It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite
I am not from the UK and I don't recognize the term 'council housing'. Could you explain it for us across the pond? Also, are you anti-queen? I think the idea of royalty is antiquated, but I think I can understand the nostalgia value of the position.
The Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster, documents disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act reveal.
Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and the Government.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
something is very wrong there.
originally posted by: korkythecat
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite
I also think it's a good idea.
How about making them survive on jobseekers allowance since they would be "redundant". I would laugh my socks off if they got benefit sanctioned, and had to go to a food bank. That's what I would call social justice.
Or got too ill to work, but got booted off incapacity despite being ill by some target driven private medical asessment company.
This happened to a friend of mine who suffered from COPD. She died three months later after being told she was fit for work. Disgusting.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: LABTECH767
something is very wrong there.
Yes, some people believe silly made up stories!