Asylum Seekers Given £2m House After Complaining 5 Bed London Home Was In Poor Area

[Surman4no7shirt]

To be fair, Brent is a **** hole. This is outrageous though, housing benefits in London should be going to art graduates that can't be bothered to get a jobs and people in Camden and Hackney that are in bands. That's what it's for FFS.

 

Seriously though I'm not sure that our housing benefits systems even fits in with the ideology of the welfare state. For a start it is not a safety net, it is not to catch people falling off the bottom of the rung so that they can climb back up, it serves to keep them there. More importantly it erodes the idea of the social contract in that to give to one what another has to work for is obviously going to restrict the freedoms of the person who is working (and strictly talking of the ideological sense, it also therefore restricts the freedoms of the people on the benefit). Furthermore in practice I know people that do not need the benefit that are on it, and people that do need it to find it impossible to get.

 

In general I'm not sure giving cash is a good way to solve the problem, having said that food stamps in the US don't work well either, and as others have stated, estates are crap.

 

Agree with the posters that some kind of Social housing scheme would be best and if you google it there are some studies to suggest to put scattered social housing within a suburban setting works extremely well, and encourages people to stop to be reliant on the state since their neighbors, micro-society etc. are all working, and people are psychologically inclined to conform to their social setting (hence why Estates turn into Ghettos).

 

Obviously everyone would agree that £2000p/w in Kensington is a gross misappropriation of tax payers money and completely inappropriate.

 

Also am confused as to what asylum seeking has to do with this as they were granted asylum 11 years ago, but this is the Mail.

[Wes Tender]

Indeed many council estates became ghettos. Where was I suggesting councils build estates? I said councils should be able to build more council housing. Housing associations build small developements.

 

You haven't answered the salient point. Are we to compartmentalise towns? In the case of London and other major conurbations, some people on benefits (but not unemployed) need to live near to their work. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to because the area near to their employment has been 'gentrified'? I'm old enough to remember when Notting Hill was a sh*t hole - look at it now!

 

 

I really can't be bothered to read those links, as IMO they are not relevant to the point of the thread.

 

But I'll willingly answer what you consider to be the salient point, but you are attempting to put a slant onto my post that doesn't exist and you have drawn a conclusion that isn't warranted. You say that surely people are entitled to live close to their work, but you ignore the public transport structure of London, which is excellent. There is absolutely no reason why people of lower income cannnot live in the suburbs and commute in to their work by bus or underground. Why, even comparatively well paid professionals commute into London from Winchester, Southampton, even Bournemouth, because they could not afford to live closer to their work in the City. So why should say a bus driver live in a large house in an expensive area of London, just because you feel that he should have an entitlement to live close to his work?

 

There is plenty of work available in London for those who want it, but I suspect that having a large expensive house in an exclusive area is plenty of disincentive for him to find proper employment that would cover the sort of property that most of us hard-working taxpayers cannot afford. There is plenty of work in other parts of the country where housing costs are considerably lower too and I have the greatest of respect for those who relocate to obtain work rather than sitting on their arses claiming benefits and then moaning that it isn't enough, (especially when they wouldn't have access to State funding from their original homelands.)

 

Towns become compartmentalised by natural means of supply and demand. It is not something that is best engineered by local authorities who know nothing about it. Experiments in mixing social housing into upmarket areas have always failed historically because resentment was caused between both the council tenants and the private home owners. They do not wish to be part of some social engineering experiment, preferring to be amongst people in similar circumstances to them.

[bridge too far]

Social housing in private areas works very, very well in my area, Wes.

 

And, given that the guy was a bus driver, it's quite probably necessary for him to live close to his work when he gets it (i.e. the local bus garage) for early / late shifts.

 

Perhaps you would do better to berate the opportunist landlords who are taking advantage of the fact that the Broad Market Rent for that area for a 5 bedroom house is £2K a week.

 

See here:

 

"Currently anyone who is eligible can claim for a private property if it is suitable for their needs regardless of the cost. The system has been criticised, with fears that landlords inflate rents for families on housing benefits because they know the cost will be covered by local authorities who do minimal checks on the market value of the rents."

 

from: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23855146-we-cant-move-pound-2000-a-week-benefits-family-until-the-rules-change.do but no doubt you can't be bothered to read that link either. Shame really, because that's how we learn

 

Still I'm sure you'll be comforted by the fact that, from next April, they'll have to pay the difference between the rent they're charged and £400 pw max.

[dune]

Still I'm sure you'll be comforted by the fact that, from next April, they'll have to pay the difference between the rent they're charged and £400 pw max.

 

Which is the difference between a joke Labour government, and a sensible Conservative government.

[Wes Tender]

Social housing in private areas works very, very well in my area, Wes.

 

And, given that the guy was a bus driver, it's quite probably necessary for him to live close to his work when he gets it (i.e. the local bus garage) for early / late shifts.

 

Perhaps you would do better to berate the opportunist landlords who are taking advantage of the fact that the Broad Market Rent for that area for a 5 bedroom house is £2K a week.

 

See here:

 

"Currently anyone who is eligible can claim for a private property if it is suitable for their needs regardless of the cost. The system has been criticised, with fears that landlords inflate rents for families on housing benefits because they know the cost will be covered by local authorities who do minimal checks on the market value of the rents."

 

from: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23855146-we-cant-move-pound-2000-a-week-benefits-family-until-the-rules-change.do but no doubt you can't be bothered to read that link either. Shame really, because that's how we learn

 

Still I'm sure you'll be comforted by the fact that, from next April, they'll have to pay the difference between the rent they're charged and £400 pw max.

 

What will make me happy is that the money that I pay in taxes is spent wisely on those people who are needy and deserving. What makes me angry is when it is wasted on those who are lazy, profligate, or who milk the system for their own selfish ends, thus depriving the system of funds for the really needy.

 

I don't need to read links to learn. Life experience has taught me well enough to formulate an opinion as to what is right or wrong, what is available and what is needed.

 

You seem to miss the irony that an ex-bus driver seemingly cannot catch a bus from the suburbs like most of his passengers, to commute to the shops or the schools or to work.

 

Why should I berate the landlords for the rent levels in that area? I'm not a Socialist. The rent levels are determined by the local market, by supply and demand. It is obvious from that snippet you posted that the culprits are not the landlords of the scroungers, but the local authorities who have a duty to make checks on how public money is spent. If the current system didn't encourage this sort of misuse of public funds, then if I were a local resident in that area, I'd be clamouring for the housing officer responsible to be taken to account for it.

 

It is obvious that now that the last Government is gone, the system is well overdue for urgent reform.

[bridge too far]

The Daily Heil and the Torygraph would do well to check their facts before printing such misleading banner headlines. Here is an excerpt from the official government website about housing benefit:

 

Who isn't eligible

 

You can't usually get Housing Benefit if:

• you have savings of over £16,000, unless you are getting the 'guarantee credit' of Pension Credit
  
• you live in the home of a close relative
  
• you're a full-time student (unless you're disabled or have children)
  
• you're an asylum seeker or are sponsored to be in the UK
  

But then some of us had already realised he wasn't an asylum seeker. He'd been granted asylum 11 years ago and had been working and paying taxes and NI for at least some of that time.

[Wes Tender]

The Daily Heil and the Torygraph would do well to check their facts before printing such misleading banner headlines. Here is an excerpt from the official government website about housing benefit:

 

Who isn't eligible

 

You can't usually get Housing Benefit if:

• you have savings of over £16,000, unless you are getting the 'guarantee credit' of Pension Credit
  
• you live in the home of a close relative
  
• you're a full-time student (unless you're disabled or have children)
  
• you're an asylum seeker or are sponsored to be in the UK
  

But then some of us had already realised he wasn't an asylum seeker. He'd been granted asylum 11 years ago and had been working and paying taxes and NI for at least some of that time.

 

The headlines were as wrong as you are in the highlighted part. He was an asylum seeker. But he was granted asylum. See how easy it is to get it wrong?

[bridge too far]

The headlines were as wrong as you are in the highlighted part. He was an asylum seeker. But he was granted asylum. See how easy it is to get it wrong?

 

I can be as pedantic as you! Since he has been granted asylum, he is no longer an asylum seeker.

 

Using your logic, a headline about you could read 'Infant seen to sink a pint of beer'.

 

And you know darned well that both papers were using sensationalist headlines to sell their rags.

[Wes Tender]

I can be as pedantic as you! Since he has been granted asylum, he is no longer an asylum seeker.

 

Using your logic, a headline about you could read 'Infant seen to sink a pint of beer'.

 

And you know darned well that both papers were using sensationalist headlines to sell their rags.

 

OK, so the headline should have read former asylum seeker and your headline about me could read former infant. And of course the headlines were sensationalised in order to sell copy. So name me a newspaper that doesn't sensationalise their headlines to sell copy.

 

But the point is still made that when we are civilised enough to take in refugees and asylum seekers, we are entitled to feel annoyed when they abuse our hospitality like this. Yes, the abuse of this particular benefit is open to anybody in the UK apart from those you mention, but the circumstances of refugees or those granted asylum, are naturally brought into sharper focus because it is a slap in the face of the decent law-abiding and tax-paying indigenous population who were liberal in the generosity to those genuinely in peril in their own countries. I don't expect that Somalia is big on state handouts of any sort, not that I'm suggesting that we are their destination of choice because we are so lax about how we distribute our benefits to the lazy or feckless, you understand.

[aintforever]

The good news is the Conservatives are bringing in a £400 weekly limit on housing benefit next April so it should put a stop to cases like this.

[bridge too far]

Wes, I don't think Somalians are granted asylum because our benefit system is so good to those in need.

 

I'm proud of the way our country grants (and always has done) to those suffering in their own countries. We have so many people in the UK who have fled desperate situations from the Hugenots, Jews, Russians and Poles in the past to Somalians and Afghanis today.

 

I say again, if we criticise this man for wanting to do the best for his family, (as we all would if we could) by making the best use of resources legally available to him then we must equally criticise people who exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their share towards the upkeep of all of us.

 

Criticism must be levelled at the system, not at him.

[benjii]

To be fair, Brent is a **** hole. This is outrageous though, housing benefits in London should be going to art graduates that can't be bothered to get a jobs and people in Camden and Hackney that are in bands. That's what it's for FFS.

 

Seriously though I'm not sure that our housing benefits systems even fits in with the ideology of the welfare state. For a start it is not a safety net, it is not to catch people falling off the bottom of the rung so that they can climb back up, it serves to keep them there. More importantly it erodes the idea of the social contract in that to give to one what another has to work for is obviously going to restrict the freedoms of the person who is working (and strictly talking of the ideological sense, it also therefore restricts the freedoms of the people on the benefit). Furthermore in practice I know people that do not need the benefit that are on it, and people that do need it to find it impossible to get.

 

In general I'm not sure giving cash is a good way to solve the problem, having said that food stamps in the US don't work well either, and as others have stated, estates are crap.

 

Agree with the posters that some kind of Social housing scheme would be best and if you google it there are some studies to suggest to put scattered social housing within a suburban setting works extremely well, and encourages people to stop to be reliant on the state since their neighbors, micro-society etc. are all working, and people are psychologically inclined to conform to their social setting (hence why Estates turn into Ghettos).

 

Obviously everyone would agree that £2000p/w in Kensington is a gross misappropriation of tax payers money and completely inappropriate.

 

Also am confused as to what asylum seeking has to do with this as they were granted asylum 11 years ago, but this is the Mail.

 

This is evidently correct and, frankly, should be the final word on the whole matter.

 

Since you mentioned the social contract I am inclined to note that in recent years I have been increasingly coming to the conclusion that Rousseau was correct:

 

"Man was born free, yet everywhere is in chains".

[Kadeem Hardison]

I saw a movie called Assylum Seekers once.

[JustMike]

I agree. You can't blame the assylum seekers, this is what you get by allowing a Labour government to run the country for 13 years. I will be emailing IDS today and will tell him in no uncertain terms that until he sorts the mess out I will continue to vote for the UKIP.

 

nice try but he would have been able to do that under the previous cons rule too

[EastleighSoulBoy]

nice try but he would have been able to do that under the previous cons rule too

 

Don't, just don't try telling him.

 

The Lune is not for putting right.

[dune]

nice try but he would have been able to do that under the previous cons rule too

 

Don't, just don't try telling him.

 

The Lune is not for putting right.

 

You both clearly missed my post on the previous page so here it is again:

 

The generous benefits allowances brought in by Labour currently allow claimants up to £2,000-a-week for a five-bedroom property, £1,000-a-week for four bedrooms, £744-a-week for three bedrooms, £495-a-week for two bedrooms and £350-a-week for a one-bedroom property. From April, the Local Housing Allowance will be restricted to a maximum of four bedrooms for all claimants with maximum rates on the amount paid to private landlords.

 

Weekly rates will capped at £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for a two-bedrooms, £340 for three and £400 for a four-bedroom property. Anyone living in a more expensive property will be forced to leave or make up the difference in rent themselves.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/186391/Benefits-Pledge-to-end-this-bonanza

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You both clearly missed my post on the previous page so here it is again:

 

The generous benefits allowances brought in by Labour currently allow claimants up to £2,000-a-week for a five-bedroom property, £1,000-a-week for four bedrooms, £744-a-week for three bedrooms, £495-a-week for two bedrooms and £350-a-week for a one-bedroom property. From April, the Local Housing Allowance will be restricted to a maximum of four bedrooms for all claimants with maximum rates on the amount paid to private landlords.

 

Weekly rates will capped at £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for a two-bedrooms, £340 for three and £400 for a four-bedroom property. Anyone living in a more expensive property will be forced to leave or make up the difference in rent themselves.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/186391/Benefits-Pledge-to-end-this-bonanza

 

Sorry June, I just see a blah blah blah Labour Slobs, Labour Scum thing every time your name appears.

 

Better than your previous spell on here though Stan?

[Johnny Bognor]

then we must equally criticise people who exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their share towards the upkeep of all of us.

 

 

I do agree with this, however most people site the uber rich which represent a tiny fraction of society. Yes they could pay more and maybe they should do, but I am having building work done at the moment and the amount of "cash" requests is unbelieveable. I wonder how much is lost in tax revenue from the armies of trades that aren't declaring all of their income. I'd wager that you could make quite a dent in the defecit from these tax avoiders.

[dune]

This comment from an Express reader is spot on:

 

Labour's crazy policy of throwing taxpayers' money (or rather money they borrowed on behalf of the taxpayer) at anyone too bone-idle to work has created a distorted housing rental market.

 

Nobody who was working would be prepared to pay £8,000 a month to rent a property unless they were earning £200,000 a year or more. Why should benefit recipients be living in properties that most of us could only ever aspire to?

 

Even the new limit of £1,200 a month (£400 a week) is ridiculously inflated. My mortgage is only £230 a month, for a modern 2 bedroom house.

 

Benefit recipients should be placed in the cheapest basic accommodation available within a 20 mile radius of where they previously lived, not £1m properties in the most expensive area they can think of.

 

If they say that's unfair, then tough! "Beggars can't be choosers", and that's basically what they are!

 

Why should the entire tax take from dozens of working people be used to fund accommodation for a SINGLE family? That's unfair and should be stopped!

[dune]

Sorry June, I just see a blah blah blah Labour Slobs, Labour Scum thing every time your name appears.

 

Better than your previous spell on here though Stan?

 

I provide the facts and you don't like it. I've destroyed your argument and you have nothing to come back with. That's the top and bottom of your reply.

[solentstars]

I provide the facts and you don't like it. I've destroyed your argument and you have nothing to come back with. That's the top and bottom of your reply.

 

you make me laugh,Eastleigh soul boy is running rings around you but you are to dense to see it my far right fascist friend.

anyway your making us all laugh with pathetic rantings "do you hear voices in your head or hold conversations with yourself.

[dune]

you make me laugh,Eastleigh soul boy is running rings around you but you are to dense to see it my far right fascist friend.

anyway your making us all laugh with pathetic rantings "do you hear voices in your head or hold conversations with yourself.

 

And posts like these only serve to prove the point I just made. You see I don't need to resort to insults because the facts are enough to back up what i'm saying.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I provide the facts and you don't like it. I've destroyed your argument and you have nothing to come back with. That's the top and bottom of your reply.

 

You know what my bone of contention is with you.

 

It's the continual bad mouthing of anything Labour by using such terms as Labour Scum and Slobs.

 

Oh! and the racist Nazism displayed so proudly by you in your previous incarnation. But you've changed or you're not Stanley.

 

So you tell us.

 

Even the National Front have become the BNP with a slightly more user friendly facade.

 

That doesn't wash either.

[Ponty]

There was a reason we never used to allow political threads on TSF.

 

Debate the post, not the poster. Thanks.

[dune]

You know what my bone of contention is with you.

 

It's the continual bad mouthing of anything Labour by using such terms as Labour Scum and Slobs.

 

Oh! and the racist Nazism displayed so proudly by you in your previous incarnation. But you've changed or you're not Stanley.

 

So you tell us.

 

Even the National Front have become the BNP with a slightly more user friendly facade.

 

That doesn't wash either.

 

I have provided you with the facts and it was Labour that introduced the £2000 cap for housing benefit, therefore it is Labours fault that the benefits system for housing benefit is ripe for extreme exploitation. Therefore tell me why I was wrong to state that it was Labours fault?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I have provided you with the facts and it was Labour that introduced the £2000 cap for housing benefit, therefore it is Labours fault that the benefits system for housing benefit is ripe for extreme exploitation. Therefore tell me why I was wrong to state that it was Labours fault?

 

If you look back a few comments you'll find that I have never said it is NOT Labour's fault.

 

I do believe that successive administrations have let things get this far though and therefore both sides of the house have been to blame.

[bridge too far]

I do agree with this, however most people site the uber rich which represent a tiny fraction of society. Yes they could pay more and maybe they should do, but I am having building work done at the moment and the amount of "cash" requests is unbelieveable. I wonder how much is lost in tax revenue from the armies of trades that aren't declaring all of their income. I'd wager that you could make quite a dent in the defecit from these tax avoiders.

 

Here you go Johnny:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance

 

And as far as your builders are concerned, ask for invoices and receiptsh. They should have the VAT number on them.

[chrisobee]

There was a reason we never used to allow political threads on TSF.

 

Debate the post, not the poster. Thanks.

 

Yep, that is all well and good Ponty but when someone is clearly posting racist/offensive comments and allowed to get away with it what happens then ? Even one of the moderators is so fed up with the abuse chucked around on here he is thinking of leaving the forum for good, never mind just resigning as a moderator. What a sorry state of affairs.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

There was a reason we never used to allow political threads on TSF.

 

Debate the post, not the poster. Thanks.

 

There would be some sensible debate without a certain thick pathetic racist WUM.

Edited 12 July, 2010 by AndyNorthernSaints

[Ponty]

There would be some sensible debate without a certain thick pathetic racist WUM.

 

Not in this instance.

[benjii]

I don't recall any racist posts from Dune. Some misguided ones certainly. I wish people would shut up about Stanley. It's boring and crap for the forum and it makes you look like the bigoted ones.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, I don't think Somalians are granted asylum because our benefit system is so good to those in need.

 

I'm proud of the way our country grants (and always has done) to those suffering in their own countries. We have so many people in the UK who have fled desperate situations from the Hugenots, Jews, Russians and Poles in the past to Somalians and Afghanis today.

 

I say again, if we criticise this man for wanting to do the best for his family, (as we all would if we could) by making the best use of resources legally available to him then we must equally criticise people who exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their share towards the upkeep of all of us.

 

Criticism must be levelled at the system, not at him.

 

Well, that's where we differ. I don't absolve this guy of blame just because the system allows him to abuse it. Neither do I feel that somebody who exploits loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes is equally worthy of criticism. They are two entirely separate sets of circumstances and would require to be judged each on their own merits.

 

On the one hand you seem happy to ignore the element of hospitality that attaches to welcoming refugees and asylum seekers to these shores. Abusing of our benefits system is not the ideal way to repay your host country, is it?

 

As for those avoiding taxation through loopholes, that rather depends on whether the taxation could be deemed to be fair in the first place. What percentage of one's income is a fair sum? A third? Half? Two thirds? You really hit the nail on the head when you talk about people paying their share towards the upkeep of us all. There are those who put money into the pot and those who take it out. Perhaps this guy and others like him are taking out far more than their fair share to help his family, although you excuse it by saying that we'd all do it if we could. Perhaps the guy who avoids paying his tax has already paid far more than several other people put together, but you would castigate him for saying that enough is enough.

 

The overtaxed guy can always become an economic migrant, of course and move to foreign shores where the tax regime is deemed by him to be less punitive and fairer, encouraging him to invest in that country.

 

The guy from Somali is allegedly here for asylum, although because of our generous welfare system, we have more than our fair share of economic refugees coming here. Ironic, isn't it?

[Red and White Army]

Thank god Dune is banned and we don't have to read any more of his drivel.

[Thedelldays]

Thank god Dune is banned and we don't have to read any more of his drivel.

totally agree

[chrisobee]

totally agree

 

Is it wrong of me to go:D Thought not;)

[solentstars]

Thank god Dune is banned and we don't have to read any more of his drivel.

 

i pray for that day and then he can join his far right friends on their hate forums.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I was reliably informed, by SteveGrant, that, after a second chance, anyone who gets banned a second time will not get back on the forum.

[saint_mears]

I was reliably informed, by SteveGrant, that, after a second chance, anyone who gets banned a second time will not get back on the forum.

 

You dont like his opinion so wind him up to get banned. Well done how childish

[saint1977]

As the story is twisted so horifically in your opinion, no doubt you will wish to regale us all with the factual truth. What is factually incorrect about the story? Was he not granted asylum to stay here with his family? Was he not formerly a bus driver before being made redundant? Did he not have a perfectly adequate house for his family, before deciding that he didn't think it was in a good enough area? Is this new house not in one of the most desirable and expensive areas of England? Is the rent not inflated beyond what it was before he came across his mate who rented it to him?

 

And I'd be pleased of your opinion as to whether this is acceptable to you, when cuts will have to be made to local services in London and that they will have to dig still deeper because apparently this family was a bit picky about their perfectly adequate accommodation.

 

Unless you can prove to my satisfaction that he and his family were not granted asylum here, I'm inclined to think that they really ought to show a bit more gratitude and respect to this country and its peoples. We offer a civilised system of support for those in genuine need, but resent being taken advantage of, suckers and soft-touch as we are. But for every case like this, growing resentment makes us less liberal and accommodating of genuine refugees, which is a pity.

 

As you well know Wes, I wasn't specifically referring to that particular case but a number of spiteful, one-eyed and inaccurate articles that have appeared in those two rags recently. I actually think that the laws are daft and that a £400 p/wk cap should be put in place as the coalition govt are now proposing. Where the right (far right in the case of the Mail) are out of order is by mixing up the issue of immigration with the issue of the abuse of the housing system which does need urgent reform. The Evening Standard last night highlighted many cases that went well beyond people that didn't begin life in the UK, Sharon and Dave from Peckham living in a 5 bed house in Kensington with their hareem of brats on our taxes. Is that wrong? Yes, it is. Families on benefits should be entitled to bigger accomodation only up to the second child and then after that they are going to have to be a bit more careful with contraception or work and pay mortgage or rent like the rest of us. If they want a nice area, again they should work for that. The only way to cut child poverty is to cut the number of children born into poverty.

 

So actually no, it isn't acceptable but if you read my original post, I am having a pop at those two papers for stirring up the country and mobilising the Tory Right against not only the public service workes of the UK but also the coalition government because they can't accept that the British public don't want to return to neo-conservatism. Do these people realise that people in the construction industry are going to be hit hard by the cancellation of many public capital projects? No they don't, they are too busy salivating and gloating at the cuts because they live in a daft neo-con ideological disneyland as bad as the equally facile left wing version that Benn and Foot lived in the early 80s.

 

I am hardly a raving leftie, ideologically I am either Lib Dem/One Nation Tory. As for the public sector cuts, the senior management layers need slashing that obstruct the most dynamic of our public servants and make dealing with these organisations so irritating for the rest of us with their paper empires. Give the dynamic and deserving in ALL sectors good pay and pensions but remove the leeches that are friends with all parties although they did very well under Blair. Many work for Tory local authorities so let's see Cameron be fair.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You dont like his opinion so wind him up to get banned. Well done how childish

 

1. I was not trying to wind him up. Just replying in kind because he would use the terms Labour Scum/Incapacity Benefit Slobs ad infinitum.

2. If Dune was wound up then he certainly kept his cool as I wasn't looking for nor did I notice any change in his behaviour.

3. I don't know why he was banned. I can only surmise?

4. I take no pleasure in his banning but nor, in all honesty, shall I miss him. He made many good points, not all I agreed with.

[miserableoldgit]

Having had a read through this thread. two things, particularly strike me. Firstly, so many on here have carried on about freedom and rights and yet shout people like Dune down, wanting him banned and calling him names etc, whilst those with views 180 degrees opposed to him are treated differently. His views may not appeal to everyone but the very freedom that people cherish in this country includes freedom of speech. There are two sides to every argument. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." And secondly the anti - Mail/Express/Telegraph stuff. All newspapers have an agenda - the "leftist" one as well as the perceived "Nazi" ones. It just depends on your personal poit of view.

[Wes Tender]

As you well know Wes, I wasn't specifically referring to that particular case but a number of spiteful, one-eyed and inaccurate articles that have appeared in those two rags recently. I actually think that the laws are daft and that a £400 p/wk cap should be put in place as the coalition govt are now proposing. Where the right (far right in the case of the Mail) are out of order is by mixing up the issue of immigration with the issue of the abuse of the housing system which does need urgent reform. The Evening Standard last night highlighted many cases that went well beyond people that didn't begin life in the UK, Sharon and Dave from Peckham living in a 5 bed house in Kensington with their hareem of brats on our taxes. Is that wrong? Yes, it is. Families on benefits should be entitled to bigger accomodation only up to the second child and then after that they are going to have to be a bit more careful with contraception or work and pay mortgage or rent like the rest of us. If they want a nice area, again they should work for that. The only way to cut child poverty is to cut the number of children born into poverty.

 

So actually no, it isn't acceptable but if you read my original post, I am having a pop at those two papers for stirring up the country and mobilising the Tory Right against not only the public service workes of the UK but also the coalition government because they can't accept that the British public don't want to return to neo-conservatism. Do these people realise that people in the construction industry are going to be hit hard by the cancellation of many public capital projects? No they don't, they are too busy salivating and gloating at the cuts because they live in a daft neo-con ideological disneyland as bad as the equally facile left wing version that Benn and Foot lived in the early 80s.

 

I am hardly a raving leftie, ideologically I am either Lib Dem/One Nation Tory. As for the public sector cuts, the senior management layers need slashing that obstruct the most dynamic of our public servants and make dealing with these organisations so irritating for the rest of us with their paper empires. Give the dynamic and deserving in ALL sectors good pay and pensions but remove the leeches that are friends with all parties although they did very well under Blair. Many work for Tory local authorities so let's see Cameron be fair.

 

Fair enough generally. Although I disagree that the Mail shouldn't have mixed up the issue of immigration with that of housing benefits. Should they have suppressed some part of the facts of the case that many would have deemed to be relevant? It could be argued that by introducing some controversial element into the story of the housing benefit abuse, the profile of the case is raised higher in the public perception and that the clamour for something to be done about it is addressed more urgently. Ultimately, the waste of public money on cases like this one means that less money is available to pay for more important public services, so I agree with you that some sort of cap needs to be placed on the amount payable towards rental allowances for those receiving housing benefits.

 

From a political perspective, it is clear to the electorate that massive cuts will need to be made in public services to get the economy back onto an even keel. Most recognise that there is a bloated bureacracy that could be cut dramatically to free up funds to maintain essential services. Many of the Quangos and the Area Health and Area Education Authorities would be good places to start. Incapacity benefit is another area that has been targetted too and discussed on here at length. I take your point that many of our most dynamic public servants can do beneficial work. For example, a benefit fraud investigator can recoup several times his salary in terms of the amount of fraudulent claims that are terminated. Let's have more public/civil servants employed to investigate benefit fraud and tax evasion so that we can be more confident that as much revenue as possible can be saved from abuse and misuse.

[Saint George]

Having had a read through this thread. two things, particularly strike me. Firstly, so many on here have carried on about freedom and rights and yet shout people like Dune down, wanting him banned and calling him names etc, whilst those with views 180 degrees opposed to him are treated differently. His views may not appeal to everyone but the very freedom that people cherish in this country includes freedom of speech. There are two sides to every argument. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." And secondly the anti - Mail/Express/Telegraph stuff. All newspapers have an agenda - the "leftist" one as well as the perceived "Nazi" ones. It just depends on your personal poit of view.

 

That's because when it boils down to it, the left have no concept of freedom.....That's why Britain has become a stazi like state with a rigourusly enforces law for

[Saint George]

Having had a read through this thread. two things, particularly strike me. Firstly, so many on here have carried on about freedom and rights and yet shout people like Dune down, wanting him banned and calling him names etc, whilst those with views 180 degrees opposed to him are treated differently. His views may not appeal to everyone but the very freedom that people cherish in this country includes freedom of speech. There are two sides to every argument. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." And secondly the anti - Mail/Express/Telegraph stuff. All newspapers have an agenda - the "leftist" one as well as the perceived "Nazi" ones. It just depends on your personal poit of view.

 

Lets start again heh,

That's because when it boils down to it, the left have no real concept of freedom.....That's why Britain has become a Stasi like state with rigorously enforced laws and stick and carrot taxes that are in place for no other reason than 'control'...You can't have "wealth redistribution" without control

 

Several decades of Left wing indoctrination from the socialist strongholds like the State media and Schools and Collages along with 12 years of a Left wing Government has left Britain in a state that even the Soviet Union would have been proud of....Just as it was there, the Left are 'right' and there's little room for a different opinion.

 

Just take a look at some of the Countries worst domestic terrorist's.....Animal rights activist's, anti fox hunters and the emerging climate warrior sect etc......Then check out similar abuse and outburst's over the years from the Lefties on here to get an idea.....and this forum is pretty much typical of many others

[saint_mears]

Ban all immigrants unless they have proffesional qualifications. Australia and New Zealand have got it right.

[Deppo]

Lets start again heh,

That's because when it boils down to it, the left have no real concept of freedom.....That's why Britain has become a Stasi like state with rigorously enforced laws and stick and carrot taxes that are in place for no other reason than 'control'...You can't have "wealth redistribution" without control

 

Several decades of Left wing indoctrination from the socialist strongholds like the State media and Schools and Collages along with 12 years of a Left wing Government has left Britain in a state that even the Soviet Union would have been proud of....Just as it was there, the Left are 'right' and there's little room for a different opinion.

 

Just take a look at some of the Countries worst domestic terrorist's.....Animal rights activist's, anti fox hunters and the emerging climate warrior sect etc......Then check out similar abuse and outburst's over the years from the Lefties on here to get an idea.....and this forum is pretty much typical of many others

 

Well said St George! It's about time someone took those climate warriors to task.

[solentstars]

Lets start again heh,

That's because when it boils down to it, the left have no real concept of freedom.....That's why Britain has become a Stasi like state with rigorously enforced laws and stick and carrot taxes that are in place for no other reason than 'control'...You can't have "wealth redistribution" without control

 

Several decades of Left wing indoctrination from the socialist strongholds like the State media and Schools and Collages along with 12 years of a Left wing Government has left Britain in a state that even the Soviet Union would have been proud of....Just as it was there, the Left are 'right' and there's little room for a different opinion.

 

Just take a look at some of the Countries worst domestic terrorist's.....Animal rights activist's, anti fox hunters and the emerging climate warrior sect etc......Then check out similar abuse and outburst's over the years from the Lefties on here to get an idea.....and this forum is pretty much typical of many others

oh dear here we go with left and right labels again:lol:

[Saint George]

Well said St George! It's about time someone took those climate warriors to task.

 

Trust me......Give it a few more years and you'll be wishing someone did........hence the "emerging" bit

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Well said St George! It's about time someone took those climate warriors to task.

 

And their collages don't forget!

[buctootim]

Trust me......Give it a few more years and you'll be wishing someone did........hence the "emerging" bit