go4it Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Actually, laughing at people with autism who face eviction for small sums of money isn't really all that funny. He should have paid his rent. Autism did not stop him applying for a council house, or signing on for benefits, so shouldn't stop him from paying rent. His disability is being used as an excuse because he's spent his benefits. The fact that the Council have to defend this is stupid. What's next? I couldn't pay my rent because I had to buy loads of wine gums to deal with my Type II diabetes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minki Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I rather liked their 'I'll laugh as you go down' headline on the back page, Tues April 12th. I thought it quite apt to see it captioned above a picture of a professional footballer. I bet Wayne Rooney regrets saying the very same thing, especially to that octogenarian lady with the suspenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 What a pathetic man to use his mental illness as an excuse for getting himself in debt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minki Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 What a pathetic man to use his mental illness as an excuse for getting himself in debt! As opposed to the proportion of society that are fortunate enough not to have a mental illness and still descend into debt? Is he pathetic for being mentally ill or pathetic for being in debt? Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Actually, laughing at people with autism who face eviction for small sums of money isn't really all that funny. The OP said that the story was laughable, not the subject. Do you work as a copy-editor on The Star by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftlad Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 must be another very very slow news day in sheffield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verydull Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 surely the question is more about sheffield homes mis management of this guys tenancy. They didn't identify him as needing some help to maintain it? Also, why are they threatening him with eviction when others can and do rack up more debt and are allowed to keepliving in their homes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irenewilde Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 surely the question is more about sheffield homes mis management of this guys tenancy. They didn't identify him as needing some help to maintain it? Doesn't sound like there was much mis-management on the part of Sheffield Homes to me... “We work very closely with tenants, firstly when they sign up for a council property, then throughout their tenancy and during the rent recovery process, to offer support for any additional needs they may have. “Mr Royston told us he did not have any particular needs that prevented him from paying his rent. I wonder who took the (non) story to The Star - was it Mr Royston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HandyBob Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I think you or all missing the point about this story.... it stated that Mr Royston addressed the problem by paying £3.30 a week to pay off the arrears, if he was told by Sheffield Homes to pay this amount than why was he taken to court. This also happened to a Heart Attack Victim, where-bye there was in arrears, and like Mr Royston they also addressed the problem by seeing Sheffield Homes and was told to pay £3.30 every week . This was done with-out fail....but guess what? there too was taken to court for rent arrears all though it was been paid off. So I think you should all have a go at Sheffield Homes, and some one should look into them and ask WHY? are there taking tenants to court who is addressing the rent arrears problem.. yet not are taking some who does nothing about the arrears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Is he pathetic for being mentally ill or pathetic for being in debt? Which is it? Neither. No one is pathetic for being mentally ill or for being in debt. He is pathetic for using his mental illness as an excuse for getting into debt. There was no need to invoke his collector geek hobby as a reason for spending more money than he could afford. He got into debt and now he is paying it back. As the original post said, a non-event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.