Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 and again, so social discrimination then. It's discrimination to not unfairly subsidise a subset of people? Surely it's discrimination to allow a few lucky tenants to live somewhere expensive but for the majority to not have that option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 It's discrimination to not unfairly subsidise a subset of people? Surely it's discrimination to allow a few lucky tenants to live somewhere expensive but for the majority to not have that option? You can't flip an argument like that; it's nonsensical. Everyone knows I'm right even though people don't like to admit or just refuse point blank to admit it. Nobody has tried to counter what I said in post 33 because they know I am right and they also know I'll have more than one response waiting if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Possibly because your argument doesn't make sense. You say tht it won't be built on green/brownfield because of the cost and then you say it will be built on playing fields (which are brownfield probably) which presumably will cost but you said that that cost isn't affordable so your argument goes round like a spinning rat and goes up the drainpipe.... Apart from that your usual counter will be your usual champagne socialist arguments of wringing your hands and despairing that council tenants don't get to live in the really nice areas. I presume you think it acceptable to have one lucky tenant in Dore then and another stuck in some rathole of a B&B, rather than both of them have a house each in a less commodious place than Dore..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Surely it's discrimination to allow a few lucky tenants to live somewhere expensive but for the majority to not have that option? When a lot of council accomodation was first built many areas were not considered affluent. It's not the tenants fault that areas have become affluent. Many tenants have protected tenancies, which allows them to pass the tenancy on to a member of their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Honestly I'm all for this, seems to be all pros and no cons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 ...Many tenants have protected tenancies, which allows them to pass the tenancy on to a member of their children. WHAT! You mean they enjoy inherited privilege!? (Why is it that the socialists always seem to forget that when they're talking about 'unearned inherited privilege'?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bailey Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I think you've probably missed his point, if the penny drops it'll be going really fast now so try not to let it hit you. He's talking about the fact that people buying privately are limited in choice to where they buy based on their budget. Unlike some lucky council house tenants who end up living somewhere they could never afford privately and more importantly a lot of working people could never afford. If Rupert_Baehr meant that why hasn't he come foreward and explained what he meant when he posted " Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr Aren't ordinary house owners (those who buy their own houses) 'ghettoised'?. I've missed nothing, it was a stupid post, I sugest you do what he's avoided doing and look up the definition of the word Ghetto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bailey Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 WHAT! You mean they enjoy inherited privilege!? (Why is it that the socialists always seem to forget that when they're talking about 'unearned inherited privilege'?) Yes but can you tell me why you claim that I live in a Ghetto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 When a lot of council accomodation was first built many areas were not considered affluent. It's not the tenants fault that areas have become affluent. Many tenants have protected tenancies, which allows them to pass the tenancy on to a member of their children. Which is clearly something that needs changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You can't flip an argument like that;I believe I just did. it's nonsensical. It makes perfect sense.Everyone knows I'm right Nope. even though people don't like to admit or just refuse point blank to admit it. Nobody has tried to counter what I said in post 33 because they know I am right and they also know I'll have more than one response waiting if they do. I just countered it by flipping the argument, you know I'm right but you just refuse to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.