Doctrine Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Maybe you should ask that question to the millions of people who put a percentage of their income into their "savings accounts" every month. If 73% of my income is stolen from me in taxes I expect the system to look after me in hard times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I felt sorry for the woman who had cancer, if her home had still been rented from the council (she'd bought it) the rent would have been paid via Housing benefit. The family whose business had gone bust had traded up to that house, but they had taken out a 100% mortgage. Not really the best plan with only one source of income. Hopefully they have family members with good credit ratings who can raise a deposit on a private rental. Or I suppose they could sell the Lexus. She was the one who I had the least sympathy for, she has removed housing for the people from the people and given it to the bank. She then refused housing! At that point I lost a lot of respect for her. If you need housing, you take it straight away (I presume it was only temporary housing anyway). It must have been as I don't think councils can offer you so called 'social' accommodation without you seeing it first (I have been offered it thrice - the first two times I asked to take it straight away, but was not allowed to do so without visiting it first! The third time, was about 2 hours after having accepted the second place and signing the tenancy agreement! [the place where I currently reside - and I have already covered the build cost in rent!]. Having secured accommodation I no longer had a need for new accommodation, so I politely turned down the third offer.) Social housing is like buses, eh. I was impressed by the fortitude of the man sleeping in the park. He didn't blame anyone, just felt fortunate he'd got somewhere safe to sleep. Aye, although he looked down at the drug users, when he himself has probably caused much more harm to others via the banking industry. Programmes like this one are good in that they show people from all walks of life can have bad luck, make bad decisions etc, however in some of the cases the reasons why they got no help with their housing costs were sketchy. Aye, but it seemed to focus on somewhat feckless individuals whom had had it good and not taken any measures to secure their future - perhaps this was to show that it can happen to anybody - which it can, and we should still help them of course. But they are just been thrown into the 'MARKET' than everybody else has to enter. It did not show young people or immigrants thrown into the dysfunctional and chaotic market. Whilst these people deserve sympathy, we should remember that the position that these people were thrown into, is the same position people are BORN into. A child born in the UK today has vastly reduced life chances, compared to the people featured in this program, at least for the time being. Unless we as a society change, and value people above property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 //////////////////// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 And hows that strategy working out for you? Maybe the saving "something" regularly idea might actually produce a better long term result. Worth considering. I expect that any government should be able to save enough out of my taxes to be able to keep me comfortably in my crisis times. Why do they need to take 73% of my income anyhow. It is MY MONEY! I WANT IT FOR ME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Divide and rule....divide and conquer......It's the same old , same old and it still works. Why can't people SEE IT! It's odd how the subject of your posts, across all your many usernames are generally the same, seemingly to stir up controversy with wild claims that you can't substantiate. You certainly do like to create division. People can and do see it. It's pretty weird that your modus operandi is the same as those you claim to despise. Most odd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 It's odd how the subject of your posts, across all your many usernames are generally the same, seemingly to stir up controversy with wild claims that you can't substantiate. You certainly do like to create division. People can and do see it. It's pretty weird that your modus operandi is the same as those you claim to despise. Most odd! If you really wish to see something odd....look in the mirror. I am new here and do not wish to be attacked by a self opinionated no good poor excuse for a man like you. GO AWAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 If you really wish to see something odd....look in the mirror. I am new here and do not wish to be attacked by a self opinionated no good poor excuse for a man like you. GO AWAY! Do you hate yourself so much that it forces you behave as those you claim to despise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Nice to see the warm, sympathetic, milk of human kindness brigade are out again.... They are merely trolls. Do not pay any attention to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 She was the one who I had the least sympathy for, she has removed housing for the people from the people and given it to the bank. She then refused housing! At that point I lost a lot of respect for her. If you need housing, you take it straight away (I presume it was only temporary housing anyway). It must have been as I don't think councils can offer you so called 'social' accommodation without you seeing it first (I have been offered it thrice - the first two times I asked to take it straight away, but was not allowed to do so without visiting it first! The third time, was about 2 hours after having accepted the second place and signing the tenancy agreement! [the place where I currently reside - and I have already covered the build cost in rent!]. Having secured accommodation I no longer had a need for new accommodation, so I politely turned down the third offer.) Social housing is like buses, eh. Aye, although he looked down at the drug users, when he himself has probably caused much more harm to others via the banking industry. Aye, but it seemed to focus on somewhat feckless individuals whom had had it good and not taken any measures to secure their future - perhaps this was to show that it can happen to anybody - which it can, and we should still help them of course. But they are just been thrown into the 'MARKET' than everybody else has to enter. It did not show young people or immigrants thrown into the dysfunctional and chaotic market. Whilst these people deserve sympathy, we should remember that the position that these people were thrown into, is the same position people are BORN into. A child born in the UK today has vastly reduced life chances, compared to the people featured in this program, at least for the time being. Unless we as a society change, and value people above property. The woman refused the temporary housing because she didn't feel safe in it. Seemed like a valid enough reason to me. However, when I was involved with homeless people, staying temporarily at a family or friend's home did not mean the person was no longer homeless, so I don't understand why the council discharged its duty towards her. The guy who'd been sleeping in the park was, I felt, scared of the drug users in the Hub. I imagine other people who weren't familiar with that lifestyle might also have felt intimidated. Some children will have reduced life chances, but others will have quite the opposite. Grandchildren of many of us baby boomers have been born to parents who have better careers and educational qualifications than we did. The programme couldn't cover every scenario, nor did they go into each family's situation regarding income and spending choices. I guess they were simply trying to state it could happen to most people given the right circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 The woman refused the temporary housing because she didn't feel safe in it. Seemed like a valid enough reason to me. However, when I was involved with homeless people, staying temporarily at a family or friend's home did not mean the person was no longer homeless, so I don't understand why the council discharged its duty towards her. She didn't even see it did she? Besides a young person living in a relatives home on a sofa is unlikely to be classified homeless, why should an old person be tret differently? The guy who'd been sleeping in the park was, I felt, scared of the drug users in the Hub. I imagine other people who weren't familiar with that lifestyle might also have felt intimidated. I can understand that, but others (drug users included) are likely to feel the same, the accommodation on offer sounds worse that which Orwell described in his book, "Down and out in Paris and London", and is worse than what is offered to prisoners. I can understand why people would opt to sleep on the streets instead (myself being a drug user!), and it wouldn't be because of the drug use, but because of thieving and violence. The government clearly needs to invest in make such housing humane! Some children will have reduced life chances, but others will have quite the opposite. Grandchildren of many of us baby boomers have been born to parents who have better careers and educational qualifications than we did. Those careers and qualifications matter for nothing when the young person has to make their own way in the world. The young people need those qualifications and careers and the resulting life chances (i.e. affordable property), they already have the qualifications, some even have the jobs, but they canny live the same lifestyle! The programme couldn't cover every scenario, nor did they go into each family's situation regarding income and spending choices. I guess they were simply trying to state it could happen to most people given the right circumstances. Fair point, but lets face it, those people fell into the pile of steaming **** that the youth and immigrants have to start climbing up, (some immigrants do get a helping hand by being parachuted into council housing [asylum seekers], others do not [Europeans]). For the few older people being knocked down a peg or two, there are 100s and 1000s of young people starting without a peg in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.