I'm outraged. Benefit/asylum seekers in £2mil house

Status
Not open for further replies.
ST4 said:
Ah yes. You've graced us with your presence. When we get our in/out vote I will raise a £10 bet with you. We vote out. What do you say?
Click to expand...

I don't bet.
Gambling is immoral and the scourge of society. It causes crime. Gamblers should be shot in the face!!!!
I'm outraged that you would even suggest such a thing.
And those who play the EUROl ottery, well they shall be damned to the seventh level of hell for eternity.

How very dare you!
 
viv1969 said:
I don't bet.
Gambling is immoral and the scourge of society. It causes crime. Gamblers should be shot in the face!!!!
I'm outraged that you would even suggest such a thing.
And those who play the EUROl ottery, well they shall be damned to the seventh level of hell for eternity.

How very dare you!
Click to expand...

You'll have to come round here to shoot my in the face. Careful on the M74. Dibble might catch you speeding. And that would be a bigger outrage for you, to be in court with me laughing at you!!!!
 
So, er hypothetically speaking, for those people who think that everyone should always pay market rent, what should happen with charitable trusts like Peabody Estates (N.B founded 1862) whose mission is to provide decent housing at a cost significantly below market prices?

Peabody houses nearly 100,000 Londoners, BTW.
 
boyfalldown said:
Ignoring your politics :). You'd create ghettos of housing benefit families forcing the bill onto councils in less affluent areas. Creating numerous social problems in those areas to? It sounds noble saying you use the rent to help many, but there is 10 people in that house. Assuming it was rented at market value (say £8k pm) then how many more people would you expect to help with that? Of course you still need to pay 6 bedrooms rent with the cash as well. But stick them in a poorer area, it would stop the outrage. Probably save no money though
Click to expand...
If you could get 8k per month for it then you could rent 10 or 11 3 bed terraced houses in basildon and house 40 to 50 people.
 
BBR said:
If you could get 8k per month for it then you could rent 10 or 11 3 bed terraced houses in basildon and house 40 to 50 people.
Click to expand...


so you'd shift the problem somewhere else? - paying for it becomes Essex's problem. In Islington you wouldn't get 6 bedrooms for £8k month any other way .And that £8k maybe your headline figure, but you'd never actually keep all of that £8k. But hasn't this been covered

BTW on right move Basildon has 2 3 bed properties for less than £800 pcm, so where are you going to find 10 or 11?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^114&minBedrooms=3&maxBedrooms=4&googleAnalyticsChannel=renting
 
boyfalldown said:
so you'd shift the problem somewhere else? - paying for it becomes Essex's problem. In Islington you wouldn't get 6 bedrooms for £8k month any other way .And that £8k maybe your headline figure, but you'd never actually keep all of that £8k. But hasn't this been covered

BTW on right move Basildon has 2 3 bed properties for less than £800 pcm, so where are you going to find 10 or 11?

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^114&minBedrooms=3&maxBedrooms=4&googleAnalyticsChannel=renting
Click to expand...
That's because most of them have been bought or rented by other london boroughs like tower hamlets. However you would do what everyone else does, sign on with a few agents. Two available now, maybe two available next week or month.
Many Londoners, like me, who pay for their own homes, have had to move further and further out of town to be able to afford a larger house for a growing family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
BBR said:
That's because most of them have been bought or rented by other london boroughs like tower hamlets. However you would do what everyone else does, sign on with a few agents. Two available now, maybe two available next week or month.
Many Londoners, like me, who pay for their own homes, have had to move further and further out of town to be able to afford a larger house for a growing family.
Click to expand...


And me. I'm simply saying that moving benefit claimants all together places an unbearable weight on both the council z& community you place them in. I'd simply like every council to make the best use of its resources.

Nothing to do with what you or I happen to live in. Incidentally i don't really want to get unto semantics. You possibly could get £8k month for that house, but that and registering with multiple agencies and your 11 house figure are both very generous
 
Last edited:
BBR said:
That's because most of them have been bought or rented by other london boroughs like tower hamlets. However you would do what everyone else does, sign on with a few agents. Two available now, maybe two available next week or month.
Many Londoners, like me, who pay for their own homes, have had to move further and further out of town to be able to afford a larger house for a growing family.
Click to expand...

Whilst those on the brew get houses that you and I could only dream of. I love it, we pay taxes to help our people live better than us. If that is not screwed up I do not know what is.
 
boyfalldown said:
And me. I'm simply saying that moving benefit claimants all together places an unbearable weight on both the council z& community you place them in. I'd simply like every council to make the best use of its resources.
Click to expand...

Not to mention removing people from their jobs and families and breaking up established communities and informal social networks that provide people with support (which was mistake made when a lot of council estates were built in the 60s and 70s that has taken decades to repair).
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Whilst those on the brew get houses that you and I could only dream of. I love it, we pay taxes to help our people live better than us. If that is not screwed up I do not know what is.
Click to expand...

I think anyone reading your posts is aware of the true meaning of screwed up.
 
It's not a matter of fair / unfair. We don't live in a society of eight year old tantrums (well, at least most of us don't).
It's a matter of placing a large family in accomodation which is suitable for their needs.
Without splitting the family, where would you suggest placing them? (Bearing in mind you know absolutely nothing about their circumstances)
 
velonoir said:
The council provides a family with a home from their social housing stock which is suited to their needs..
Click to expand...

My Mother was 1 of 11 children born between 1925 and 1937, they lived in a 3 bedroom terraced house,as all of them survived into adulthood it suited their needs,if it's all one family they can share
 
wack61 said:
My Mother was 1 of 11 children born between 1925 and 1937, they lived in a 3 bedroom terraced house,as all of them survived into adulthood it suited their needs,if it's all one family they can share
Click to expand...


viv1969 said:
It's not a matter of fair / unfair. We don't live in a society of eight year old tantrums (well, at least most of us don't).
It's a matter of placing a large family in accomodation which is suitable for their needs.
Without splitting the family, where would you suggest placing them? (Bearing in mind you know absolutely nothing about their circumstances)
Click to expand...

See above. I would also not be against splitting them up or making 3/4 kids per bedroom. They could fit into something smaller or be moved to a less upmarket areas.
 
Im not sure how accurate this is, so dont shoot the messenger, but arent there certain 'rules'/'guidlines' about how many kids you can have in a room when they reach a certain age?
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Im not sure how accurate this is, so dont shoot the messenger, but arent there certain 'rules'/'guidlines' about how many kids you can have in a room when they reach a certain age?
Click to expand...
Yes, already mentioned earlier in the thread.

If right-to-buy income had been ring-fenced and used to replenish the social housing stock that was lost through this scheme this problem would be less prevalent. But that's short-term politics for you.. rake in the cash today and b****r tomorrow. The tragedy is that local authorities are now paying rent to private landlords to provide social housing in former council properties.
 
What if there aren't any available properties that meet the ST4 s***tiness criteria for brown people at the moment?
 
Alastair said:
Yes, already mentioned earlier in the thread.

If right-to-buy income had been ring-fenced and used to replenish the social housing stock that was lost through this scheme this problem would be less prevalent. But that's short-term politics for you.. rake in the cash today and b****r tomorrow. The tragedy is that local authorities are now paying rent to private landlords to provide social housing in former council properties.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I must have missed that earlier.
 
Alastair said:
Yes, already mentioned earlier in the thread.

If right-to-buy income had been ring-fenced and used to replenish the social housing stock that was lost through this scheme this problem would be less prevalent. But that's short-term politics for you.. rake in the cash today and b****r tomorrow. The tragedy is that local authorities are now paying rent to private landlords to provide social housing in former council properties.
Click to expand...

What, surely you don't mean this Thatcher policy could have a fault!!
 
Rapscallion said:
What, surely you don't mean this Thatcher policy could have a fault!!
Click to expand...
A Thatcher policy that wasn't addressed by subsequent Blair/Brown governments - which probably benefited from the resulting gentrification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
ST4 said:
What if there aren't any available properties that meet the ST4 s***tiness criteria for people living off the state at the moment?

Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...
So now it includes all state pensioners as well.. I bet that goes down great with the grey vote :wave:



:stop:
And before anyone makes their next statement, remember that we operate a pay-as-you-go state pension system, pensioners are not receiving payments from their own previous contributions but from everyone else's current contributions. Yet another Thatcher-Blair/Brown series of policies was to stop saving for a rainy day whilst the sun shines and to reduce tax revenue and pension investments during the boom years. Which is another reason the budget has been so far in the sh*t when times haven't been as good.
 
ST4 said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

Can you quantify what an acceptable state of s***tiness is? Do people get extra points for having family members killed/tortured before fleeing their homeland? Get an en-suite for suffering a debilitating illness that prevents them from working?
 
mid_gen said:
Can you quantify what an acceptable state of s***tiness is? Do people get extra points for having family members killed/tortured before fleeing their homeland? Get an en-suite for suffering a debilitating illness that prevents them from working?
Click to expand...

Its like Marie Antoinette, let them eat Brioche!!!!

If you cannot see the flaw in councils homing people in properties that would be normally occupied by a very wealthy person to someone who's on the breadline then I have wasted my time.
 
If you cannot see the flaw in councils homing people in properties that would be normally occupied by a very wealthy person to someone who's on the breadline
Click to expand...

We don't want people 'like that' round here, bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood ... oh and "won't someone think of the children" (but not the children in the benefit claimants family obviously because they don't matter, won't someone think of the rich children)
 
Last edited:
Can't have poor people living near wealthy people can we!

Deary me. Enough of these threads, some people just need to be left to scream at brick walls on their own.
 
mid_gen said:
Can't have poor people living near wealthy people can we!

Deary me. Enough of these threads, some people just need to be left to scream at brick walls on their own.
Click to expand...

well to be fair they need to live reasonably close so that the rich people have easy access to drug dealers and whores ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
big soft moose said:
well to be fair they need to live reasonably close so that the rich people have easy access to drug dealers and whores ;)
Click to expand...


Not to mention so they can chauffeur them around, we couldn't have the poor little rich people walking to collect their drugs. Could we? They're may be an immigrant waiting round to corner after all
 
a drunken chav imigrant with a rottweiler ;)
 
big soft moose said:
We don't want people 'like that' round here, bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood ... oh and "won't someone think of the children" (but not the children in the benefit claimants family obviously because they don't matter, won't someone think of the rich children)
Click to expand...

What's wrong with people paying premium prices to live in a premium area? Nothing.

What's wrong with people paying premium prices to find the state have put them there gratis is calling.

Let's go back to my 1st class rail analogy . You pay more for a better seat/ service and in most cases to sit in an area where the passangers are likely to be more civilised .

Imagine them when the rail company gives 1st class seats to people that couldn't even afford a standard class seat.

That's what we have here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top