Cyclone Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 If Rupert_Baehr meant that why hasn't he come foreward and explained what he meant when he posted 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. Maybe he doesn't feel the need to explain himself since his meaning was pretty clear. You seem to be over reacting to a perception that you (and all other house owners in the world) were accused of living in a ghetto, I don't think that's what he meant, he'd be including himself in that description as well. He was simply stating (as I explained) that private home owners have to live in an area according to their means which has the effect of grouping together people with similar levels of wealth or income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Which is clearly something that needs changing. Well first of all this same type of tenancy exists in the private sector for those tenants who were granted a tenancy only before January 1988. So such tenancies are no longer available. Cameron's new council housing proposals will no longer allow Council tenants to pass their tenancy on to members of their family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well first of all this same type of tenancy exists in the private sector for those tenants who were granted a tenancy only before January 1988. So such tenancies are no longer available. Cameron's new council housing proposals will no longer allow Council tenants to pass their tenancy on to members of their family. I don’t see a problem with a secure tenancy for a house that is rented at full market value and the tenant can pay the rent, but tenancies for subsided council houses should be based on need and revoked when the tenant no longer needs a subsidised house or a house of that size. Subsidised council houses should be used as a temporary measure until the tenant can afford full market rent, they shouldn’t be considered as the family residence to be handed down to the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 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. Your wrong. Massively wrong. In your world the squeezed middle subsidises those who live in nice areas - all of them. Lower taxes for the rich and people who probably don't work living along side them. Not only are you wrong its pretty much offensive. If I take 100 houses in dore, sell them and build 200 new ones in another area (not necessarily a really bad one) providing twice as much taxpayer funded housing how is that a bad thing ?? It isn't. Now if those 100 new tennants ruin those new houses or generally lower the tone, how this that my fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Your wrong. Massively wrong. In your world the squeezed middle subsidises those who live in nice areas - all of them. Lower taxes for the rich and people who probably don't work living along side them. Not only are you wrong its pretty much offensive. If I take 100 houses in dore, sell them and build 200 new ones in another area (not necessarily a really bad one) providing twice as much taxpayer funded housing how is that a bad thing ?? It isn't. Now if those 100 new tennants ruin those new houses or generally lower the tone, how this that my fault. No you are wrong for exactly the reason I mentioned in post 33, you just refuse point blank to admit it ... and considering most of your posts on these forums, it just reinforces what I say. There are something like 700,000 vacant properties in the UK, why remove council tenants from more affluent areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bailey Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Maybe he doesn't feel the need to explain himself since his meaning was pretty clear. You seem to be over reacting to a perception that you (and all other house owners in the world) were accused of living in a ghetto, I don't think that's what he meant, he'd be including himself in that description as well. He was simply stating (as I explained) that private home owners have to live in an area according to their means which has the effect of grouping together people with similar levels of wealth or income. Well maybe if you looked after your posts and let Rupert_Baehrlook after his we'd know what he meant instead of you minding his bussiness and not your own, if he made the post surely you don't need to answeer for him. I'd still like to know why he considers that I live in a Ghetto. 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. Utter rubbish, he said that I'm Ghettoised because I bought my house. Why doesn't Rupert_Baehr answer himself for the stupidity of his post? Instead of you summising what he meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Utter rubbish, he said that I'm Ghettoised because I bought my house. Why doesn't Rupert_Baehr answer himself for the stupidity of his post? Instead of you summising what he meant. How come everyone else understands what was meant but you don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 No you are wrong for exactly the reason I mentioned in post 33, you just refuse point blank to admit it ... and considering most of your posts on these forums, it just reinforces what I say. There are something like 700,000 vacant properties in the UK, why remove council tenants from more affluent areas? Does the state own 700,000 vacant properties ? Are they habitable ? Are they about to razed to the ground for a bypass or shopping centre ? Council houses are assets. Why can you not accept that selling those assets to build more is, if done correctly, a good thing ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Does the state own 700,000 vacant properties ? Are they habitable ? Are they about to razed to the ground for a bypass or shopping centre ? Council houses are assets. Why can you not accept that selling those assets to build more is, if done correctly, a good thing ?? He would have accepted it if it had been Labour’s idea, unfortunately the only idea they had about housing was to demolish more than they built and to create a property bubble in order to give people the means to use their houses has cash machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.