housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents

it is written in a slightly patronizing way, i would have to agree but i think this is probably because they didn't know whether to take the kid gloves route (which they did) or the more formal and stern route. they were going to get a backlash either which way but it needed pointing out imo.
 
I don't know for certain but I'd guess that the reason for the apology is because it was pretty crassly worded and presumed that the residents did some or all those things. It's a case of stereotyping by implying that housing association residents are primarily interested in Sky TV, drinking, smoking and bingo - could you not see how that might be offensive to some people?

The intent behind the message might have been reasonable, the way it was presented wasn't clever.
 
MickeyFinns said:
I think you've missed something, it looks like people are complaining because of the patronizing tone of the letter.
Click to expand...

Frankly if you live on state benefits (for whatever reason) and can afford luxuries such as Sky TV (I never had Sky as a kid as my single mums NHS salary simply wouldn't stretch that far, it might have had she spent my child support income on it, instead she saved every penny in a savings account and that paid me through university and bought me things like my first computer) then perhaps you need to be spoken to in a patronising tone as you clearly have no respect for where that money comes from and what it would mean to many others who are far worse off because they chose to work for a pittance instead of claiming benefits.

The letter is perfectly acceptable and they should not be apologising. Somebody on benefits should not be able to afford things like Sky TV (I am glossing over a few cases such as those on benefits due to genuine ill health, we should always look after the infirm and they deserve a few luxuries.)
 
People on JSA can't really afford things like Sky TV - those that spend money on booze & cigs can't afford cloths, reasonable quality food or anything nice for the house.

With only a limited income (pathetically low) it's a pay-off, either you smoke & drink, or you have clothes & reasonable food - you can't do both.

That is unless you buy the ridiculous examples in the media of some women with 16 kids, or some other rubbish statistical anomaly printed in the daily mail.
 
Great spreading more misinformation about benefits.

I'm sure some have sky TV but having claimed benefits myself let me tell you, if I couldn't afford heating how on ****ing earth could I afford sky tv. Also my food bill was cut down to 20-25 a week. Oh benefits you say? life of luxury you say?

Please fully star out all swearing in future. Thank you.

elmarko said:
People on JSA can't really afford things like Sky TV - those that spend money on booze & cigs can't afford cloths, reasonable quality food or anything nice for the house.

With only a limited income (pathetically low) it's a pay-off, either you smoke & drink, or you have clothes & reasonable food - you can't do both.

That is unless you buy the ridiculous examples in the media of some women with 16 kids, or some other rubbish statistical anomaly printed in the daily mail.
Click to expand...

Yep, this.
 
manic_man said:
The letter is perfectly acceptable and they should not be apologising. Somebody on benefits should not be able to afford things like Sky TV (I am glossing over a few cases such as those on benefits due to genuine ill health, we should always look after the infirm and they deserve a few luxuries.)
Click to expand...

exactly. i could afford sky tv if i really wanted too but i don't want it. 1. because i don't watch a great deal of tv. 2. because what i've seen sky has to offer, it doesn't look worth the money. 3. the cost would cover a large proportion of my food bill.

it's not a neccesity, putting food on the table and keeping yourself and your children warm is. same applies for smoking, drinking, bingo etc. they either don't know this or they do know this and simply couldn't give a stuff.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Great spreading more misinformation about benefits.

I'm sure some have sky TV but having claimed benefits myself let me tell you, if I couldn't afford heating how on ****ing earth could I afford sky tv. Also my food bill was cut down to 20-25 a week. Oh benefits you say? life of luxury you say?

Please fully star out all swearing in future. Thank you.



Yep, this.
Click to expand...

i have a friend who has 3 kids (he is in custody of two of them) and the luxuries he has been able to afford from benefits, well, put it this way, he has more luxuries than i do (not that i'd want his lifestyle) and a free place to live. this isn't aimed at JSA claimers from what i understand but people who get housing.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Indeed, the truth hurts sometimes....
Click to expand...

I don't drink , bingo or have skytv (I could afford it but just use my parents skygo as they have all the channels anyway and don't use it)

not everyone who rents from a housing association is on benefits, the housing association I'm with have 3 waiting lists.

one for people with medical reasons for a move.
one for people who need low cost housing
one for regular people with jobs.

they try to keep a good mix of all 3 types of people which obviously makes good business sense than having all chavs, a lot of suits live in my blocks and a lot of them have fairly nice cars they keep in there garage outback

i have a friend who has 3 kids (he is in custody of two of them) and the luxuries he has been able to afford from benefits, well, put it this way, he has more luxuries than i do (not that i'd want his lifestyle) and a free place to live. this isn't aimed at JSA claimers from what i understand but people who get housing.
Click to expand...
people always claim that without bothering to look at what benefits they would get or you work low hours on minimum wage
 
Last edited:
cm1179 said:
i have a friend who has 3 kids (he is in custody of two of them) and the luxuries he has been able to afford from benefits, well, put it this way, he has more luxuries than i do (not that i'd want his lifestyle) and a free place to live. this isn't aimed at JSA claimers from what i understand but people who get housing.
Click to expand...

Indeed,

I'm sure there are isolated cases, but who knows what your friend is doing to get cash elsewhere. I mean maybe you do and he is just purely on benefits, but I can honestly say my experience was very different.
 
cm1179 said:
i have a friend who has 3 kids (he is in custody of two of them) and the luxuries he has been able to afford from benefits, well, put it this way, he has more luxuries than i do (not that i'd want his lifestyle) and a free place to live. this isn't aimed at JSA claimers from what i understand but people who get housing.
Click to expand...
Does he have more luxuries?, I mean not living in a council estate is a luxury, having a car or holidays abroad.

These are things most a vast majority of people on benefits don't have, if somebody is living a better life with a couple of kids then it would seem that perhaps the children are going without - but still the problem isn't the amount of money - just it's allocation.

I grew up near a very rough area of Birmingham, the idea that those on the bottom line are living some lavish lifestyle is not only a myth but a destructive one - aimed at further increasing public support for reducing support for those at the bottom of our social ladder.

More the fool to those who have swallowed it.
 
In response to Eastlands Homes advice, resident Sue Taylor wrote on Facebook: "Absolutely horrified and disgusted by the comments on your circular, it is truly appalling."
Click to expand...

Horrified and disgusted that the organization that gives them free money and a free house has advised them that they should considering cutting some luxuries due to the forthcoming cuts. I think that is a complete miss-use of the words horrified and disgusted. Typical that they go to the extreme, just a suggestion and they make out as if the other people's money they are receiving for nothing should not be spent and that they should starve to death... if anything is horrific and disgusting it is the attitude of the people offended by the letter.

Another resident, Ruti Tutti, said: "In the next newsletter....will it be suggesting that those residents who actually have any money left to eat stop doing so?"
Click to expand...

Why is it that a lot of the people with no job and that receive free money and a free house are so obese?
 
groen said:
Horrified and disgusted that the organization that gives them free money and a free house has advised them that they should considering cutting some luxuries due to the forthcoming cuts. I think that is a complete miss-use of the words horrified and disgusted. Typical that they go to the extreme, just a suggestion and they make out as if the other people's money they are receiving for nothing should not be spent and that they should starve to death... if anything is horrific and disgusting it is the attitude of the people offended by the letter.
Click to expand...
What you are implying they said

"Sorry we will have to make cuts, please cut back on some luxuries"

What they actually said.

"Can you really afford Sky, cigarettes, bingo, drinks and other non essentials?"

One is loaded with a negative judgement/insult, the other is not.

But hey, if you want to argue against people being unreasonable to the top version.

straw-man.jpg
 
elmarko said:
Does he have more luxuries?, I mean not living in a council estate is a luxury, having a car or holidays abroad.
Click to expand...

i would class virgin tv and broadband as a luxury, every console under the sun and a powerful rig as a luxury. plus takeaways, booze and cigarettes as a luxury. tbf i haven't had much to do with him since he had his 3rd but he certainly wasn't doing anything illegal to top up his income. but no, he doesn't drive, hasn't been abroad since 2001 etc.

as i said, it's certainly not a lifestyle i'd want. the place he lives isn't all that bad in all honesty, especially for free!

i don't mind my taxes going towards feeding recipients children and providing a house for them. start filling that house with luxuries and i do have a bit of a problem with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom