1K.Orger
STOP PRESS:
Just seen on France24 News Channel: 'Angela Merkel, says "Germany will not accept Economic Migrants" Oh that's all right then, not so many as we all thought!
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
.Orger
Whats the difference between social housing and private renting ? except in the private renting situation the landlord quite often pockets loads of money and provides terrible accommodation. There isn't this awful fixiation with owning a home in most of Europe it just seems to be a UK thing. I could say it all started with Maggie Thatcher and 'greed is good ' -- and no doubt that idea will cause the usual 'anti' rant. ??
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Local authorities had been required by law to provide council housing since 1919 and Lloyd George's "Homes fit for Heroes" campaign sparked by concerns over the poor physical condition of army recruits.But it was not until after World War II that the age of the council house truly arrived.
So it all started with Maggie Thatcher without going into detail I'd say that is a ever so mildly historically inaccurate statement obviously blind hatred of one political leader who has been out of power for well over twenty years distorts people's versions of reality. Social housing has been in existence for less than a hundred years in its modern context and didn't really start in its modern form until after WWII so in its current form for a little over 60 years.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
UN Demographic of the refugeesOriginally Posted by bekisman
13% women
12% children
75% males aged between 19 and 45
1K.Orger
Which bit of "social housing isn't free because people pay rent" nonsense. I dont dispute that buying a house and owning a house is dearer. I have had a mortgage .... Twice... I bought a house twice with my first husband. Like CPT, I ended up in rented property after my marriage ended. I had to leave my home with my boys and I haven't been in a position to buy a house since. A "corporation" house as they were called where I grew up were great houses and provide a proper place to live but they are not free and it's wrong to describe them as such.
1K.Orger
It’s ‘nonsense’ merely for the fact you are attempting to infer that we; The Org, populance in general, thicko’s, do not know that social housing [corporation] housing isn’t free.. If you’d bother to read my post#210 I mention I too was born in one and lived in another before buying it, so obviously was fully aware that social housing is not for the lazy and other adjectives you use! So I dont (sic) agree with the inference I don’t realise your “but they are not free and it's wrong to describe them as such”
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
1K.Orger
Is this so surprising? The imbalance of the gender demographic is probably a symptom that may be attributed the institutionalised gender inequality that they face in their own home countries.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1K.Orger
You might know that beks however, shabbychics post - the post I was responding to, included a quote which quite clearly says that those in social housing are "people who haven't managed to put their lives on a stable enough footing to provide shelter and food for themselves" That is an outrageous thing to say, because, as my post and shabbychics post point out, social housing is not free - people in social housing ARE providing, they are paying rent. Nor is it full of lazy people failing who somehow have an unstable life.
It does therefore seem that whilst you and I and others don't need telling this, clearly BT did need it explaining.
Last edited by squidge; 10-Sep-15 at 07:36.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Once again another assumption on your part your ability to ascribe statements to me I don't actually make is getting to the point of ridiculous you do seem to have a rather childlike need to smear people who disagree with you.
Although we can tell by your previous statements you have absolutely no issues with privately owning a property and it is only done to happen chance that you currently do not own one now.
So what you aspire to and the situation you currently find yourself in are diametrically opposed with smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy.
You seem to confuse my statement of saying that those able to afford a private property should buy one with laziness, my statement doesn't infer that in anyway and it would be a perverse twisting of those words to arrive at that assumption.
What I'm saying is that social/council housing should be kept for those least able to afford it not as the domain of those well able to afford it but unwilling to pay their full way in society.
Those who are on £35k plus a year do not deserve to be paying a subsidised rent courtesy of the taxpayer. It is only a few who wish to see those most able to pay stripping those least able to afford of a right to housing.
So I'd say those throw their arms up wailing aren't I wicked are quite happy to allow those in genuine need to suffer whilst those with the ability to pay coast along abusing the system.
So it seems to me the dear Squidge is more than happy to allow social systems to be abused as long as she feels happy and loved and has not a jot not of care for the genuinely destitute aside from using others donations to make herself feel good.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Sep-15 at 07:54.
1K.Orger
Just had a look at BT’s post#182: “Hang on it isn't the responsibility of the government to feed and house everyone, it's a sign of failure when you have to resort to blaming the government for people who haven't managed to put their lives on a stable enough footing to provide shelter and food for themselves. Seems someone wants the state to encompass every aspect of people's lives and their own respective failures are Westminsters not their own.”...........
Unfortunately Shabbychic has cherry picked various words to emphasize in bold, no less, I suppose reading it, in my book says more or less ‘because of situations their life is not stable enough et al’. which kinda does encompass Squidge? and myself at one stage, it is NOT (in my opinion) to tell some lazy gits to get off their backsides, but to point out that (in my mind) is to encompass those familys living in Social Housing who's combined income is way above the national average - I KNOW a family who have, on their own admission, have an income of c£60,000 pa. Come on Shabbychic and Squidge, are these morally justified in being housed in such social accommodation?
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
1K.Orger
pfft...
Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants
council housing is in fact a public asset that brings in more money for councils in rent than it costs in management and maintenance.
Just because council rents are cheaper than private rents doesn't equate to them being subsidised, if anything, private rents are over inflated due to the supply & demand economics of the sector.
In my opinion housing is too important an issue to leave to the whims of the private sector, what we need is more social housing to reduce demand for private rent & bring the rents down in the process.
I have no qualms with anybody of any income bracket living in social housing, if you restrict it to the poorest of the poor all you will end up doing is creating ghettos.
Last edited by Alrock; 10-Sep-15 at 17:51. Reason: grammer
“We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine....
And the machine is bleeding to death."
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
This might be a bit of a game changer in Syria
Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, has sent hundreds of ground soldiers into Syria in the past few days apparently in cooperation with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, said a senior Israeli security official Thursday.
Russia has also recently deployed military assets into Syria and according to the Israeli source, has teamed up with Iran in an unprecedented attempt to protect the embattled regime of Bashar Assad from falling to rebel groups including the Islamic State.
The Israeli source said that Iran's increased military involvement in Syria was "due to Assad's crisis and under Russian-Iranian cooperation as a result of a meeting between Soleimani with Russian President Vladimir Putin," said the Israeli source.
The only Iranian force that has operated in Syria so far has been the Basij militia, a paramilitary organization with a relatively small number of fighters. The security official said that Israel has little to worry about Russia's military activity in Syria saying that it is "not directed at Israel.
"We have dialogue with Russia and we aren't in the middle of the Cold War," continued the source. "We have open channels with the Russians." Israeli security leaders assess that Assad currently controls just 25-30 percent of Syria, mainly around the country's shoreline where critical supplies are shipped into ports.
"It's hard to forecast whether Russia's presence will decide the fate of Syria, but it will lengthen the fighting and bloodletting for at least another year because ISIS won't give up," said the Israeli source.
Along Israel's border with Syria in the Golan Heights, Assad maintains just two enclaves at Quneitra and another smaller area further north, centered around Syrian-Druze villages that look to the regime for protection.
Rebels used bad weather caused by a massive sandstorm across the Middle East in the last few days to gain control of a government-controlled air field near the northern city of Idlib.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Sep-15 at 19:50.
1K.Orger
I'm with Alrock. People are only given social housing if they have a need to be housed. If they go on to earn £60k a year now, then I have no issue with that. At the point they were housed it becomes their home and as long as they are paying rent then they should be allowed to stay in the house.
Council house rents aren't subsidised and, as we have established- they arent free either so if it is your home, you shouldn't be asked to leave because you are earning too much. Imagine a family where mum and dad work, kids go to local school and mum gets a promotion which takes them over some arbitrary earnings limit and they have to leave their home and can't afford to buy or can't find a rented property which allows the kids to stay at their school? It's almost as stupid an idea as the bedroom tax.
As for being "morally justified"?. I don't see home ownership as some moral crusade. It is a home, whether rented or bought is up to each of us to decide
Last edited by squidge; 11-Sep-15 at 21:11.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
So in Squidges and Alrocks world it's morally justifiable for a high earning family to live in social housing while in Scolamd some 15000 are unable to get into it because they can't afford the alternative.
That sounds very dubious, home ownership isn't a moral crusade it's an aspiration which according to Squidge she was once more than happy to subscribe to until her circumstances changed so her posts do smack of a touch of hypocrisy.
I'd quite happily put a maximum cap on the earnings limit for social housing to allow those who are on lower wages to be able to afford somewhere decent to live.
It should be remebered the reason social housing was first provided and it wasn't to allow those on well above average earnings to live in a fully maintained property just because they could.
Now where's the social conscience gone of these people considering I'm supposed to be the more right wing person here it would appear from these posts I care more about providing for the needy than they do.
Out in the big world of the private sector people move areas and houses all the time as their jobs change using some weak argument to say you should only stay in one house and never move is absurd beyond belief it's based on some socialist fantasy that from what I've read here means people should be allowed to stay in social housing regardless of how much money they earn or posses.
Whatever happened to looking after the underprivileged in society providing a safety net for those who genuinely need it.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 11-Sep-15 at 22:55.
1K.Orger
Is it run at a profit then?
1K.Orger
As Alrock said, often they bring in more in rent than they cost. The people earning a lot of money would be unlikely to be housed today, if they earned that amount of money.
At the point they were housed they must have been in housing need - that might actually be because they moved to an area to teach, or as a nurse or some other key worker. Once allocated that house becomes their home, as long as they pay their rent they should stay if they want. There aren't long Waiting lists because social housing is full of lawyers or stockbrokers - there is a massive list because governments haven't built enough housing for YEARS.
Last edited by squidge; 13-Sep-15 at 08:31.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
You've just changed the basis of your argument.
Try and be consistent it's like trying to debate with the sands of the Sahara.
Shouldn't your statement read they sometimes being in more rent than they cost.
I've yet to meet a teacher who is so poorly paid they can't afford private sector housing and having owned a finance company, I'd be careful how you challenge your assumption.
£35 k a year with extra cash from private teaching is quite common for a teacher but every single one I've met seems to think they are paid poorly. Compare that to the many people frequently on £17 k who thought they where doing ok working longer hours. Seems teachers are beginning to have sense of entitlement.
1K.Orger
Seems the ‘Open Border’ espoused by Angela has gone the way most pragmatic people obviously thought it would..
“The best laid schemes o' mice an' [Merkel] / Gang aft a-gley.” apologies to Rabbie!.
Next inglorious episode will be when these refugees/migrants are relocated to the various adjoining countries from Germany where the cry of ‘all are welcome’ still echoes.
The international press will have a field day as the ‘invited guests’ are loaded upon the trains for the onward passage to Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland… Woman and children clinging to their husbands, throwing themselves upon the track, picturing the perceived brutality of the Hungarians. Close ups of terrified children.
What will happen. One of two things. 1) force will be needed to ‘encourage’ these unwilling or 2) they will be allowed to stay in Germany. The symbolism of forced repatriation such as the Cossacks after the Second World War to Russia is still in recent memory.
Unfortunately the exuberance of encouraging the vastly increased flood northwards was well intentioned, yet flawed. With German population at 82 million, and UK at 63 we give £143 per head in overseas aid whilst the former gives £106. A vast increase in improving and funding the existing refugee camps (and accepting/processing refugees FROM there) would have been far more production that the siren call of “come, all come” followed within weeks “shut the border we’re getting full”, you will have to be transported to other EU, not-quite-as-friendly countries.
Hungary building it’s 14ft wall, caused a log-jam in Serbia, what refugee will stop to be ‘registered’ at that border - some way will be found around it. The International Organisation for Migration say that 432,000 migrants have arrived in Europe - this will grow. Again more attention should be focused on the source.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
Another quick turn up it now appears that Russia has placed tanks around the airport and given Syria state of the art anti aircraft missiles.
There goes any hope the West has of intervention.
Russian boots on the ground very much like Assad will remain in power and ISIS will be pushed out to other areas.
Meanwhile Europe is shutting its borders as the numbers coming become unmanageable.
1K.Orger
There is a new website for anyone interested in helping or supporting refugees, in Scotland and elsewhere. It links to organisations and other websites and aims to coordinate support http://www.scotlandwelcomesrefugees.scot
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks