Wednesday, 08 July 2015

F451's posts

  • Posted in: Inside Housing mandtory registration to view full content

    F451's post | 31/03/2014 4:21 pm

    The Newspapers that have gone down this line I now refuse to view. In part, these are publications that I would not have wished to pay money to, but when particular items of interest were highlighted would have accessed the views and details available that way.

    I can understand then that some potential subscribers will be deterred from accessing the site, and so may never become customers either. This is a business call for the company itself, but at least the content remains 'free' to access unlike News International who actually have people volunteer to pay to read their 'news'.

    However, I am fast approaching the feeing that the agenda shift here means visiting is less worthwhile. But equally there will be whole regiments of right-wing apologists keen to read and enjoy having their world view confirmed, so all around IH is onto a short term winner with both political and operational directions now being taken.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 2:07 pm

    Of course, every relet following a downsizing will be at 80%MR, accelerating the government's abolition of social housing and massively increasing the cost to rent. Thus the outcome of this government measure will be primarily persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in Shapps Housing, and persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in private housing.

    If this is about giving tenants options then it seems 'choose which tenure you wish to be trapped into and then have the government point at you as the cause of economic blight!'

    If people are to be punished for underoccupation then the government should allow them time to seek out realistic alternatives - and at least morally the government should be making some attempt to improve the housing supply so that some realistic alternatives exist - but then that would spoil their evil plan, wouldn't it.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 10:24 am

    It is interesting that none of the many Tory apologists, who elsewhere chomp at the bit to say how fair the benefit punishments and tenants taxes are, have been strangely silent when asked to contribute real effects in their area or within their housing provider, in terms of the legislation in real terms effecting real people.

    Where are those normally strident individuals with their examples of how these pieces of legislation are going to help people - or is it because they know that the reality is that their government is destroying people and families, condeming the poor to even greater suffering simply so that they themselves can hope for the promise of a little tax cut somewhere along the way.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 5:28 pm

    They gather together their pocket change at a cabinet meeting and then divide the sum by the number of unemployed, pensioners and persons with disabilities, subtract 50% to take into account single parents and those under 35, subtract 10% of the remainder for teas and biscuits (rechargeable of course), and then the resulting figure is the daily sum for an average family of four to live on.

    To get the individual person rate, simply deduct the current child benefit payment value and then divide by 100 and times by 65 to get what an individual needs.

    However, it must be noted that the contents of Mr Pickles pockets are for the exclusive use of those who are poor but located in Birmingham.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 4:12 pm

    Perhaps looking it the other way around. If the government says it can not afford to pay the rent of someone such that they have more than £70 per week to live on how do they expect anyone, disabled or otherwise, to afford to pay the high rents the government are now sponsoring but will not make affordable. As rent is now the highest single element within a low income person's expenditure (just think, that used to be food, then fuel, then housing cost) then failing to enable a person to afford such a basic expense means that the person concerned will not be able to afford to live in this society.

    Oddly, in a third world society, where fuel may be gathered for free, food may be gleaned from the countryside without landlowners demanding arrests be made, and housing may be self built without accusations of squatting or failure to pay the planning department enough, people can live on lower sums. Expecting people here to live on such sums is just not practical without also granting the freedom to return to being hunter gatherers as well.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:50 pm

    An interesting thought that when the sitting MP next comes to stand they may not be returned to sitting once more because of the poor standing the appalling position, that they fell in behind, gave them.

    All that is needed is a cast iron pledge from any who are standing who, when sitting, may be held to and deliver in the interest of the everyday folk who entrusted them with their vote in the first place.

    Perhaps this trusting to representatives has done its day and we should all just take power as Jono keep asking us to do, although who would look out for the less strong in that set up.

    In the words of my election trainer many years ago - tell your voters to vote early and vote often!

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:06 pm

    May your minders begat further minders who too begat minders of their own, until their enough minders to get rid of the bloody Arthur Daley figure pretending to run the country!

    [tell your minders they are very special people, and much loved for all that they do.]

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:53 am

    People will be forced into house shares, and even room shares, as the only alternative to street homelessness or comitting benefit fraud. This is a highly backward step for our society and one that could be avoided if rents were reduced to more realistic levels and housing supply increased so people could actually move into a home more closely fitting their size requirements.

    Yes, the 'freed' up housing that results from this will be available to let out at 80%MR to a new family (until their make up changes) but the extra HB to fund this will totally blank out any saving from forcing out the smaller family - especially when that smaller family will either be in more expensive private rented housing or more expensive B&B temporary homeless housing.

    It is a sad statement on our nation that this is not only being implemented but with the consent of the nodding classes.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:20 am

    Cause for celebration - Rick is still with us.

    I'm so pleased to know you are still in the land of the living Rick. I was honestly beginning to fear the worst, and such a loss that would be.

    I was also hoping you'd be back on-line before I put out my flame at the end of this week (other time demands arising for a while, but then the odd alter-ego will still be able to pop up every now and again, and I did announce that this hot little chap could only ever last till Spring - well the bulbs are coming up in Somerset at least!)

    Thanks for making my week already Rick, simply by still breathing!

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 5:41 pm

    Fair enough Tricky - I do refute the denial claim, but accept it in the spirit of Friday.

    If your motivation is to learn from what others put perhaps commenting less and questioning more would help you achieve that.

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

About My Posts

Here you can see your forum posts, see who has replied and add to the comments.

Newsletter Sign-up

IH Subscription