Saturday, 19 April 2014

F451's posts

  • Posted in: RSL`s and Government Incentives

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 9:16 pm

    Have a look at the related story threads on this site and you will pick up a number of views and arguments.

  • Posted in: Ending an 'Affordable' Tenancy

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 4:41 pm

    I noticed - hence the thread.

    This will arise as an issue only when the sheep realise the true cost of ending security for millions of families, removing affordability as a permenant step, and playing to the needs of the buy-to-let investor over and above any national interest, and definately against the interest of the poor British Taxpayer.

    I remember Tories on the doorstep in the 90's, complaining that the Councils did not provide enough houses anymore, so there was no where for their children to live - well you dumb sheep, that's what you created when you applauded Right to Buy in the 1980's I'd reply (only thinking the dumb sheep part - but honestly it was so tiresome talking to the very people who had voted for the calamity who now had the cheek to complain because it was effecting them.)

    It is equally tiresome talking to the sheep today who are applauding the latest great Tory Take Away, as I'm sure they will come bleeting back when they realise the policies effect them too!

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 3:21 pm

    Here here mrkfm

  • Posted in: Problem tenants

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 11:34 am

    Am I right in concluding that the string of nonny contributers are tenants of the landlord exercising their right to reply?

    If so - perhaps the nonnies would be up for sharing the reason the rent was not paid would be helpful to the rest of us on the forum to judge the rights and wrongs in the case.

    That said - are posts detailing the processes of a court case legal?

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 08/02/2012 10:20 am

    Again - that would be each, and higher if supporting a family. Does anyone like me remember the days when a average paid worker could support an average sized family on a single wage?

    Through the 1950's and 1960's it was not out of the ordinary for a working man (as it was in most cases) to earn enough to support his partner and children, afford housing, transport and living costs, and even a modest holiday - all on one wage. Second wages allowed for luxuries, such as colour TV's and washing machines.

    Just consider that compared to now where the same family would struggle to exist on two wages and you will have understood just how much the average working person has lost under the policy of greed and consumerism, the break up of Trades Unionism, the destruction of the Labour Party, and the whittling away at the social security offered by the State.

    Soon, there will be a crying need for children to go out to work to contribute to the family pot, and for more children to be born to poorer families simply so that there is a prospect of support in ones old age - just as things were back in the good old days of Dickens.

    What I can not understand is why certain quarters find this additional financial burden upon the poorest a cause for celebration.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 5:35 pm

    @mrkfm - I can imagine the Tories would be thrilled, so long as that was per week!

    What is needed is a regional premium, as whilst such a low hourly rate may support an individual in the rural west, it would not even pay the rent in the urban centre. The other consideration for the figure is that it should be an expression of how much to support a family, not just one individual, so that it may have comparative meaning.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 3:28 pm

    I repeat,

    The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

    Is that truly incorrect nonny?

    You state to my 'rantings', which I presume to be my consistent call for fair pay and fair rents. This is on the basis that if people were paid a fair wage, and rents were more about affordability and less about short term profit, then the extent of benefit need would reduce drastically. therefore the sustainable way to reduce the total benefit bill is by increasing wages and decreasing rents such that the former reflects the value of the work done and the latter reflects the value of the home occupied; thus treating neither as an outright comodity.

    How is saying that a Marxist perspective nonny?

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 2:50 pm

    Arguing for fair pay and less dependency on benefit is a Communist view Anon? What a narrow world you inhabit.

  • Posted in: Board member pay

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 2:48 pm

    Board Members are recruited in a number of ways.

    Some are directly recruited. They need to apply and meet the recruitment criteria, attend for interview, even pass tests, before being accepted following such a competitive exercise.

    Some are directly elected. They need to apply and meet the recruitment criteria (which may be more tenant centered and less business centered than the directly recruited members, although equally they can be the same), attend for interview, and in the instance that there are more qualifying than there are positions, either face election or another round of interview.

    Some are appointed as political representatives from the local council, or as corporate representatvies from a parent body.

    Some are co-opted to offer the Board expertise that they would otherwise lack.

    All should be accountable however, and tenants should know who is on the Board through which method, what their roles are, and how they may be contacted.

    Board Members should definately recieve expenses back, but as for direct payment that is for the corporate body to decide. The 'shareholders' - that is the tenants - should be the greater proportino of the corporate body in such a decision.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 07/02/2012 12:09 pm

    I can include the working poor in my statement Nonny. Indeed, some of those you despise for claiming benefit have indeed worked all of their lives. Others that you despise for claiming benefit are indeed working currently.

    I repeat,

    The poor did not create the economic crisis engulfing the world - they did not take the unsustainable slice of wealth for themselves - yet it is they who are being asked to shoulder the majority burden to replace that wealth.

    What I can not understand is those poor, such as those in the circumstances you describe Nonny, who seem to revel in their destitution and want to blame those more destitute for the suffering of all.

    Such sickness, being so twisted is the true disgrace for it undermines the very positino of those taking it, condemns them to perpetual poverty and loathing, and simply enables the elite to continue exploiting all for their own ends.

    Perhaps, instead of worrying over who's got what and who's not Nonny, instead of some peverted sense of greed and loathing of others, exploring the simple question of what represents a decent standard of living should be what engages you.

    Does a State Pension supply that standard? Does a low wage, or indeed an average wage?

    I'd say it does not - yet at least I can see that cutting someone elses benefit and demanding workers work for even less is not going to improve the position. Even lemmings do not anecdotally through each other off of cliffs!

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

More Newsletters