housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents

div0 said:
Comical, quite simply comical. I'll have some of what ever you're smoking.
So anyone receiving any money from the state is 'dependant' on the state and therefore a 'slave' to the state?
This is just so ridiculous I don't actually know where to start.
And another sweeping generalisation by Groen.
So anyone who's ever claimed JSA, or even been made unemployed is someone who doesn't have a skill set to make employment viable?
Surely even you can't believe this ****.
While this may be true, you seem to completely miss the actual point of the welfare state, as demonstrated in your above posts.
You seem to be implying that people need to be 'forced' into work.
I think you'd find that there are a lot of people on JSA who would choose to work if they could. But finding a job is not always as easy as some people like to make out.
I really wonder if some people have ever been in the unfortunate situation of being made redundant and having to look for a new job, to pay their mortgage. Or if their only experience of 'benefits', is what they read in the Daily Mail.
Yes, I agree that there needs to be an incentive to stop some people choosing to stay on benefits. But you're making the same mistake as the letter in the OP and assuming that you can lump anyone on benefits into the same basket and talk to them like they're chav scum.
I honestly don't get how you can't see that as offensive.
Click to expand...

I never said anyone receiving money from the state is a slave. what i said was that people who are dependant on someone else or indepted to them they are like a "slave". As per this famous napoleon quote about bankers.

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoleon
Click to expand...

I never said that anyone who has ever claimed JSA does not have the skill set to be employable. What I said was in reference to what someone else was saying. They were saying that the problem was the minimum wage is too low after I was saying that the problem is that people have no incentive to work. I was saying that is not the problem, the problem is that people on JSA do no have the skill set to earn more than the amount that it would need to make it worth while working in relation to the amount received from welfare with no work required.

I don't think people that lose their job and end up on benefits with a lot of outgoings are the problem. I am more moaning about the people that have always been on welfare and very able but they just went the government hand out root instead. I am sure there are a lot of people that would work on JSA.
 
Last edited:
LordSplodge said:
Broadband isn't a luxury. Job seeking essentially needs the Internet as does the new benefit claiming system of "Universal credit"

No, "going to the library" doesn't cut it as a response neither. They're closing them due to "cuts"
Click to expand...

but they wont be using it to look for jobs the majority of the time, will they?

besides, there are libraries, job centres, colleges, places like pertemps etc where they are encouraged to job search ..... but they wont.

broadband is a luxury. i need it in my current position. would i need it if i wasn't working? it would be nice but certainly not essential.

people seem to be putting JSA claimants under this umbrella and that wasn't the reason i started this thread. £60 p/w isn't going to lead to an easy life. getting £200 p/w and your housing paid for is.

i've just finished working. the fact a portion of my tax may go to help pay for a claimants tattoo, does not make me feel great but i'd rather be doing that than not tbh.
 
Did you read the joker in the DM who advocated that when people find themselves unemployed, they should have all their expensive possessions like PC's, PS3's, TV's etc, taken away to fund their benefits. What a tool. And what's even more depressing is he got over 700 green arrows :confused:
 
The only people on benefits that can afford all that are parents with kids so they don't even have to worry about the bedroom tax as they already got kids in there.The idea that your average person on job seekers allowance can afford sky etc is laughable.

One of the problems is people on good salaries getting subsidized council and housing association rent prices.For example I know someone who earns 30k a year and yet pays 1/3 the cost for his rent of an equivalent private sector place.We need to stop helping people who don't need the help and the new right to buy being announced tomorrow ??? unbelievable ! so yet again we are going to reward people who are already being rewarded by having much lower rent in council and housing association accommodation.

But as we all know the real reason behind the new right to buy is to make their buddies and themselves even richer.The tories want to get rid of all social housing.
 
Last edited:
C64 said:
But as we all know the real reason behind the new right to buy is to make their buddies and themselves even richer.The tories want to get rid of all social housing.
Click to expand...

the tories want to get rid of social everything with a race to the bottom, letting people buy council houses below market rate without building enough to replace the social housing stock was thatchers retarded idea. The real issue is demand for housing is high and no one is building anymore, thats why the private rental market has gone stupid high, we need rent controls and more people are likely to take private rental, as unless you earn over £30k in the south east, you cant privately rent that easily with a family, a pretty boxy two bed house can easily be £1kpcm here
 
x3drr.jpg
 
Why do some people think that geting rid of the NMW will encourage employers to take on more staff, things would carry on the same with people's pay getting cut except the people higher up in the company will just get more money.

ohhh thats why... :p
 
semi-pro waster said:
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.
Click to expand...

I work on housing association estates..... Most of em do like Sky, smoking and drinking.... I'm not sure about bingo though, it would get in the way of the other three activities.

*Disclaimer* My views are my opinion only, and purely based on some of the horrific things I witness on a daily basis.
 
robfosters said:
Did you read the joker in the DM who advocated that when people find themselves unemployed, they should have all their expensive possessions like PC's, PS3's, TV's etc, taken away to fund their benefits. What a tool. And what's even more depressing is he got over 700 green arrows :confused:
Click to expand...

One might ask what is the difference between being expected to run down savings and being expected to liquidate non essential assets before qualifying for benefits?
 
I am thoroughly confused as to why the suggestion to control your spending when your income or fixed outgoings change is so offensive to those who rely on others (via the state) for some or all of their lifestyle when it is business as usual for those who earn their own money. The very idea smacks of an outrageous sense of entitlement with no basis in reality from some sections of society and their apologists.
 
Dolph said:
I am thoroughly confused as to why the suggestion to control your spending when your income or fixed outgoings change is so offensive to those who rely on others (via the state) for some or all of their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Maybe if that's what they said people would be less offended.

How about you defend what they actually said, as opposed to your spin on what they said.

Dolph said:
The very idea smacks of an outrageous sense of entitlement with no basis in reality from some sections of society and their apologists.
Click to expand...
How exactly does an apologist have an outrageous sense of entitlement?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
 
Last edited:
On benifits you cannot even afford rent, bills and food... You do not get enough money for these basic things yet alone sky TV, alcohol and fags...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom