We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. 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!
Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30
Comments
-
Nonsense. Unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing paid accomodation (Eg majorly unfit for habitation, extremely bad area, several cities away from your job etc) you should NOT refuse what your given.
What does this have to do with race?
Only YOU have mentioned race. Unless the disabled have become a separate race.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »And we curse ourselves with 21st century slums? Rule Britannia!
I would respond but you clearly didn't read the response and chose to flounce; a lot of council housing are 21st century slums. Part of that is the attitude towards them as occupants have a misplaced aspiration that they deserve somewhere better.
Nothing wrong with modernising them, or Victorian housing to a decent standard. Which is what they deserve, if you want somewhere nice educate yourself work hard and earn it.
And if its too late then why is that my responsibility?
Leave social housing for the those less able and who need it.
21st century slums sounds good a good sound bite are you an alternate reality Grant Shapps?Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
Then youve clearly misunderstood my posts. My arguement is that instead of knocking down servicable housing, one should refurbish said housing to bring it up to modern standards, ie double glazing, electrics, plumbing etc. My argument was NOT a demand for forced austerity in Social Housing. Im sorry youre having difficulty reading.
No need for crayons this end, im afraid. Save them for filling out your specsavers request.
Well said they read what they wanted to read not what you or I said.
specsavers ?? Lighting up the chalice needs the hubble telescope to sort out their myopia!Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
concerned43 wrote: »Nothing to do with race BUT with descrimination. Why should someone on benefits be any different to someone who isn't when it comes to housing (or anything else )
Thankfully the housing departments do not ask if the client is on benefits when making an application!
and I think you will find that all but the 'homeless' are asked which areas they wish to live in. The problem is the state of the houses which are offered as there is very little legislation to ensure quality housing is offered.
With regards to the 'homeless' the council treat the homeless like the scum of the earth and put them in the most deprived areas (where noone wants to live) or miles away from their support network.
You shouldnt make such inflammatory analogies. The simple fact is when you have the public purse meeting demand for social housing, one cannot expect as free hand of choice as there would be in the private sector with an unlimited budget. In real terms such constraints would include:
- High demand for certain areas, that cannot realistically be met (Central London springs to mind)
- Larger houses (When such houses are scarce in a lot of areas)
- Other bespoke requirements (ie got to have a garden and 3 bedrooms, close to x area)
When you are claiming 'free' housing, you must accept compromise, or as its been more bluntly put elsewhere in the thread:
*Beggars cant be choosers*
If you still disagree with this, id love to hear your (practical) solution to the problem...0 -
Then youve clearly misunderstood my posts. My arguement is that instead of knocking down servicable housing, one should refurbish said housing to bring it up to modern standards, ie double glazing, electrics, plumbing etc. My argument was NOT a demand for forced austerity in Social Housing. Im sorry youre having difficulty reading.
No need for crayons this end, im afraid. Save them for filling out your specsavers request.
I've decided against the crayons anyway. I'm pretty sure you'd just eat them. Much of the Victorian Housing stock was designed and built for .... uh .... Victorians. I'll ask again.........lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »(sigh)... Because that's not what families want. Why not knock em down and build the houses that people want to live in?
I know you long to see the roads full of Ford Prefects powered by modern electric motors, but the people don't want that either. Social Housing tenants are consumers, not second hand citizens only fit to be shepherded into the kind of housing no-one else wants.0 -
You shouldnt make such inflammatory analogies. The simple fact is when you have the public purse meeting demand for social housing, one cannot expect as free hand of choice as there would be in the private sector with an unlimited budget. In real terms such constraints would include:
- High demand for certain areas, that cannot realistically be met (Central London springs to mind)
- Larger houses (When such houses are scarce in a lot of areas)
- Other bespoke requirements (ie got to have a garden and 3 bedrooms, close to x area)
When you are claiming 'free' housing, you must accept compromise, or as its been more bluntly put elsewhere in the thread:
*Beggars cant be choosers*
If you still disagree with this, id love to hear your (practical) solution to the problem...
It's not "free" housing. Social Housing tenants pay rent. That rent pays for the costs of the provider, including new build projects. Most providers of social housing run at a surplus (profit) provided by the rental income.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Only YOU have mentioned race.
Im flabbergasted - where in this thread have I bought up racial issues to back up my arguements?lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Unless the disabled have become a separate race.
I dont think the disabled are a race...0 -
propertyman wrote: »I would respond but you clearly didn't read the response and chose to flounce; a lot of council housing are 21st century slums. Part of that is the attitude towards them as occupants have a misplaced aspiration that they deserve somewhere better.
Nothing wrong with modernising them, or Victorian housing to a decent standard. Which is what they deserve, if you want somewhere nice educate yourself work hard and earn it.
And if its too late then why is that my responsibility?
Leave social housing for the those less able and who need it.
21st century slums sounds good a good sound bite are you an alternate reality Grant Shapps?
I see your rather broad and uneducated brush has decided to paint all social housing the same colour. Do a bit of research. Look at where the pathfinder areas are. Look at the stock. Look at the area. Most of it is private, not social, housing, left to ruin by landlords who have no social concern for the plight of their tenants or the wider community. Selective licensing was introduced to try and address this with those landlords requiring registration which entailed establishing that they were "fit and proper". Were talking more of slum clearance, not demolishing the leafy suburbs.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »I've decided against the crayons anyway. I'm pretty sure you'd just eat them. Much of the Victorian Housing stock was designed and built for .... uh .... Victorians. I'll ask again.........
Social Housing tenants are consumers, not second hand citizens only fit to be shepherded into the kind of housing no-one else wants.
You are from an alternate reality. Have you wandered around the Victorian parts for most UK cities, perhaps even Boston or Toronto who have even more Victorian housing than London?
And it sells !
Nothing wrong with refurbishing it and living in it.
Social housing tenants are in the main from the 1980's onward are second hand and second class consumers in housing. They should get a decent standard to live in, in the same way as any house should have decent standards, but choice has to be met from the sweat of their brow, not mine.Stop! Think. Read the small print. Trust nothing and assume that it is your responsibility. That way it rarely goes wrong.
Actively hunting down the person who invented the imaginary tenure, "share freehold"; if you can show me one I will produce my daughter's unicorn0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards