Should 'Social Housing' be re-branded 'Taxpayer-supported Housing?

Loughton_Monkey

I note that the Guardian's poll on this issue [should it be re-branded as taxpayer-funded housing] currently shows 84% against. This proves conclusively that Guardian readers are left wing, namb-pamby, pinko, communist, Marxist, Leninist, trade unionists.

On a similar vein, I recall that there was once a debate about the natives of Belgium. We call the French 'Frogs', the Italians 'Spics' etc. but not derogatory term had yet been invented for the Belgians. The winner of the competition to find the most derogatory term for them came up with the simple term 'Belgians'.

Hence I think we should stick to the most disdainful term we can think of. That's surely "Council Tenants"?

chucknorris

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

On a similar vein, I recall that there was once a debate about the natives of Belgium. We call the French 'Frogs', the Italians 'Spics' etc. but not derogatory term had yet been invented for the Belgians. The winner of the competition to find the most derogatory term for them came up with the simple term 'Belgians'.

I found a documentary on this very competition and as you can see the winner named them 'Miserable fat Belgian b*stards':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19fcN3VaXs4

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I have grilled him a few times about this on twitter, and got a few replies to which I did not like his stance but respected him at least getting back to me(wotstit calls it trolling)

Well I won't embarrass you by quoting some of your twitter posts. At least you had a moment of lucidity and deleted them. Have you set up a new anonymous account to continue your 'grilling'?

System

wotsthat wrote: »

Well I won't embarrass you by quoting some of your twitter posts. At least you had a moment of lucidity and deleted them. Have you set up a new anonymous account to continue your 'grilling'?

@angryandhomeless?

Loughton_Monkey

Joeskeppi wrote: »

@angryandhomeless?

http://amflanagan.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/annoyed-angry-and-homeless.html

Are you accusing wotsthat of being an American divorced black female?

olly300

There are properties which aren't owned by traditional housing associations or councils but charitable organisations including the Church in trust. These are definitely social housing but weren't paid for by the tax payer.

Hence you can't relabel these properties as taxpayer funded housing.

Loughton_Monkey

olly300 wrote: »

There are properties which aren't owned by traditional housing associations or councils but charitable organisations including the Church in trust. These are definitely social housing but weren't paid for by the tax payer.

Hence you can't relabel these properties as taxpayer funded housing.

What about 'God Pod'?

... or Church of Rome Home?

StevieJ

BobQ wrote: »

Mr Shapps should realise that what matters is what function someone or something performs not what it is called.

We could rename Mr Shapps MP as Mr Shapps TFJm standing for Taxpayer Funded Job. But he would still be an idiot. What next, should we call Railways Taxpayer Subsidised Private Transport; or the House of Commons a Taxpayer Funded Social Club.

When will the Government focus on the real problems?

And what about the taxpayers money wasted on 'Thatchers folly' i,e, right to buy?

prepareathome

I live in social housing which wasn't paid for by the tax payer - a wealthy man left his land and wealth to the city(he had no family) for the express purpose of building homes in the countryside to help the inner city poor and rent to go for the upkeep once his money was gone, ran out in 1967. My home is one of them built in 1932 in what was then was outside the city boundry. We are surrounded by houses now although we still have farms round the corner but are within city just now- my front fence is the border. Most have been sold and mine is one of the few left and I assure you our repairs ( we rarely call them out unless its something major and thankfully only that a couple of times) are more than covered by our rent(we have always paid it in full and been here now 20 years) which is about average compared to the private rented ones by us in fact dearer than some of them- two three/five doors away. So not all social housing is cheaper than private rent.

CKhalvashi

Carl31 wrote: »

It does annoy me when i see a council tenant with a brand new bmw parked on the drive

It does annoy some when I change my car every 12-18 months; I've got a Jag Sportbrake on the drive, which I picked up just after midnight.

What they fail to realise is that my car is indeed owned by a car leasing company, again leaving out of the equation that I own the company in question........

We lived in social housing for about a year, and we had a brand new Pug 206 (in September 2002), then a brand new Pug 406 (in September 2003, which was my first taxi, when I left teaching to start my own company and needed some flexibility). Not the poshest of cars ever, but they were both under a year old, parked out side a council property. What I earn (which at that point was about £250 per 12-hour shift in profit), IMO, is none of anyone else's business. Some weeks I earned £1,500+ in profit, some weeks I only did a few short shifts, covering expenses, rent and bills/food, as I was doing something else and some weeks I didn't go out at all.

For the record, my opinion is that LA/HA properties have been abused by some, but in turn, we have worked awfully hard for what we've got, and why should we be put down for that?

CK