Joined: Jun 28 2002 Posts: 4961 Location: Outside your remit
WIZEB wrote:Was your mouth agape as you sat and typed that?
lol - pretty much, I just resent the fact that me and mine struggle to make ends meet sometimes despite contributing about £750 a month in NI and Tax between us, yet this woman who contributes sweet FA is able to keep horses.
Joined: Nov 23 2009 Posts: 12749 Location: The Hamptons of East Yorkshire
TrinityIHC wrote:lol - pretty much, I just resent the fact that me and mine struggle to make ends meet sometimes despite contributing about £750 a month in NI and Tax between us, yet this woman who contributes sweet FA is able to keep horses.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
JerryChicken wrote:Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government.
The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal.
Thats the story, or non-story.
What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that.
They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs.
Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently.
We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it.
I think the point that you miss is - a house of this size and quality is beyond 99% of the people who are actually funding it. The point of the horse comes back to the point I made earlier benefits should provide the basic essentials - owning and feeding a horse doesn't fall into that category - even you must agree? It would also suggest the levels of benefits this family is receiving is in excess of their basic needs.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
TrinityIHC wrote:Clothing and food vouchers to ensure that the money is spent on what it is intended for - the kids or better yet create a government charity and issue the clothes direct.
And this would affect her housing situation how?
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
TrinityIHC wrote:lol - pretty much, I just resent the fact that me and mine struggle to make ends meet sometimes despite contributing about £750 a month in NI and Tax between us, yet this woman who contributes sweet FA is able to keep horses.
To put it in perspective, how many families keep a dog? Multiply that size of family up to an eleven-kid family and you get to the size of a pony quite quickly. Not that I'm excusing it, if I was unemployed, I wouldn't have a pet of any kind ... just let's keep things in perspective.
As for the voucher idea ... illegal or not, every estate would soon have a local voucher dealer.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Sal Paradise wrote:I think the point that you miss is - a house of this size and quality is beyond 99% of the people who are actually funding it. The point of the horse comes back to the point I made earlier benefits should provide the basic essentials - owning and feeding a horse doesn't fall into that category - even you must agree? It would also suggest the levels of benefits this family is receiving is in excess of their basic needs.
As I've said before, it irritates me that irresponsible parents get into these situations ... and in this case it suggests to me that the pony is paid for by something the kids aren't getting.
But what is the alternative to benefits? Let the kids go naked and starve? Split them up and send them to orphanages?
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
TrinityIHC wrote:lol - pretty much, I just resent the fact that me and mine struggle to make ends meet sometimes despite contributing about £750 a month in NI and Tax between us, yet this woman who contributes sweet FA is able to keep horses.
She does contribute as I am sure she spends her money is shops, perhaps even buying highly taxed items such as Petrol, Fags and booze. The claim that those on benefits contribute FA would mean they kept every penny under the matress and never spent a dime.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
