[TW]Fox;23972433 said:
Yes.
Though of course it just uses the term internet access, while you seem to be trying to put a pejorative spin on it by using 'high speed', though I'm not sure how many ISPs in the UK still support a 56k dial up service.
housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
Yes.
Though of course it just uses the term internet access, while you seem to be trying to put a pejorative spin on it by using 'high speed', though I'm not sure how many ISPs in the UK still support a 56k dial up service.
pertemps will pay for your travel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
how do you pay your bills? travel costs?
its an idea but a lot more thought needs to go into it.
its like when they pay people their rent rather than it going to the landlord. many people spend it on food (or naughty things) and build up debt.
also, if you are overdrawn it can eat up your benefits in charges (happened to a mate of mine)
A recruitment agency paying for travel?
yes. pertemps, sarina russo, serco will all pay for travel and provide internet access and help.
they claim it all back off the government anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
rent is a killer. strange on how MPs, who 75% are landlords, dont want to cap rent rates. it works well in germany.
Indeed, if we just rebuilt our housing stock we sold off (all in-house) we could home the out of work in council owned properties instead of paying for the mortgages of middle class/upper working class families & then some.
I see no reason for us to be housing people on benefits in over-priced private rental accommodation - we should have a good quality social housing stock, plenty of brown sites around most cities which would do with some redevelopment.
I see no reason for us to be housing people on benefits in over-priced private rental accommodation - we should have a good quality social housing stock, plenty of brown sites around most cities which would do with some redevelopment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,638
[TW]Fox;23972433 said:
if you dont have internet or can't afford it on JSA,
good luck finding any jobs LOL...
Broadband is not a luxury now days, it's necessary to do everything.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
While in your jobs you may find a number of people who fit the stereotype would you not think it likely to be offensive (to them or others) when a housing association plays up that stereotype for all residents?
If it was the Scottish Parliament saying "you Scots, lay off the deep fried haggis, whisky and heroin to live longer" would that not strike you as unnecessarily perjorative towards a group when it is a) not all who indulge in such things and b) not the only way to address the issue.
The suggestion to control your spending isn't necessarily offensive, in fact it's perfectly sensible. What is offensive is the way it is presented and that they're perpetuating a stereotype.
If you constantly dismiss people or tell them they're scum then the chances are over time they'll begin to believe it and act accordingly. That's not to say that what we're doing now is working perfectly but let's at least think about what we're doing rather than dismissing entire generations of people as hopeless and perpetuating the cycle. If we don't think about addressing the issue in a sensible way then ultimately the divergence between those doing the providing and those who are recipients will become too large to bridge - I don't know about you but I'd prefer if there was a level of social mobility between those states.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Is it playing up to a stereotype of trying to tackle issues that are common to a certain demographic?
Not if they are justified, it has to be sensative in equal measure.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Where did the idea that government has to supply houses to people who don't have them come from? Who started it and was the initial justification for it?
Does anybody have any concrete data on how common it is?, or is it just a load of anecdotal accounts & spurious daily mail reporting?.
Because slums are hives for crime & anti-social behaviour, not to mention most civilised people don't like living in a society rife with homelessness & child poverty.
It costs on average £47,000 per year keeping somebody in prison & that's ignoring the significant legal & policing costs which lead up to the crime & sentencing.
JSA is £2,925 per year, housing benefit on a £500 a month rent along with £130 a month council tax is about £10k in total - with that person spending that money in the local economy.
That's two reasons to do it.
Last edited:
World War One, the impact on the lower classes of an imperial war who were ill fitted for combat. It was Lloyd George, Liberal, who announced "Homes fit for heros". It wasn't until after World War Two, and another generational slaugher, that Labour then started building social housing on a large scale for the public.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Sounds similar to the post world war 2 efforts in the US. Where the government embarked on a large spending program to build homes for the returning soldiers and their families. They also funded education for them and set them up with employment.
What about before the world wars and end of the 20th century, what was the housing situation in the uk at that time? Was the land still largely owned by lords and leased out to workers. Do you have any information or recommend any books on housing in the UK before the world wars?
The initial idea seemed very reasonable but these days it just seems so unnecessary. When it first started the houses didn't even have their own toilet and electricity, based on my mom saying in the 50s she didn't have a toilet in the house and remembers getting her first house with light switch. So i would imagine that when government housing first started they were very limited.
My biggest problem with government housing is that it uses up all the one bedroom purpose built stock and people are left having to share with strangers because there are no one bed rooms available.
I don't think the argument that everyone who doesn't get a free house will end up in prison at a higher cost to the tax payer is a valid one. I won't disagree that slums have a relatively high crime rate associated. But is it not the case that council estates have a similar relative high crime rate associated anyway? Does the government housing solve the problem of homelessness and child poverty?
Largely privately owned by the middle and upper classes. Owner-occupier status was very exclusive, most could barely afford to rent a room or a small holding. Building societies and benevolent charities filled the vacuum, but it did little overall. Councils had the ability to build houses at that point but again this was in limited capacity.
Social Policy - Oxford Press ISBN 0-19-878173-3
Lack of government action over housing, and many other social components, directly contributes to generational poverty and localised crime rates.
Penalising people and trying to force them to move into properties that just aren't there isn't a housing policy, it's an ideological attack.