This Country is a Joke

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

Family of 4, Man, Wife and two kids. Have a mortgage and have worked all their lives. They get made redundant, through no fault of their own. They can't pay the mortgage. They are not entitled to housing benefit as they are not renting.

It`s not often I agree with you but I do on this one, When I got made redundant last year and claimed dole for a month, I could n`t get Housing Benefit for my mortgage, even though the mortgage payments are considerably lower than council house rent payments in the area. And I`ve paid into the system all my working life, 31 years!

[MrFrost]

Exactly Filo. It stinks.
It's not the fact that they are asylum seekers (although I would question why they were granted asylum, but that's a seperate matter), I would ask the same question if it was a British family doing the same thing.

[jucyberry]

I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.

I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.

Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.

this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.

And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?

What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.

As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.

[MrFrost]

jucyberry wrote:

I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.

I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.

Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.

this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.

And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?

What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.

As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.

I don't agree.
We should stop taking asylum seekers and try and help those in need who have contributed to society.
For those who say they don't come here for the easy ride and benefits, why do they risk life and limb jumping onto lorries at Calais, why not stay in France and see how they get on there?

[graingrover]

this country rrally is a joke [url]http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/06/total-fcuk-and-ups-in-joint-sponsorship-deal-with-england-football-team/[url]

[jucyberry]

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

I get so very frustrated by these kind of stories, they are so rabid and hate filled, which is why I posed my original question. As always the opinion is divided ..the headlines are deliberately designed to stir up hatred and resentment of Daily mail readers two pet hates, foreigners and the poor.

I read the paper on line, as I have said before I treat it as a psudo anthrapological study of the middle class, because as I see it the have's seem to loathe the have not's with a passion.

Being unable to get help with paying a mortgage isn't a new thing, it is terribly unjust I agree, one wonders if it was designed that way so that the state didn't end up buying the long term unemployed's houses for them.

this man wants to work, he is on a training course, he is being proactive, but that doesn't fit in with the picture the DM is trying to portray.

And I tell you for nothing, I am glad we are thought of as being a country that will help people in need, and in danger... those of you who don't like it, would you rather England was a country that WE were all trying to escape from because it is a hell ?

What needs to be sorted is the vast amount of housing stock that is derelict, whole streets that could be made into homes again.

As I have said on another forum, when I die if I am still in this house it will then be given to another young family. That is what these houses were designed for, and if there were still enough of them then problems like this would never arise.

I don't agree.
We should stop taking asylum seekers and try and help those in need who have contributed to society.
For those who say they don't come here for the easy ride and benefits, why do they risk life and limb jumping onto lorries at Calais, why not stay in France and see how they get on there?

I didn't think you would..

[MrFrost]

I'm sorry, I wish we could help every Tom, Dick and Harry that border jumps into the country and give them a safe place to live, a nice house, food and water. It would be fantastic.

But this is the real world. Shit happens. We can't help every human being that is unfortunate to come from a war zone. We have enough problems of our own in this country, and they are adding to it. Some will be here in genuine fear, I accept that, but many come here to abuse the benefit system.

[jucyberry]

This discussion has floundered way off tangent I think. As always the DM has gleefully trumpeted the two things that get middle englands blood boiling. For me as I have already stated the better question would be when is something going to be done to sort out the social housing situation. Remove the lack of this commodity and you will remove the need for such huge amounts of housing benefits being paid.

Blame the sucessive governments, blame the councils, they are the ones you should be looking to.

totally inept most of the time.

I will give you an example. When I divorced, my kids were nine and eleven.. at the time I worked part time, and so was entitled to full housing benefit. the chance came for me to become full time, which naturally I jumped at, notifying the council right away that my circumstances had changed. ( I have always had a healthy terror of doing the wrong thing)..

anyway, I waited, and waited for my ajustments to be made, but nothing. so I rang, oh yes I was told, we have a bit of a back log don't worry....this went on for weeks.. I  rang again and again, until finally I was  told that because of a system failure  I now owed over £500 in unpaid rent, even tho I had done the right thing, and kept in touch with them througout.  

they got it back £5 a month, because I was damned if I was going to banckrupt myself over their mistakes.

[Filo]

jucyberry wrote:

when is something going to be done to sort out the social housing situation. Remove the lack of this commodity and you will remove the need for such huge amounts of housing benefits being paid.

A legacy of the previous Tory government, selling off the council housing stock!

[jucyberry]

Exactly.

[MrFrost]

I thought the Tories would somehow get the blame..........

[jucyberry]

Well, you cannot deny they began the rot.

Those houses were built for  a reason and should never ever have been sold off.

[Filo]

MrFrost wrote:

I thought the Tories would somehow get the blame..........

The fact is, Thatcher`s Government introduced the \"Right to buy\" scheme, as jucy says, those houses were owned and built by the council`s for a reason. I`m not having a go at the folk that bought their homes under this scheme, if I liked where i lived and was offered my Council house at a discounted rate, then I would have bought as well. The fact is these houses should never have been sold off, but then again the Tories sell everything off don`t they?

[jucyberry]

I remember years ago when the scheme first came out, my parents could have bought their home for £6,000 they didn't I am very glad to say. and not because they didn't like where they lived, or because they couldn't, but because my dad didn't feel it was right.  Wise man my dad.

Differnt strokes for different folks I guess. You can't take it with you when you go after all.

To come full circle, if we had the stock needed in social dwellings, there would be far less need for cases that grab the headlines such as this one.

And to add insult to injury, this being a costal area, many villages around me have ex council houses left empty most of the year because they have been snapped up for holiday homes... and don't even get me started on that one!

[MrFrost]

jucyberry wrote:

I remember years ago when the scheme first came out, my parents could have bought their home for £6,000 they didn't I am very glad to say. and not because they didn't like where they lived, or because they couldn't, but because my dad didn't feel it was right.  Wise man my dad.

Differnt strokes for different folks I guess. You can't take it with you when you go after all.

To come full circle, if we had the stock needed in social dwellings, there would be far less need for cases that grab the headlines such as this one.

And to add insult to injury, this being a costal area, many villages around me have ex council houses left empty most of the year because they have been snapped up for holiday homes... and don't even get me started on that one!

Ok, look at the flip side. Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme.

Going back to the family in question. Why the need to move to a better area of London. They should have been grateful for what they had. There will have been many people living in this so called bad are that have worked hard, paid taxes etc, but that is the only area they can afford to live. Why should this family have the right to demand a better area? Like I said, it will have been a palace compared to where they lived in Somalia no doubt.

[bobjimwilly]

\"Don't hate the player(s) MrFrost, hate the game\"

http://www.metrolyrics.com/dont-hate-the-playa-lyrics-ice-t.html

 B)

[jucyberry]

Ah yes, we should all be very grateful... How very Victorian.

so, what is your suggestion, commandeer a field and throw up a few mud huts so they are in familiar surroundings?  I take it that is your view of their part of the world?

Whilst we are at it, let the buggers eat gruel , or I know , why dont we slap up a few workhouses, it's all very in keeping with that ethos after all.

[MrFrost]

And what is your suggestion? Harbor every single person who flee's to this country. Provide them all with houses and benefits that the state pays for? No wonder this country is in such a financial mess.
Don't grant them asylum, make it more difficult. France have the right approach. They cant claim anything for 6 months while they're claims is lodged. Here in Britain they can claim as soon as they hit Dover.
 Like I said, my own nan didn't have a penney to her name when she died, worked her whole life and got no help from the state. We should look after our own citizens first and foremost.
We don;t live in a perfect world. It's sad they come from third world, war torn countries, but those were the cards they were dealt. We do not have a responsibility to them.

[Thinwhiteduke]

MrFrost wrote:

Ok, look at the flip side. Many people simply wouldn't have been able to get on the property ladder with out the right to buy scheme.

In practice, that was my parents situation, and ultimately thanks to the fact they could buy their home via that scheme they slowly saved, sold for profit, able to give me and my sister a better education therefore leading to myself and my sister having reasonably well paid jobs - able to buy our own homes. Without that scheme, the likelihood is my parents would have struggled to provide much of anything for us.

So to a degree a agree with the 'Right to buy' scheme, but I equally see how this has contributed to a lack of social housing. Its a double edged sword.

MrFrost wrote:

Going back to the family in question. Why the need to move to a better area of London. They should have been grateful for what they had. There will have been many people living in this so called bad are that have worked hard, paid taxes etc, but that is the only area they can afford to live. Why should this family have the right to demand a better area? Like I said, it will have been a palace compared to where they lived in Somalia no doubt.

I agree they should have been kept in the area they were intially allocated, after all the property was adequate.

The issue should have been sorting out what made the area 'Bad' and bringing that to a better standard. After all, someone else is going to move into that area now - possibly an OAP, possibly some Young single mother.

Whatever differentiates good and bad, do something to level out the playing field.

[Glyn_Wigley]

MrFrost wrote:

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

oslorovers wrote:

ok the asylum seeking issue put it this way the family in this
thread claim asylum in the uk after flitting their war torn or whatever country as they fear for their lives

they get given asylum and housed in a so called iffy part of north london.is this part of london war torn....NO....is it safe....alot safer than where they are seeking asylum from....

so the family complain about north london and now want to claim
asylum from north london to any nicer part of london...their claim is processed and passed and move up west to nice safe keningston.

the house they get will be fitted with basic mod cons etc etc

now lets look at a olde fella who fought in second world war for his country,what will he be getting from the state or not getting

type of sums it up dont it

No, your post type of sums up the reaction the Mail is looking for. Whatever the rules are that have allowed this to happen (and I don't believe that the story hasn't been distorted anyway) would also apply to your 'olde fella', and for the Mail to give the impression that this has all happened because of 'asylum seeking' is disengenuous to say the least.

No, the rules aren't the same for everyone. Take this scenario:

Family of 4, Man, Wife and two kids. Have a mortgage and have worked all their lives. They get made redundant, through no fault of their own. They can't pay the mortgage. They are not entitled to housing benefit as they are not renting. Their house gets re-possesed. Now with a shite credit rating, they can't buy or rent privately. Screwed big time.

Now you have a family of asylum seekers. Granted asylum because sending them home would infringe on their human rights. They've never contributed to our society, yet they get put up in a £900 a week house. They don't like this, so they get upgraded to a £2000 a week house, all mod cons, a life of luxury.

Take the two scenario's. Why should this Somalian family be entitled to anything?

Fcuk having two different scenarios, that's typical BNP tactics. Hows about we stick to the same scenario, hmm?

If the people in question were you and your family, wouldn't the same loophole be available to you? Or are you honestly trying to tell us they've only got this because they were former asylum seekers?

[MrFrost]

If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.

My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.

There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?

[Glyn_Wigley]

MrFrost wrote:

If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.

My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.

There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?

Yeah right. I can just see you frothing at the mouth over a headline saying 'Family exploits loophole available to all'.

If I read you right, you agree that it's the system you object to - so you'd also agree that the people concerned being immigrants is completely irrelevant. Now explain why the Daily Mail banged on about such an irrelevance so much?

[jucyberry]

Rape.... rather a strong word to be bandied about isn't it? A word that means to be taken by force or against will.

a very Daily Mail journalistic type emotive word that is totally suggestive.

this family isn't raping anything, or any one. If anyone is abusing the system it is the greedy landlords charging such extortionate rents. and I take it the family man in the generic nuclear family unit would be a white indidgenous male?

My grandmother also worked all her life, was raised in the workhouse at Grantham..the daughter of a miner, she also died dirt poor....So what?

The poor after all go some way to out number the rich, but does that mean their worth is only in what they can provide as a political sound byte?

[Glyn_Wigley]

jucyberry wrote:

Rape.... rather a strong word to be bandied about isn't it? A word that means to be taken by force or against will.

a very Daily Mail journalistic type emotive word that is totally suggestive.

this family isn't raping anything, or any one. If anyone is abusing the system it is the greedy landlords charging such extortionate rents. and I take it the family man in the generic nuclear family unit would be a white indidgenous male?

My grandmother also worked all her life, was raised in the workhouse at Grantham..the daughter of a miner, she also died dirt poor....So what?

The poor after all go some way to out number the rich, but does that mean their worth is only in what they can provide as a political sound byte?

Not only that, but it appears that Mr Frost counts peoples' rights  based on their contribution to the state.

Surely that would mean that a 16-year-old immigrant would have more rights than a 16-year-old school-leaver born and bred in this country.

True, neither have made any contribution to the state, but at least the immigrant hasn't taken cash out of the system in free schooling, child benefit, NHS costs etc. Now then...which of them, in Mr Frost's Perfect World is more entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance if they haven't got a job?

[jucyberry]

There is a Utopia where  there is no taking from the state, no foreigners/ spongers/ single parents/ et al.

 It lives in the minds of the shallow, self obsessed I'm alright jack land of people like the journalists and commentators in papers like the Daily mail.

 It is perpetuated by those who believe the headlines and don't try to see through them to the real story and therefore the true agenda of those who publish them.

[MrFrost]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

If you read my posts, you would see that I said I would have the same opinion if it was a British family raping the system.

My argument on asylum seekers is something different all together.

There are different scenario's and proves how the system is flawed. That was my point. Can you not grasp that?

Yeah right. I can just see you frothing at the mouth over a headline saying 'Family exploits loophole available to all'.

If I read you right, you agree that it's the system you object to - so you'd also agree that the people concerned being immigrants is completely irrelevant. Now explain why the Daily Mail banged on about such an irrelevance so much?

Personally, if it was me, I wouldn't demand my family be moved to an exclusive area of London. I'd deal with the problems on my doorstep rather than run away from them.

I do not agree with the system. Well done for working that out. Neither do I agree with the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers. I'll brace myself for the BNP comments.

[jucyberry]

I wouldn't want to deal with anything in the heart of London. I certainly wouldn't want to live somewhere that my boy would either be a victim of, or be a member of a gang, because if you aren't in one you are something to be exterminated.

[MrFrost]

Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.

[Glyn_Wigley]

MrFrost wrote:

Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.

If an 'indigeanous' family had managed to 'pull it off' and better their living surrounding, would you be saying that they should have been grateful that they were already living in better conditions than Somalia?

Or should only those immigrants who ought to be grateful for any old shit we deign to give them and shut up about it be slapped down for daring to do such a thing?

Good God, I've been watching programmes from South Africa for the past month showing how people have progressed since the abolition of apartheid, and there are people in this country wanting to impose what amounts to first- and second-class citizenship in THIS country.  :side:

[MrFrost]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Like I pointed out earlier, there are probably plenty of people living in this area of London who don't have the luxury of being able to demand a move to an up market part of the city. Yet this family were able to pull it off.
Whatever the conditions of where they were living, they would have been a damn sight better than they were in Somalia.

If an 'indigeanous' family had managed to 'pull it off' and better their living surrounding, would you be saying that they should have been grateful that they were already living in better conditions than Somalia?

Or should only those immigrants who ought to be grateful for any old shit we deign to give them and shut up about it be slapped down for daring to do such a thing?

Good God, I've been watching programmes from South Africa for the past month showing how people have progressed since the abolition of apartheid, and there are people in this country wanting to impose what amounts to first- and second-class citizenship in THIS country.  :side:

You obviously can't understand my point.
I wonder what will happen to this family once the much needed cap on housing benefit is introduced. They wouldn't even be able to live where they used to.