Costs soar as Labour voters told to pay their way

Jennifer_Jane

TruckerT wrote: »

But you seemed to say that your ex-bosses ability to expose his children to experiencing life in three different countries is an option which is available to everyone.

I am assuming that he or she was not on the run from the law...or the immigration authorities.

TruckerT

You appear to be trying to build an argument out of very flimsy points, Trucker.

First of all, you also seem to be sexist along with your class snobbery. My ex-boss is female, not male. Although I concede your second paragraph acknowledges this.

She is high-level, but her job took her (as it has taken many middle-managers in that company, and as it takes many employees in global companies), to the company offices in other places in the world). They are ordinary people, doing ordinary jobs, in middle management. They all went to state schools. I have no idea, or interest in, what class they supposedly are.

My point was that moving schools is not "misery" for children. Other things can be. My father was an alcoholic and died when I was 18. Our home life was chaotic, dangerous, poor, and unpredictable, but the number of schools I went to didn't contribute, per se, to any misery.

wotsthat

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It's a shame that this is costing money in the short term, but hopefully people will start getting the message that they can't just turn up in the middle of central London with their pockets turned out and a couple of kids in tow and expect a taxpayer funded flat 5 minutes walk from Buckingham palace because, because it's their rights innit.

I don't see how putting people up in hotels or B&B's is going to save money in the long term either.

People aren't stupid - if the alternative was better than a B&B they'd be doing it - that's why the taxpayer costs have gone up and not down.

Just more evidence of the the UK's obsession with London and the South-East.

Jennifer_Jane

TruckerT wrote: »

!!!!!! - BUILD COUNCIL HOUSES!!!

...it's a no-brainer...

TruckerT

Trucker - the family have been moved out of Westminster to Brent. They are not living in cardboard boxes underneath a railway track. They've got a flat in Brent.

It's incredible that her sense of entitlement is such that she feels hard done by.

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/08/councils-benefit-cuts-families-homes




A Guardian reader, apparently dissatisfied with her free handout

It's a shame that this is costing money in the short term, but hopefully people
will start getting the message that they can't just turn up in the middle of
central London with their pockets turned out and a couple of kids in tow and
expect a taxpayer funded flat 5 minutes walk from Buckingham palace because,
because it's their rights innit.

That's your prejudice talking. Very rarely happens.

I found the comments infuriating, I can't understand how anyone who actually
works and pays taxes can approve virtually unlimited amounts of public money
being handed over to private landlords so that people on benefits can live
places people who work ad live within their means can't afford.[/

Not true.... more prejudice against the disadvantaged and a gross distortion of reality. I work in London with such situations and you are generally talking rubbish.

Moby

Fella wrote: »

No it's not. The UK already has much more council housing than many other countries in Europe including Germany etc. People have repeated the lie that Thatcher sold it all so often that most people are too stupid to actually question it & think it's true.

That's because it is true. The properties were often bought by rich 'Rachmann' landlords who hiked the rents and the general taxpayer ends up paying the bill through the benefit system.

ruggedtoast

I suspect this Groaner article, like a good Toynbee or Yasmin Alibhi Brown, is intentionally inflammatory to drive hits and comment activity; as we have all the ingredients for indignation here (multiple child having immigrant single mother on benefits living in central London).

Nevertheless I notice that these London-centric pieces do genuinely seem to see being moved from Zone 1 to Zone 3 for example, as nothing less than social cleansing. The fact that millions of people who don't live in London commute for 90 minutes door to door each way each day due to economic necessity, seems to escape them.

ruggedtoast

Moby wrote: »

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/08/councils-benefit-cuts-families-homes




A Guardian reader, apparently dissatisfied with her free handout




That's your prejudice talking. Very rarely happens.



Not true.... more prejudice against the disadvantaged and a gross distortion of reality. I work in London with such situations and you are generally talking rubbish.

Actually, I personally know someone who came from an EU country and turned up at Westminster council's housing office with a fake story about his grandfather having lived in the borough, who was given a nice 1 bed flat off Oxford Street with a very affordable right to buy value attached and no further investigation.

I know another couple from Latin America who boasted they could literally see Big Ben from their council flat.

So apparently it does happen.

Anyway, I think if you're trying to convince the world that the majority of people in social housing in central London circa 2013 have any heritage links to the area they are housed, then you're onto a losing wicket.

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Moby wrote: »

Actually, I personally know someone who came from an EU country and turned up
at Westminster council's housing office with a fake story about his grandfather
having lived in the borough, who was given a nice 1 bed flat off Oxford Street
with a very affordable right to buy value attached and no further
investigation.





I know another couple from Latin America who boasted they could literally see
Big Ben from their council flat.





So apparently it does happen.

There are always incidents such as this but they are rare and not really indicative of the true situation overall.

Anyway, I think if you're trying to convince the world that the majority of
people in social housing in central London circa 2013 have any heritage links to
the area they are housed, then you're onto a losing wicket.

Some do some don't....... its a healthy multi cultural mix. Its what we celebrated during the Olympics.

chewmylegoff

I don't personally remember any Olympic events involving the racial profile of the occupants of central london council housing. How did that event work? Presumably we won a gold medal?

ruggedtoast

Moby wrote: »

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Moby wrote: »

There are always incidents such as this but they are rare and not really indicative of the true situation overall.


Some do some don't....... its a healthy multi cultural mix. Its what we celebrated during the Olympics.

I'm pretty sure what we celebrated was Britain under a common identity, for once.

I am pretty sure I remember everyone saying what a blessed relief it was to do so and finally not having a national event sabotaged by some multi-culti political agenda designed to appeal to council diversity outreach co-ordinators.

If you work in this field and you're tacitly admitting that there is some kind of racial engineering going on in Central London and think thats a good thing, then I am at odds with you. On the grounds of common sense.