Sunday, 20 April 2014

£95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

Posted in: Discussion | Policy forum

05/09/2010 5:26 pm

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

Kev Dupree

Kev Dupree

Posts: 25

06/09/2010 5:04 pm

Well done ILAG, zero support yet again.  If you approached topics with some sort of objectivity then you may be taken seriuosly.

 I'll try one last time for a response:

Your previous statement would have me beleive that you think the UK is overpopulated by 45million people. Is this correct?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Posts: 104

07/09/2010 0:18 am

Clearly not zero, you daft Spart, otherwise you would not have received such a comprehensive kicking from the earlier poster. I do not post in the work day because I'm at work - you should try it sometime by the way. So in response to your daft SWP inspired rantings, it's not what I say or think about UK overpopulation that it important, it's what OPT are saying. As they have the data and are more informed than I. And certainly more informed than you "Kev" (what a bright sounding name that is). And this is a quote from the same link:

"OPT chair Roger Martin described this as “a stark illustration of the unfortunate trade-offs between growing populations and sustainable livelihoods which we are currently seeing”.

He said: “Some people may argue that in a world of international trade, national self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. We think that’s a very short-sighted view. You don’t have to be a little Englander or an eco-survivalist to conclude that in an era of growing shortages - food, energy, water - being so dependent on the outside world puts us in a very vulnerable position. With the rest of the world, including many countries much poorer than the UK, supplying three-quarters of our overall needs, it’s also morally questionable.”

“ ‘Overpopulation’ is a much used and abused word, but we believe the index helps to anchor it firmly in the realm of sustainability – of people living within the limits of the place they inhabit. I think the index also clarifies what we really mean by sustainability and how important human numbers are to the concept.”

“To reduce our impact on the planet, we need to think about both numbers of consumers and how much they consume, and the UK is doing exceptionally badly on both fronts. Had we published this calculation last year, my understanding is that the UK would have been in 19th position. In terms of numbers - and therefore in terms of sustainability - we are still moving in the wrong direction, both in the table and in reality. It’s about time we woke up to the fact that the UK has a real population problem.”"

Got that numpty? Not what I say. What OPT. What David-Bloody-Attenborough says, to paraphrase Not the Nine O'Clock News!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Posts: 164

07/09/2010 9:41 am

"daft"  "numpty" "loony"  good to see that the debates recently are clearly focussing on the topics and issues rather than getting heated and trading insults.....

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Cheryl

Cheryl

Posts: 7

07/09/2010 10:27 am

Have I missed something?  What exactly has any of this bickering got to do with "£95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house".

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Kev Dupree

Kev Dupree

Posts: 25

07/09/2010 10:45 am

ILAG:

"Kev" (what a bright sounding name that is)" Thanks for the childish insult but im sorry to inform you it aint my real name Mr Ian LAG.

You seem very happy to quote figures from the OPT to back up your argument but seem to have trouble when people question your figures.

David Attenbourogh is a patron of the organisation and not an active memebr involvd in the production of such ridiculous figures.

As you have avoided the question i have posed three times i will assume you conceide that your are mistaken and have based your argument of incorrect assumptions.

I accept you apologies in advance.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Sidney Webb

Sidney Webb

Location: South East England
Posts: 224

07/09/2010 11:10 am

Owen Hart could not argue against facts either, but he did manage to upset a huge number of his neighbours with his septic rants against tenants and welfare dependents and parents from his patform as co-founder of ILAG and board member of EC1.

It appears, maybe, that several members of that organisation have the same dispicable views and are also unable to argue a factual basis.

Hopefully this will be the end of the boyish 'look what I've just read in some far right publication - it proves all I believe to be true' postings on what could otherwise be a serious portal for discussing solutions to the housing problems faced by our society.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

07/09/2010 1:02 pm

Pots and kettles

Progressive Solutions Required has never chosen to say anything considered, objective or sensible.

He's always chosen to push the ideology of the Socialist Workers Party - that clapped-out band of commie die-hards which have chosen to route of entryism because they can't secure support by proper democratic means.

This country doesn't want immigration.  That position isn't racist. It is racist to insist that it is. The election delivered the electorate's verdict. Now get over it.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Sidney Webb

Sidney Webb

Location: South East England
Posts: 224

07/09/2010 1:27 pm

Anon: How has my posting about ILAG's attitude being very similar to the discredited outpourings of Owen Hart given rise to a response about immigration? Did I miss this monumental debate shift or do you know something about the gentleman that should be shared with us all?

Also, as you appear to know more about the SWP than I, perhaps you could let me know their ideology, that way I'll be in a position to know if I agree with you or not.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

07/09/2010 3:04 pm

There is an Owen Hart who worked for Jim O'Neil as a Spad on housing policy matters in the Downing Street cabinet offices. See Guido Fawkes.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Only One

Only One

Posts: 7

07/09/2010 3:11 pm

Just caught up with this thread......sorry, what was the question again???

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Melvin Bone

Melvin Bone

Posts: 193

07/09/2010 3:27 pm

'Just caught up with this thread......sorry, what was the question again???'

Can you re-home 12 people (who have a tendancy to trash houses) for less than £1,000-a-week?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

07/09/2010 4:39 pm

I think housing benefit of £1000 pw for 12 people is not too bad ofr the taxpayer. 

The autorities now have to do their best in making these children educated and employable so that they will be able to get on the property ladder and not claim 10 bedsits as soon as they become adults, or get pregnant and claim flats, etc.

The point I am trying to make is not to castigate them now, but provide sound basis for thesechildren to move on from such situations as they parents are into now.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

07/09/2010 9:08 pm

Can't be as bad as the banker earning over £250,000 per week - what ever happened to not more than the Prime Minister and only 7-times more than the average worker's wage - or are those greedy bankers pocketing it like there's no tommorrow again! If the family need that level of support then they should get it. We do not know the circumstances nor the special needs concerned. Kass is right, don't condemn the children at least.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Posts: 104

07/09/2010 10:52 pm

For the avoidance of doubt, here is a more recent link that is somewhat closer to home than the rantings of a Spartist website from two years ago:

http://www.islingtontribune.com/letters/2010/jul/more-homes-workers-will-narrow-two-islingtons-divide

The analysis may look as familiar as it is accurate...!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Melvin Bone

Melvin Bone

Posts: 193

08/09/2010 9:11 am

'Can't be as bad as the banker earning over £250,000 per week'

As he does not work for the government and his bank had no bail out cash from us he can earn a million a week if he wants...

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

08/09/2010 9:24 am

Those complainants on here who (correctly) moan about paying £1000 a week in HB will be intereted in the latest piece of Tory chicanery.

The HB proposals announced in the emergency budget saw caps proposed to be put in place of £250 per week to £400 pw. all it was said to CUT the HB bill.

I stated at the time that private landlords would simply convert 4 bed properties into 4 x 1 bed properties and thus take their income from £400pw up to yes, £1000 per week.

Shapps has just announced exactly how they can do this!!!

So, will we see all these right-wing commentators now criticising the true benefit thieves here, the PSLs, as we will now see so many MORE cases of £1000 pw of tax payers money being spent by this even stupider government?

Somehow I dont think we will.  Rather, and again to avoid the real issue, we will no doubt see them ranting about so many more people being crammed into Londons housing stock... and yes some of them will not have white faces either!!!

Oops sorry I am in a cynical mood today arent I?  The Daily Mail will of course run a piece over this saying the Tories dont know their arse from their elbow and are encouraging rogue landlords to exploit the public purse and they should be removed from office!!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

08/09/2010 9:28 am

Of course thanks to these changes announced on here today it will only need 4 people for the private landlord to claim £1000 per week now not 12.

Just thought I'd add that point.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Melvin Bone

Melvin Bone

Posts: 193

08/09/2010 9:45 am

'I stated at the time that private landlords would simply convert 4 bed properties into 4 x 1 bed properties and thus take their income from £400pw up to yes, £1000 per week.'

But you failed to point out that this has been in place since the beginning of LHA...

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

08/09/2010 9:52 am

Melvin - it hasnt.  Read the story on here today.  THIS government have reversed something that was due to come into place in October.

Yet please stop trying to avoid the real issue - its impact and how yet again PSLs will hold the public purse to even more ransom. 

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

08/09/2010 9:59 am

I need to correct my comment above.  The changes that stopped this happening came into effect in April 2010 and put in place by the last Labour government. 

The reversal of this Labout policy by Shapps allows PSLs to do this when the TORIES changes come into effect from next April (2011) when the caps come into effect.

So the TORIES have made changes to allow PSLs to ride roughshod over the TORIES proposals to cut HB which will of course INCREASE the HB/LHA bill and paid for by the public purse.

Hence akk points still stand - (1) that PSLs will take more HB/LHA from the public purse and (2) these changes by Shapps allow this to happen that (3) the previous Labour govts policy would have prevented

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

Rate this topic (3 average user rating)

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

Most recent posts

  • From Mia Woody, 07/04/2014 2:19 pm in Discussion forums re housing especially social housing

    rollonfriday.co.uk

  • From Mr Webb, 02/10/2013 4:32 pm in are housing benefit under occupancy rules a threat to vulnerable people?

    The vulnerable do appear to have been crucified by the welfare reforms. No doubt though the policy makers will claim it was not their fault and find some other group to blame it on.

  • posted Anonymously, 15/09/2013 9:07 pm in HCA Framework Document

    i know of a social rent property which was vacant one day, new tennant ( via nomination from homeless) informed 3 days later, no mention of " affordable rent" in offer letter. Rent has increased by over 300.00 per month.  Now that certainly is not Affordable..

  • From raymond hunter, 13/08/2013 7:51 pm in mutual exchange refusal

    had alot of questions but you guys got all the answers thanks.

  • From tony mcq, 06/07/2013 3:45 pm in L&Q Structural problems floor shakes when neighbours walk about

    PLEASE  LET  ME  KNOW  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  SEE  ME  OR  CONTACT  ME-----ABOUT   YOUR  HOUSING  DISTURBANCE--AND  STRUC TUAL   PROBLEMSS  IM  HAVING  SAME  PROBLEMS---WITH   L Q---IS  MY LANDLORD  TOO------TONY----

  • From Jason Matthews, 25/05/2013 1:11 pm in Bedroom tax and lack of smaller properties to move into

    thanks Anna - just what I needed

  • From DaftAida, 26/09/2012 9:25 pm in HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANT FAILURE

    Oh, and just a couple of other points; don't bother explaining to those who are obviously clueless. Unless they've been in an extraordinary situation they can't possibly understand - let them remain in ignorance. Cut them off and out as being too offensive to bother with.

  • From alan brunwin children's author, 03/08/2012 4:13 pm in Yobs with Dogs: Another "needs" based allocation outcome

    I live in shelterd housing and its a life of hell. we have a Rottweiler dog housed with two old people in a one bed no garden first floor flat next door to us 5 feet away, and its made our life hell. Kepts us awake night day with them taking the big dog down the staircase banging doors. The Housing assosiation are a law unto themselves do what they like to you. Even told us to move out if we don't like it. shame on them.The dog comes first.

  • From Progressive Solutions Required, 18/07/2012 3:27 pm in The rise of the private rented sector

    What saddens me more Joe is that the scale of additional private rented homes has not involved any considerable extent of new building, simply the recycling of former home, and a large number of former social homes at that, into cash cows and multiple occupation rabbit hutches.

  • From Rue, 29/06/2012 3:24 pm in the way of shared ownership

    Many thanks for that, Sancho. I have indeed investigated most of these. Unfortunately nothing is available at the mo, in the price bracket - smaller share say 25 -30%. And those that have been around longest are now on the open market, and vendors seem reluctant to continue the conversation with the housing association from whom they bought the original share. One in particular, I fell in love with, and have been watching its lack of movement on rightmove at f. m. v.