Unemployed ? Got 11 kids ? Fancy a new house ?
Discussion
Mobile Chicane said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am one of the few token lefties on PH (the other two are on their night off), and even I think that this sucks the most mahoosive sweaty monkey balls in the World, in Space.
I'm here, just too busy working 24/7 to contribute more often.kowalski655 said:
In the Daily Mail she is quoted as saying' 'It's being built especially for me. If I go there and I say to them I don't like it or it's too small, then they will just have to build me a bigger one, won't they'
Now that is really just taking the bloody piss.
Give her 6 Anderson shelters and be done with it, oh and put her down for a sterilisation soon, please.Now that is really just taking the bloody piss.
This is just taking the piss big time.
People had large families BEFORE the welfare state, the main difference is that the lived in poverty, squalor,and suffered from starvation/disease thereby dying at a comparatively young age, with high childhood mortality rates.
The benefits she receives will allow a BASIC quality of life ( anybody with kids will know how expensive they are). Council houses tend to be in pretty pi55poor areas and of shoddy quality ). I resent paying my taxes for people like her as much as anybody else, however I'd rather that than have 11 kids homeless and starving.
Does anybody here have such a poor quality of life that they would swap places with her (taking on board all her kids and living on council housing)?
The benefits she receives will allow a BASIC quality of life ( anybody with kids will know how expensive they are). Council houses tend to be in pretty pi55poor areas and of shoddy quality ). I resent paying my taxes for people like her as much as anybody else, however I'd rather that than have 11 kids homeless and starving.
Does anybody here have such a poor quality of life that they would swap places with her (taking on board all her kids and living on council housing)?
Countdown said:
People had large families BEFORE the welfare state, the main difference is that the lived in poverty, squalor,and suffered from starvation/disease thereby dying at a comparatively young age, with high childhood mortality rates.
That choice was however theirs, no one elses. I still don't see why I have to pay for someone elses bad choices.
Making it 'all better' for them merely transfers wealth from the clever and hard working to the idiot feckless, which also has the knock on effect of reducing the intelligence of your population by selective breeding.
Ah - I see now why socialist governments support this.
Globs said:
That choice was however theirs, no one elses.
I still don't see why I have to pay for someone elses bad choices.
Making it 'all better' for them merely transfers wealth from the clever and hard working to the idiot feckless, which also has the knock on effect of reducing the intelligence of your population by selective breeding.
Ah - I see now why socialist governments support this.
Well said. This situation seems so obviously, absolutely crazy and just plain wrong that I've come to the conclusion that the politicians let this sort of thing (Jihadseekers allowance etc etc) go on deliberately to draw attention away from all the dodgy things they're getting up to in government.I still don't see why I have to pay for someone elses bad choices.
Making it 'all better' for them merely transfers wealth from the clever and hard working to the idiot feckless, which also has the knock on effect of reducing the intelligence of your population by selective breeding.
Ah - I see now why socialist governments support this.
I mean, seriously, if you went out into the town centre at lunchtime today, would you be able to find one person, just one, who would find this situation reasonable? (and no, Vicky Pollard doesn't count-there can't be that many of them!)
Edited by Driller on Tuesday 19th February 07:54
Countdown said:
Does anybody here have such a poor quality of life that they would swap places with her (taking on board all her kids and living on council housing)?
Do we know how poor a quality of life she is living? for all we know she may be quite comfortable her standard of living may not be poor she may have a TV, Sky (I don't have sky TV due to the cost) she could have broadband big brand new TV etc... ofcourse she may be living a basic life without such luxuries and that would be quite right. On R4 now.
Councillor Davies has no idea what the cost of the build is.
"Tewkesbury Council has a proud record of no homeless people. We have a legal obligation to house people".
"All the people commenting don't know the full story".
So, who from the council would know then? If one was to appear on national radio with a certanty to be asked just that question, one might just ask one of their minions to find out.
That prompts another question:
Are these houses built by a contractor for the Council to own & manage or is there another 3rd party involved?
Councillor Davies has no idea what the cost of the build is.
"Tewkesbury Council has a proud record of no homeless people. We have a legal obligation to house people".
"All the people commenting don't know the full story".
So, who from the council would know then? If one was to appear on national radio with a certanty to be asked just that question, one might just ask one of their minions to find out.
That prompts another question:
Are these houses built by a contractor for the Council to own & manage or is there another 3rd party involved?
the houses will be built by a contractor and they will be owned and managed by a housing association. Tewkesbury Borough Council doesn't own any houses. What most people refer to as council housing is normally social housing run by housing associations. The council just looks after the waiting lists and the planning issues.
rover 623gsi said:
the houses will be built by a contractor and they will be owned and managed by a housing association. Tewkesbury Borough Council doesn't own any houses. What most people refer to as council housing is normally social housing run by housing associations. The council just looks after the waiting lists and the planning issues.
Oh and the rent, don't forget the rent.BoRED S2upid said:
Rats spring to mind. One has 11 those 11 have 5 each those 5 have 5 each at a time when jobs are hard to come by.
Makes me mad. A few of my mates have put off breeding because they can't afford to raise a child they have enough trouble with bills and mortgage repayments.
Is this not the real tragedy? Sensible people work out whether they can afford a child before trying. Often this means they leave it quite a bit later (early/mid 30s) and may suffer the unforutnate issues of later pregnancy (increased risk of miscarriages etc).Makes me mad. A few of my mates have put off breeding because they can't afford to raise a child they have enough trouble with bills and mortgage repayments.
The peasants f
k first and think later (if at all). Ultimately the state will sort them out, whatever happens. It's never just one or two kids either, it's five or six if not more. And thus it continues...How can the cycle be broken?
That is the toughest question of all. We now have third generation underclass fkwits, with no aspirations, no interest in education, and no chance of getting out of "the life".
Most of them actually live on tiny amounts that us lot couldn't live on, maybe supplemented by some crime or black market work, but often not even supplemented by that. But what can we do, let children starve?
kwits, with no aspirations, no interest in education, and no chance of getting out of "the life". Most of them actually live on tiny amounts that us lot couldn't live on, maybe supplemented by some crime or black market work, but often not even supplemented by that. But what can we do, let children starve?
I suspect no one on here will believe me, but very, very few families have lots of kids. Poorer people tend to have more children than wealthier - this is true when comparing numbers of children from country to country and within each country. As nations become wealthier, and as particular demographic groups within nations become wealthier, they have fewer children.
Even so, large families are becoming increasingly rare in the UK. Most people with kids have one or two. A few have three and hardly anyone has four or more. The reason why stories likes this make headlines is that they are so unusual.
I work for a housing association. We own and manage around 6,000 properties - the stock is approx 10% 1-bed, 30% 2-bed, 55% 3-bed, 5% 4-bed. We don't own any 5-bed+ places. We don't need them because we have no families that need them. There is pracitcally no social housing stock of that size anywhere in the country because it is not cost effective to build it. This is why you will read very occasionally about families living in big expensive privately-owned houses.
I am sure that when the woman in question and her brood move into their new home the housing association involved will convert the old place back into two homes - which will no doubt he used more much needed accomodation for suitably sized families.
p.s - sadly, the woman referred to in the original story is very annoying and selfish and gives social housing residents - the vast majority of whom are prefectly normal decent people, a very bad name.
Even so, large families are becoming increasingly rare in the UK. Most people with kids have one or two. A few have three and hardly anyone has four or more. The reason why stories likes this make headlines is that they are so unusual.
I work for a housing association. We own and manage around 6,000 properties - the stock is approx 10% 1-bed, 30% 2-bed, 55% 3-bed, 5% 4-bed. We don't own any 5-bed+ places. We don't need them because we have no families that need them. There is pracitcally no social housing stock of that size anywhere in the country because it is not cost effective to build it. This is why you will read very occasionally about families living in big expensive privately-owned houses.
I am sure that when the woman in question and her brood move into their new home the housing association involved will convert the old place back into two homes - which will no doubt he used more much needed accomodation for suitably sized families.
p.s - sadly, the woman referred to in the original story is very annoying and selfish and gives social housing residents - the vast majority of whom are prefectly normal decent people, a very bad name.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 19th February 10:06
Edited by rover 623gsi on Tuesday 19th February 10:07
Breadvan72 said:
That is the toughest question of all. We now have third generation underclass fkwits, with no aspirations, no interest in education, and no chance of getting out of "the life".
Most of them actually live on tiny amounts that us lot couldn't live on, maybe supplemented by some crime or black market work, but often not even supplemented by that. But what can we do, let children starve?
well, I find it perverse we have people dropping kids without a care in the world that we (as in the state) have to pick up the tab for, yet at the same time we (the state again) pay huge money for IVF etc.kwits, with no aspirations, no interest in education, and no chance of getting out of "the life". Most of them actually live on tiny amounts that us lot couldn't live on, maybe supplemented by some crime or black market work, but often not even supplemented by that. But what can we do, let children starve?
what am I missing?
Scuffers said:
what am I missing?
That a considerable number of people believe money grows on trees and that it's not necessary for anyone to actually earn a living by commercial means. Most, but not all of these people, vote 'left' and generally have a very disrtoted view of what consitutes povery on this planet.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff