chem1st Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 If everyone under 35, not living with parents, is expected to live in shared housing, then some victims of crime will end up having to share housing with the perpetrators unless safeguards are in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. And whilst the cuts in housing benefit may generally be justified in the economic well-being of the country, some of those cuts are not. Forcing people to share homes with others whom pose a potential risk... Pushing mentally disabled people into housing which will aggravate their condition... The London resident who claims as much in benefits as he earns working full time @ NMW, cheaper to keep on the dole in the North, but what of his job, was it productive? did it have a positive effect upon society? A 'private family life' in a SHARED house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Typical of a half decent topis for discussion ruined by chemist1 (who I believe to be fundamentally sound, if somewhat deranged) individual sensationalising and putting absurd degrees of spin on an otherwise worthwhile point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 In less than a year, anybody aged 26-34 will have their housing benefit cut down to the SRR, which is considerably lower than the 1 bed rate. In Sheffield these figures are £60 and £88.85. These people are looking at a £28.85 drop in income because of their age. Whilst cuts to housing benefit may be a good thing, age discrimination wrt the cuts is not. Certain people will be exempt from these changes, namely those with children, and those coming from care. However, many organisations are calling for others to be exempt from the SRR. Shelter is one for example. They call for the following groups to be exempt; The question I am asking is, should rapists be exempt from the SRR and thus be entitled to a higher rate of housing benefit. The idea is for all people under 35 to live in shared accommodation (forcing our children and the current generation of taxpayers into sub standard accommodation, and severely restricting their ability to get on in the world, have a family etc.). However, by doing so, people with mental health problems, sexual offenders, violent offenders, drug addicts, low wage workers, young women & men will be forced to share housing with each other. Some young women will end up having to share HMO housing with rapists. Is this fair? Surely rapists should not be encouraged to share housing with potential victims? Maybe it would be better to give them higher rates of housing benefit in order for them to live on their own... Trying to get things back on topic,,, Rapists shouldnt get housing benefit. They should be locked up until the day they die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Location114 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 One very simple solution to this problem here get a job and pay your own rent simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Typical of a half decent topis for discussion ruined by chemist1 (who I believe to be fundamentally sound, if somewhat deranged) individual sensationalising and putting absurd degrees of spin on an otherwise worthwhile point. What is your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 One very simple solution to this problem here get a job and pay your own rent simple. A man may work 84 hours at minimum wage and still require housing benefit. His wage is largely insignificant wrt his income, considering housing benefit and working tax credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardoor Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 i think you need to get some professional help because you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with housing benefits. as regards your post then the situation will be no different than what it is now Maybe? but what's wrong with being passionate about a subject? I think housing is an important issue and inevitably rapists could easily be sharing accommodation with victims of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pb1977 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Why did you feel the need to single out rapists and not just put ex-offenders in the topic title. Going for the tabloid spin on the story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Why did you feel the need to single out rapists and not just put ex-offenders in the topic title. Going for the tabloid spin on the story Shock tactics/cheap points tend to get views. To be fair, I shouldn't title threads like that, but I did. This change in housing policy has many implications. A lot of people will be denied access to housing and forced into the lowest tier of housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.