chem1st Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 You might aswell go further and evict anyone who has been convicted of an offense, anybody who has ever claimed benefits or tax credits. Round them up and shoot them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 But a lot of the rioters were not on benefits , some had jobs, amoung them, a charity worker, postman ,school teacher, life guard, and a millionairs daughter to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 In the realistic long run, it'd only make things worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 But a lot of the rioters were not on benefits , some had jobs, amoung them, a charity worker, postman ,school teacher, life guard, and a millionairs daughter to name a few. People get drawn in, people who would normally never do anything like this and don't even know what the "reason" for the riot is, the same thing happened over here in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup finals, asked later why they had rioted people said they didn't know. People tend to copy what everyone around them is doing, they don't want to stand out from the crowd, and they don't want to become a victim of the crowd. It's like mass hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I did, but you're still incorrect. No I'm not.. how'd u like them apples!? It's not a personal abuse unless you really can't understand something that's self evident to a 10 year old. Since that's what you appear to be suggesting, I withdraw the remark and apologise. Aha.. trying to be clever as well as insulting.. no you were intimating that because I didn't go with your notion, that I failed to understand it; equating that lack of understanding to that below a 10 year old. Thereby you were insinuating (and still are by this response) that I have an understanding less than the average 10 year old. It would not have been personal abuse if I had the mental capacity of a sub 10 year old, because that would have been a truth. As it is I'm going to make the wild assumption thatr neither qualified nor have had the opportunity to psycho-analyse me.. thereby you're way out of line! Apology not accepted.. because it was actually a none-apology to try and score points! Post 63, laughable (as usual). Ah anything or anybody that disagrees with your opinion is either laughable, or the person is inept.. I'm starting to get the picture. And I explained that the council *could* get more than needs to be paid (assuming there are no bars against them doing so), and because they don't the council tax across the board must be higher to reflect this, therefore council housing *is* subsidised You HADN'T explained that when I replied, that came in a later edit. Notwithstanding that doesn't make your ASSUMPTION (because that is what it is) true. That elsewhere is council tax, which is higher than it could be because it subsidises the reduced rents on council properties (as well as many other things no doubt). Again purely supposition, unless you have a particular insight to authority accounting!? Here's the rub.. and this bit is important.. The council might for example decide, with these higher rents they *could* theoretically get according to you.. we'll paint and decorate the houses instead of the tenant having to do it at their own expense.. and council tax remains the same? And I guess they'd still be subsidised using your notion. Did I suggest otherwise? The fact still remains that the council *could* get more in rent for those properties, that they don't means the lost revenue must be found from elsewhere. Could they? in the standard most are in, in comparison to the average private rental? Again purely supposition! Regardless, whatever you pay is going to be slightly higher across the board to cover the reduced rents on council properties. And 92% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Why? They're not necessarily the ones being subsidised in this scenario. Of course they are; everyone, if we're to use your notion as fact, are having ALL their council services subsidised compared to real term individual costs. Totally incorrect, the tennant isn't the only one paying the cost, as has been explained (in detail) at least 3 times now! No, you've made suppositions based on assumptions, and tried to pass them off as fact at least 3 times... there IS a difference So there you have it, by your own definitions it's number 3! Incorrect in several ways first and foremost they were dictionary definitions, and not mine. Glad we got that sorted. Indeed, you've bored me to death now listening to your theoretical 'facts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 No I'm not.. how'd u like them apples!? Love 'em Aha.. trying to be clever as well as insulting.. no you were intimating that because I didn't go with your notion, that I failed to understand it; equating that lack of understanding to that below a 10 year old. Thereby you were insinuating (and still are by this response) that I have an understanding less than the average 10 year old. There is not meant to be any insult, there is no opinion, what I have stated is blatantly an obvious fact, for exactly the reasons that have been explained by more than just me. I was merely pointing out that it's such a simple concept that a child should easily be able to understand it. It would not have been personal abuse if I had the mental capacity of a sub 10 year old, because that would have been a truth. As it is I'm going to make the wild assumption thatr neither qualified nor have had the opportunity to psycho-analyse me.. thereby you're way out of line! So how do you explain your inability to comprehend this basic concept? Apology not accepted.. because it was actually a none-apology to try and score points! If you say so, but completely incorrect (ofcourse). Ah anything or anybody that disagrees with your opinion is either laughable, or the person is inept.. I'm starting to get the picture. Not at all, again, it's not an opinion it's undenyable fact. A post that claims something as utter rubbish without explaining *anything* isn't an indication of anything. You HADN'T explained that when I replied, that came in a later edit. Notwithstanding that doesn't make your ASSUMPTION (because that is what it is) true. Nonsense, I've said pretty much exactly that in all my posts on the matter. Again purely supposition, unless you have a particular insight to authority accounting!? I have common sense and the ability to add up, you don't need anything else. Here's the rub.. and this bit is important.. The council might for example decide, with these higher rents they *could* theoretically get according to you.. we'll paint and decorate the houses instead of the tenant having to do it at their own expense.. and council tax remains the same? And I guess they'd still be subsidised using your notion. They are subisidised, there's simply no getting around it, it's a fact! Could they? in the standard most are in, in comparison to the average private rental? Again purely supposition! Oh a bit of a back peddle, now they're all dilapidated are they? I did qualify in a previous post "of similar standard", you must have missed that bit. And 92% of all statistics are made up on the spot. So you can't actually dispute that fact then. Good to know. Of course they are; everyone, if we're to use your notion as fact, are having ALL their council services subsidised compared to real term individual costs. Now you're just being silly for the sake of it. Some people pay more, some people pay less. Some people subsidise others, some people are subsidised. Not everyone can be subsidised. No, you've made suppositions based on assumptions, and tried to pass them off as fact at least 3 times... there IS a difference They're not assumptions, they're absolute undenyable facts, for exactly the reasons that have been explained, not just by me! Incorrect in several ways first and foremost they were dictionary definitions, and not mine. *You* used them. Number 3 is still valid in terms of council housing, as has been explained. Indeed, you've bored me to death now listening to your theoretical 'facts'. Nothing theoretical about them, council houses are subsidised, that is the very reason for their existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 There is not meant to be any insult, there is no opinion, what I have stated is blatantly an obvious fact, for exactly the reasons that have been explained by more than just me. So how do you explain your inability to comprehend this basic concept? See you're doing it again deliberately trying to cast aspersions about my ability to comprehend. Simply because I disagree with your flawed notions.. that IS insulting however you try and slice it!. The intent is clear. blah blah more made up inaccurate stuff declared as fact. Insults and pushing opinion as fact.. pointless responding really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 See you're doing it again deliberately trying to cast aspersions about my ability to comprehend. Simply because I disagree with your flawed notions.. that IS insulting however you try and slice it!. The intent is clear. I'm asking a simple question, why can't you understand this simple and basic concept? Insults and pushing opinion as fact.. pointless responding really! Indeed, no point continually showing you don't understand something, you'd look silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm asking a simple question, why can't you understand this simple and basic concept? Indeed, no point continually showing you don't understand something, you'd look silly. LOL you just cant help yourself can you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Closed for review. do not repost this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.