to anything like rioting.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Wandsworth council will re-house the mother and the daughter as they have a legal obligation to.
Not if they are intentionally homeless?
eg by contravening the terms of the lease by handling stolen goods?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
The point is that various posters are complaining that there is a sorta "apartheid" going on when it comes to Society imposing penalties on the rioters. They state "How come Council tenants will lose their homes - whilst those who own their homes will be 'all right jack' to paraphrase".
They seem to feel that because owner-occupiers wont lose their homes through rioting that Council tenants shouldnt either - and they think that would be fair.
My point is that Council tenants are TAKING from Society (ie subsidised rents) and therefore have obligations to Society. Owner-occupiers arent taking anything from Society - and therefore dont have corresponding obligations to behave themselves.
Nevertheless - owner-occupiers have probably behaved themselves a good bit better in the riots than some from Council tenancies - and the reason is because we have more to lose personally if Society goes into meltdown.
Sorry - I guess it didnt come over that clearly if one hadnt read those posts moaning that Council tenants are being treated unfairly as compared with owners. I'm just trying to right the balance a bit and point out that we dont owe Society so much as they do.0 -
This reminds of Blair's 'march the yobs down to the cashpoint for instant justice' speech-whatever became of that idea?
Exactly. This is soundbite politics at its worst. Parents should be held responsible for the actions of their children, after initially being given a chance to influence their child's behaviour. Once the child becomes an adult however, then surely they as individuals are responsible for their own actions.
If the parents commit criminal acts themselves (including allowing their property to be filled with stolen goods) then take action against them, but otherwise punish the criminal - evict them from the property by allowing them to spend time at Her Majesty's pleasure."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
Nevertheless - owner-occupiers have probably behaved themselves a good bit better in the riots than some from Council tenancies - and the reason is because we have more to lose personally if Society goes into meltdown.
We are only discussing people who have supposedly been involved in the riots, are you saying there is a better class of rioter in private dwellings
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
You're decades behind the times. Rent subsidy went out when Housing Benefit came in.My point is that Council tenants are TAKING from Society (ie subsidised rents)"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Evict all rioters.
So what if we have to re-home them? So what if it costs?
Let's make it a bit bl00dy inconvenient from them.
If it impacts on an 8 year old then her mother should have thought about how she was rearing her son.
18 and rioting? Jeez I had only just got over the excitement of buying alcohol legally.
Balaclavas and rioting? I'd have shat myself.0 -
The son's only been charged with attempted theft. So no loot.Clifford_Pope wrote: »Not if they are intentionally homeless?
eg by contravening the terms of the lease by handling stolen goods?
And violent disorder. Which probably just means he was there."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
He's a keen churchgoer, so we're told.JonnyBravo wrote: »If it impacts on an 8 year old then her mother should have thought about how she was rearing her son."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards