Harming children for no good reason

JohnD - Why don't you try to be less objectionable.

He may actually not dislike being a landlord.

He has experience of some undesirable tenants, which I can confirm are as has been stated and not made up, and you denying it, for whatever reason, does not alter the fact.
 
Sponsored Links
Further, when I used to manage fifteen flats, I too came to the conclusion that it was not worth the bother to deal with the people who can only be described as low-life benefit scroungers.

Also, dealing with the DHSS who oversee these people was no better. Instead of taking a deposit from the tenants at the beginning of the tenancy, they, the DHSS, would give you a so-called bond to compensate you for any damage.
Actually getting them to pay it was near impossible.

So, feelings of charity for those - like nineteen year olds with two children who have never had a job and who do not do cleaning - soon disappears.

That you have no knowledge of the subject, but only piously pontificate, is blatantly obvious.
 
What a shame we live in a country that has spend decades selling off all but a tiny fraction of Social Housing way below its value, and prohibiting councils from using the proceeds to build more.
 
EFLImpudence said:
you denying it
Click to expand...

I deny that ALL people receiving benefits are scum and I take the view that it is wrong to implement policies that make poor people poorer, especially when it is to the detriment of children. Do you seek to disagree with me?

The government policy to increase poverty for the poor is not applied according to their score on the Scum-ometer.

remember...

"Today, the High Court ruled that the benefits cap, one of the Tories’ flagship welfare policies, is unlawful, because it amounts to illegal discrimination against single parents with small children."

"Welfare reform as part of the coalition government’s austerity measures has driven thousands more people into poverty and in many tragic cases, some deaths occurred after individuals were declared fit to work. Austerity was not inevitable. It was an ideologically-motivated programme designed to force the poorest and most vulnerable in our society to shoulder the burden of a financial crisis that they had less than nothing to do with creating."
 
Sponsored Links
JohnD said:
What a shame we live in a country that has spend decades selling off all but a tiny fraction of Social Housing way below its value, and prohibiting councils from using the proceeds to build more.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.

Is that the reason for the undesirable behaviour?

JohnD said:
I have denied that ALL people receiving benefits are scum.
The government policy to increase poverty for the poor is not applied according to their score on the Scum-ometer.
Click to expand...
Did any one say it was ALL?


Please tell me how much IS this cap? I don't have office staff.

Is it perhaps more than a decent wage?
 
The people arguing in favour of the government's illegal and discriminatory action have filled eight pages with stories of scum benefit claimants, tenants with consumer goods, people falsely pretending to be disabled and being given cars when they don't even have a driving licence. No doubt every one of these tales is true, just like Bernard's story about straight bananas, and the often-repeated claim that Surrey men are crooks, murderers and rapists.

The people in favour of the governments illegal and discriminatory action speak as though they have convinced themselves that the existence of poor tenants is an excuse and a justification for the government's illegal and discriminatory action.

It isn't.
 
JohnD said:
No doubt every one of these tales is true,
Click to expand...

They probably are all true so benefit cheating must be rife. Without the cheats money would be saved and this undesclosed cap could be lifted for those in genuine need.

How much is the cap?
 
JohnD said:
The people arguing in favour of the government's illegal and discriminatory action have filled eight pages with stories of scum benefit claimants, tenants with consumer goods, people falsely pretending to be disabled and being given cars when they don't even have a driving licence. No doubt every one of these tales is true.
Click to expand...
Johnnyboy, you have yet to mention the people who made this decision stating that the benefits cap is harming children... Probably the most out of touch people in the whole country. They're even more out of touch than the politicians. Yep the Judiciary.. The same people who time and time again fail to lock up habitual criminals, or barely slap their wrists for some heinous crime. The same people who put the human rights of the criminals , before the same human rights their victims were supposed to enjoy.
 
Judy in the sky said:
people who time and time again fail to lock up habitual criminals, or barely slap their wrists for some heinous crime. The same people who put the human rights of the criminals , before the same human rights their victims were supposed to enjoy.
Click to expand...
You mean, the people who uphold the laws passed by Parliament?

The people you voted in to power.

And you object to that, do you?
 
Unfortunately while we make it very difficult for some people who struggle to manage on benifits (sometimes due to their own ineptitude ) we also make it very easy for others to take advantage.
Currently have 3 siblings in my care, mum dumped them at the council offices after being evicted , again, seems she makes a habit of not paying the rent, she is unemployed.
Not sure if she was claiming housing benefits but don't see how she could get several rentals unless she is.
Strange thing is she owns a 5 bed home in London ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

JBR
  • Locked
UKIP - a 'one trick pony'?
11 12 13
Replies
188
Views
21K
RNReindeer
R
Back
Top