UK migration crackdown: ‘No social housing for newcomers’

reply to post by tdk84


It has to be said - she is fooling herself if she thinks she has a career as a model. She is F-U-G-L-Y, no question. Seriously, why aren't parents honest with their kids? No problem with encouraging children to reach for their dreams but really a bit of reality wouldn't go amiss.

And yes, a total waste of tax payers cash - unless there are extenuating circumstances. For example, women that have had a breast removed or those who have serious psychological issues through being either large or small chested (self harm, etc). Otherwise, where does it end? Everyone has something they don't like - are they all entitled to Ops too?

reply to post by Flavian


yeah I could do with a face transplant haha

your right though, shes rather unattractive... and is it me or are the implants a rather odd shaped? Deformed. Bet we don't see her on page 3 any time soon.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Logos23

 

It doesn't really work as an analogy I think. I mean, you wouldn't force someone to pay back the cost of a hand operation because it opened up a career as a truck driver.

Typical Sun as well, paying for her to get her kit off and then implicitly trashing her for doing so.

Whilst I agree...I don't think you can compare the hand analogy either...I mean we are all born with two hands and if one or both get damaged so they can't be used it interferes with everyday function.

To be honest with you I don't even know how I got in this conversation as I don't even give a hoot ( excuse the pun) either way much. As I mentioned earlier it was just one of those thought's that pop up in your head and was more a dig at the government than the woman in question...I don't actually feel that passionate about it .....I mean when you see how politician's are given cash for ludicrous and unwarranted expenses and claiming rent on tax payer funded second homes etc I hardly feel like it is the grossest misuse of tax payers money that happen's.

reply to post by Logos23


Yeah, you're right, it doesn't really work, purely because I guess a hand has more utility than a breast!

I was just venting my frustration at how lazy (or in fact snide) the media are with this sort of thing. And then some people just give them the reaction they want immediately.

To be honest I find much of this thread rather depressing. I don't disagree with the notion of giving UK-born people housing priority as a principle, but I don't recognise the image of immigrants presented by lots of posters. And I don't think immigration is nearly as much of a problem as it's often portrayed.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I totally agree with you there...the basis behind most my post's is that immigrant's and "dole dosser's" etc are used as scapegoat's to deflect away from the real issue's as to why this country is broken....

reply to post by Logos23


i'll 3rd that. All this is procrastination and minority issues.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by pikestaff
What I find strange is the rumor I was told by a Brit friend of mine about social housing tenants will shortly have to pay $35.00 tax a month on empty bedrooms?

I am losing the plot with this one...

IT'S NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!! IT IS REDUCTION IN HOUSING BENEFIT FOR THOSE IN RECEIPT OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO PAY THEIR RENT WHO HAVE AN EXTRA BEDROOM!

WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYER FUND PEOPLE TO HAVE HOUSES BIGGER THAN THEY NEED WHEN THOSE WHO DO PAY FOR THEIR HOUSING HAVE TROUBLE AFFORDING IT?

edit on 25/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Very late to the discussion so apologies if this has been discussed, but this is the first time I disagree with you stu. Well, not exactly disagree, but I have a but.

People are having this applied unfairly IMO. I know several cases where the family having the reduction applied have been asking for a smaller house for years and others where the notification of this reduction caused them to ask for a smaller house, freeing up theirs for a larger family and the council response was that WE DON'T HAVE ANY. Surely this reduction is not applicable if the council cannot offer an alternative o a house they were put in many years earlier when nobody, least of all the council or government, cared about the number of bedrooms?

However, the letter they (Rotherham Council) sent out did make me smile when, under a section about making up the shortfall, it said "if you are working, work more hours, if you are not working get a job" Duh!

Sadly I think the topic of the OP is just being put out to curry favour, and perhaps head off a shift towards UKIP, with another election on the horizon only to be forgotten about afterwards when it collapses at the first 'human rights' challenge

Originally posted by waynos


However, the letter they (Rotherham Council) sent out did make me smile when, under a section about making up the shortfall, it said "if you are working, work more hours, if you are not working get a job" Duh!

Well Eastland's Homes housing association went one step further when issuing tenant's with a newsletter about the imminent benefit cut's





To be fair they did take back the content of that statement and apologize after numerous complaint's about the statement being "deeply patronising"

reply to post by Logos23



There are some people who do need it spelling out though, I once had someone say to me in all seriousness " How am I supposed to pay for an IPhone contract on benefits!" My reply, you're not.

But I agree with your earlier statement about benefits recipients, and genuine ones at that, being constantly used as a soft target while the old boys club looks after itself and bleeds the country white.

I noticed your child has the same condition that mine does. My wife used to get carers allowance for him but the government has now decided he is less disabled than before and so she has lost it, despite his circumstances having not changed at all, and they never will.

reply to post by waynos


I can understand where you're coming from Waynos, as I can others, but there is nothing stopping anyone who is in social housing looking on the private market to rent, they'd still get their benefit anyway.

The only reason this has been dubbed a "bedroom tax" and being peddled as one is for political point scoring from Labour, which I find quite offensive actually as they would have had to do just as deep cuts anyway, but instead would have probably just gutted the armed forces instead.

What I would like to have seen from the Government is a total halt to the international Aid budget. The money saved there could have covered this "tax", making it unnecessary. That said, this is only an equalisation between private and social housing benefit recipients. Would you say it is fair that those in private housing have had their benefit reduced for years while those in the social housing (which is also a lot cheaper) get more benefit for the same size house?

I don't think anyone has an issue with benefits in principle, they just want it to be fair (and why not, we're British!) and it isn't.

reply to post by stumason


You know what's even more annoying about Labour and all this? It was they who brought in the Local Housing Allowance in 2008 which affected private tenants only, but they are now crying a river over the very same rules being applied to social tenants...

Bloody hypocrites, the lot of 'em.