Soldier put behind the unemployed, criminals and asylum seekers on housing register

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ueue-home.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...70_468x596.jpg

Quote:

---

Fighting on the hellish battlefields of Iraq, he risked his life for his country every day. But when Private Joe MacDonald asked his local authority to help find his young family a house, his sacrifice counted for nothing. He first met with a point-blank refusal, followed by the offer of nothing more than a room in a hostel for himself, his wife and three young children. The council, which organises the provision of social housing through housing associations, put his case behind the unemployed, single mothers, criminals freed from prison and asylum seekers. It claimed that because he was leaving the Army he was deliberately making himself homeless. The bizarre loophole could affect thousands of military personnel when they end their service.

Pte MacDonald, 25, completed a gruelling seven-month tour of duty with the Royal Logistic Corps in southern Iraq in 2006. He fought gun battles with Iraqi insurgents as he protected Army convoys carrying food, fuel, ammunition and kit to troops in UK bases around the British-held part of the country. Last year he decided to quit the regiment to spend more time with his family and began searching for accommodation once his final posting in Germany ends this month. He was born and brought up in Bexley, south-east London, and his parents still live there. But he was stunned when the council refused to provide a house for him and his wife Rachael, 21, and children Ellen-May, four, Harry-Joe, 19 months, and baby Maissy-Ann. Pte MacDonald said officials told him that because he was making himself homeless by voluntarily leaving Army quarters, he was ineligible for any property at all. Later, they offered the family the hostel room where they would have to share a bathroom, kitchen and living room with other families.

Pte MacDonald fears he and his family will be forced to live with his mother-in-law near Salisbury, Wiltshire, where nine people will have to share the house. He said: ‘I have put my life on the line. I have been to war and spent nine years in service for this country. It is absolutely disgusting that it is not recognised. ‘I am retraining as an IT engineer and desperately need somewhere for my family to stay as I won’t earn enough initially to afford private accommodation. 'It seems incredible that no one can find me a council house to live in while I find my feet. It seems like people in the Army are last on the list to be given help.’ In 2008, the Ministry of Defence pledged to give fairer treatment to forces’ families over accommodation.

---

Well this is the kind of country we now live in and its been endemic of this government throughout to treat our soliders in such an appalling manner although it must be mentioned that Bexley Council is Conservative controlled by a rather big majority so the modern day Conservatives have just the same contempt for our soliders as Labour always have done.

I'd like to ask above all; why on earth is anybody who is purposely unemployed or a criminal even allowed social housing and why the hell are asylum seekers being given social housing? - although this originally came from the EU where they have now made it so that we are forced to provide housing for asylum seekers who come into Europe and end up here because of our generous and soft system along with some of our soft judges and even softer laws. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eekers-EU.html)

Thoughts - is this a fair system?

The system is a total joke and yet another hero is being penalised for working hard. Maybe he needs to split up with his wife and then get back together once her and the kids have been housed (Play the system like all the freeloaders do). This sort of story is why I am fully entitled to strongly criticise my own country which I was once so proud of. I think its about time the Queen stood up and gave her opinion of whats being allowed to happen to our once great nation.

Wouldn't be the first time our government has failed in housing soldiers, it has consistently failed to throughout the past century.

You can almost understand David Camerons "Broken Britain" at times, while he uses it as a ridiculous gimick, it really does seem to be true with the council house application process, favouring "broken" families. And of course Labour has failed to build anywhere near as many houses it promised/needed; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8600961.stm http://www.conservatives.com/News/Ne...n_housing.aspx

This is just the start I imagine.

Can't say I'm surprised :/ Heck, the newspapers are riddled with controversy. Apparently the English Channel is being renamed in Atlases "Le Pond".

You can apply to have a free house in the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotelUser

You can apply to have a free house in the UK?

---

Essentially yes. There are waiting lists and a certain criteria though. Plus the house won't be yours unless you decide it buy it off the Council (Local government). They're also quite bad housing as a rule too and are often grotty flats in tower blocks. The bottom line is, it is free housing but it's not as good as it sounds :P

They're semi-detached housing in rural areas, so some are pretty decent :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Essentially yes. There are waiting lists and a certain criteria though. Plus the house won't be yours unless you decide it buy it off the Council (Local government). They're also quite bad housing as a rule too and are often grotty flats in tower blocks. The bottom line is, it is free housing but it's not as good as it sounds :P

---

We don't have anything like this, as far as I know, in Canada. The closest would be how the government gives free housing and university to natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotelUser

We don't have anything like this, as far as I know, in Canada. The closest would be how the government gives free housing and university to natives.

---

in american english they are called 'the projects.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

in american english they are called 'the projects.'

---

Maybe on American television. I've never heard a Canadian discuss "the projects" before.

Wiki (as reliable as it is :P) says they're called council housing in Canada too. Something about affordable post war housing.

I personally think soldiers should get a lot of things for free once they've finished X amount of years... free housing or discounted housing at least...

This makes me very angry yet again... ugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Wiki (as reliable as it is :P) says they're called council housing in Canada too. Something about affordable post war housing.

---

That's exactly what ours were meant to be originally, although looking at this thread, it only goes to show times have changed.

Well I have to say Jordy that it was Margaret Thatcher who changed all this.

Quote:

---

After Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, the legislation to implement the Right to Buy was passed in the Housing Act 1980. The sale price of a council house was based on its market valuation but also included a discount to reflect the rents paid by tenants and also to encourage take-up. The legislation gave council tenants the right to buy their council house at a discounted value, depending on how long they had been living in the house, with the proviso that if they sold their house before a minimum period had expired they would have to pay back a proportion of the discount. The sales were an attractive deal for tenants and hundreds of thousands of homes were sold. The policy is regarded as one of the major points of Thatcherism.

---

This means that theres is a vast shortage of social housing everywhere because a lot of it is now owner/occupied and they also got the houses at a huge discount. Bad move in my opinion - if they could afford to buy a house then they should not be living in Social housing. But the situation is as it is now. I don't know why the soldier even wants a council house but I do believe that something should be done for him for all the reasons above. It doesn't necessarily mean though he is being denied it just by criminals and immigrants as I am sure there are many people and families on the list that do not fall into the category and have been waiting longer. The other question is has he left the army with a pension or has he just quit? Lots of unanswered questions here that haven't been explained. However, I checked the rental accomodation in Bexhill as it is in quite short supply and is pretty expensive. Hope something gets done as it is quite a unique situation as he is accomodated by the army at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well I have to say Jordy that it was Margaret Thatcher who changed all this.

This means that theres is a vast shortage of social housing everywhere because a lot of it is now owner/occupied and they also got the houses at a huge discount. Bad move in my opinion - if they could afford to buy a house then they should not be living in Social housing. But the situation is as it is now. I don't know why the soldier even wants a council house but I do believe that something should be done for him for all the reasons above. It doesn't necessarily mean though he is being denied it just by criminals and immigrants as I am sure there are many people and families on the list that do not fall into the category and have been waiting longer. The other question is has he left the army with a pension or has he just quit? Lots of unanswered questions here that haven't been explained. However, I checked the rental accomodation in Bexhill as it is in quite short supply and is pretty expensive. Hope something gets done as it is quite a unique situation as he is accomodated by the army at present.

---

I commented on Labours failure to build promised houses in general, until very recently they have almost made it incredibly difficult for first time buyers too. If more houses were built it would of eased the pressure on social housing too.

Right To Buy gave something for people to aspire to, a reason to work hard and save money so they could actually own their own council house, I'm sure owning your own home is anyone's dream in life. Thatcher made it affordable for them to do this, the council houses were offered at cheaper prices than typical houses on the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

I personally think soldiers should get a lot of things for free once they've finished X amount of years... free housing or discounted housing at least...

This makes me very angry yet again... ugh.

---

No they shouldn't? They do actually get paid and some perks for what they do, it is a job at the end of the day. If you say it's a risky job, there's plenty of risky jobs but they don't get these "after perks".

Assuming those people applied for houses first, then fine but if it's like some sort of punishment that he will only be done later then that's not fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well I have to say Jordy that it was Margaret Thatcher who changed all this.

This means that theres is a vast shortage of social housing everywhere because a lot of it is now owner/occupied and they also got the houses at a huge discount. Bad move in my opinion - if they could afford to buy a house then they should not be living in Social housing. But the situation is as it is now. I don't know why the soldier even wants a council house but I do believe that something should be done for him for all the reasons above. It doesn't necessarily mean though he is being denied it just by criminals and immigrants as I am sure there are many people and families on the list that do not fall into the category and have been waiting longer. The other question is has he left the army with a pension or has he just quit? Lots of unanswered questions here that haven't been explained. However, I checked the rental accomodation in Bexhill as it is in quite short supply and is pretty expensive. Hope something gets done as it is quite a unique situation as he is accomodated by the army at present.

---

Well that is just terrible;- giving the poorest the chance to buy a house at a discounted price and thus not have to rely on the state in future is dreadful (from a Labour point of view because quite frankly, it loses you votes and removes power from the state and gives it to the individual which is against everything that the left stands for). The fact is that the right to buy scheme was introduced to allow the poorest to get on their own two feet and give them motivation to better off themselves. I would like to say and ask, despite the fact that Labour have had 13 years now in office why is everything still Margaret Thatchers fault? - maybe, just maybe, its the fault of Labour for failing to build new council houses and for allowing immigration/asylum to explode thus deepening the burden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrselenagomez

No they shouldn't? They do actually get paid and some perks for what they do, it is a job at the end of the day. If you say it's a risky job, there's plenty of risky jobs but they don't get these "after perks".

Assuming those people applied for houses first, then fine but if it's like some sort of punishment that he will only be done later then that's not fair.

---

Like I said, I personally think they should. That's my opinion. You have yours, which is opposite to mine, which is fine. Of course they get paid. We wouldn't have an army if they didn't get paid. :rolleyes: It's not a huge amount though... in the region of £20k per year for putting their lifes at risk. Yeah, those other risky jobs aren't the same. You didn't care to name one but it's different, the army is defending the country and is an honourable thing, whereas a window cleaner climbing up 100's of stories is not on the same level. At the end of the day these people put their lives on the line for our country: without these people we might not be here. If a soldier puts in so many years, 10 for arguments sake, then I think they should get housing, or at least cheaper housing. That's my opinion.

I have nothing but utter respect for every person who is in or has been in the Armed Forces. They risk their lives to defend us, knowing they could die any time, yet they do. I don't think many people join the army solely for the money, rather for the honour of fighting for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Like I said, I personally think they should. That's my opinion. You have yours, which is opposite to mine, which is fine. Of course they get paid. We wouldn't have an army if they didn't get paid. :rolleyes: It's not a huge amount though... in the region of £20k per year for putting their lifes at risk. Yeah, those other risky jobs aren't the same. You didn't care to name one but it's different, the army is defending the country and is an honourable thing, whereas a window cleaner climbing up 100's of stories is not on the same level. At the end of the day these people put their lives on the line for our country: without these people we might not be here. If a soldier puts in so many years, 10 for arguments sake, then I think they should get housing, or at least cheaper housing. That's my opinion.

I have nothing but utter respect for every person who is in or has been in the Armed Forces. They risk their lives to defend us, knowing they could die any time, yet they do. I don't think many people join the army solely for the money, rather for the honour of fighting for the country.

---

Well all jobs have risks. Also the honourable thing depends on which side of the stick you're on, plus how are they defending us at the moment, really? We still get terrorist attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrselenagomez

Well all jobs have risks. Also the honourable thing depends on which side of the stick you're on, plus how are they defending us at the moment, really? We still get terrorist attacks.

---

I agree with them not being put to the front of the queue, the issue I have is why are they put behind criminals, asylum seekers and the unemployed?

The bigger issue being; why do them three even qualify for council housing in the first place?

Because its better for them to shove more money in the governments pocket to be wasted rather for them to be moulding on the street. Plus some of them might have a fair reason, criminals may have been mislead or like only stole something, unemployment may be different as they can't find a job etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrselenagomez

Well all jobs have risks. Also the honourable thing depends on which side of the stick you're on, plus how are they defending us at the moment, really? We still get terrorist attacks.

---

Somebody who puts their life on the line to fight for their country is as honourable as they come. The government tell the military where to send our soldiers so I support the th forces fully with whatever they are MADE to do although I do agree about the terrorist attacks and think the current wars we are involved in make us a bigger target :o but thats the governments fault and not our great armed forces (Not sure how long we will have our own armed forces)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...be-agreed.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrselenagomez

Well all jobs have risks. Also the honourable thing depends on which side of the stick you're on, plus how are they defending us at the moment, really? We still get terrorist attacks.

---

Yeah, if you look at it that way everything has a risk. Having a bath has a risk, you might slip and break your neck. The point is being a soldier is much riskier, seeing as you could be shot or blown up at pretty much any time. It's on a whole different level though... the Police comes with risks, a lorry driver comes with risks, but nothing on the level of a soldier in the armed forces. Being a lorry driver or a police officer you don't think about being blown up or shot, as it's very very very unlikely, but for a soldier it's reality and could happen any time, any where. In the past we were defended in world wars, that was my reference, without them we'd be dead or Nazis... yeah we still get terrorist attacks because we cannot destroy every single terrorist on the planet. I don't agree with us being in the Afghan war, but I do see the point as to why we are there. If the Taliban were in control they'd be able to get planes, weapons, loads of things to create mass terrorism, not the odd bit here and there.

The people who should stop the actual attacks themselves are the intelligence services and the Government. A lot of attacks are done by people in the country, look at London and the underground or the recent Russian bombings. A soldier in Afghanistan can't stop that, can he? Use logic. If the Taliban were left to consume Afghanistan then eventually they'd have planes and loads of other weapons to carry out many attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I commented on Labours failure to build promised houses in general, until very recently they have almost made it incredibly difficult for first time buyers too. If more houses were built it would of eased the pressure on social housing too.

Right To Buy gave something for people to aspire to, a reason to work hard and save money so they could actually own their own council house, I'm sure owning your own home is anyone's dream in life. Thatcher made it affordable for them to do this, the council houses were offered at cheaper prices than typical houses on the market.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well that is just terrible;- giving the poorest the chance to buy a house at a discounted price and thus not have to rely on the state in future is dreadful (from a Labour point of view because quite frankly, it loses you votes and removes power from the state and gives it to the individual which is against everything that the left stands for). The fact is that the right to buy scheme was introduced to allow the poorest to get on their own two feet and give them motivation to better off themselves. I would like to say and ask, despite the fact that Labour have had 13 years now in office why is everything still Margaret Thatchers fault? - maybe, just maybe, its the fault of Labour for failing to build new council houses and for allowing immigration/asylum to explode thus deepening the burden?

---

But the problem was with the scheme that the money raised was not re-invested in more social housing which left a huge problem especially with the discounts given. At the start of the 1980s, local authorities were one of the biggest direct providers of housing. ‘Right to Buy’ nullified this and so providing homes is nowadays far less significant for them. Consequently, through being forced to sell their housing stock at below market rates meant that revenue incomes were reduced which in turn hampered their ability to carry out the repairs and improvements required to maintain their dwindling housing stock. You can't expect any government of any persuasion just to be able to rectify that even in 13 years. Labour have brought 1.5 million council houses up to a decent standard, with over 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000new bathrooms and over a million new central heating systems fitted but it will take decades not 13 years to replace the numbers sold off. That is why housing benefit was probably introduced to allow people that were on the waiting list to get affordable rented properties. The next goverment will have the same problem whoever it is.

I'm going to agree in part with Catzsy here. Yes, from the headline, it is a terrible situation and one you might be able to imagine happening in this country. If it's as straightforward as that then sure, something needs to be done. However, nothing is straightforward. As Catzsy rightly said before me, there will be others on that list, probably not all have fought in the army but they deserve housing just as much as he does. I respect anyone who has been in the army, but right now it's being used as some sort of moral high ground, when really I don't see how it can be. These people are putting their lives at risk for the country, fair enough, there isn't enough respect in the world to give to them. But why it is increasingly used to make a mockery of the government by highlighting individual cases like this is beyond me. Nobody is forcing these people to sign up to be in the army, it is their choice. If you make that choice then yes, you should be well compensated for it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it does not give you the immediate right to free housing and the such like above others on an already existing list.

We do not know the reason(s) he has decided to leave the army, they may be completely understandable, but again, you cannot expect things to be done at the click of your fingers. The world doesn't work like that for anybody. This story has been written with the purpose of making things seem a whole lot worse than they actually are.

1. The unemployed - i've been there, many of us have now, and i'd like to think that had I been thrown out of home and found myself with nowhere to live that I would not have been frowned upon for being above someone on a list when I was in need first. I understand that some people are less honest when they say they are unemployed, simply because they cannot be bothered to get a job, the vast majority of people aren't that way. Not to mention that because of the current economic climate, people have lost their homes due to redundancy, so technically they would be in the unemployed category. Why would you begrudge these people housing?

2. Criminals - I have very limited sympathy for anybody who has committed a crime, but not every criminal is a thug. There are such things as people who perhaps did something quite silly like thieved when they were younger, but now wish to actually rebuild their lives, things like this do happen. These people would still be under the tag of 'criminal' and I wouldn't begrudge them a house if needed. Not to mention that if you leave a person fresh out of prison on the streets with no home, the likelihood they will reoffend is probably quite high, then they are back in prison.. so it's sort of a vicious circle.

3. Asylum Seekers - doesn't shock me this is on a list from a story written by the dailymail if i'm honest. Again, there are such things as people who really do need asylum, not everybody is here to take benefits and generally be a nuisance to society.

It's very easy to generalise, and let's face it, this story has. Sometimes you do need to think a little deeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

But the problem was with the scheme that the money raised was not re-invested in more social housing which left a huge problem especially with the discounts given. At the start of the 1980s, local authorities were one of the biggest direct providers of housing. ‘Right to Buy’ nullified this and so providing homes is nowadays far less significant for them. Consequently, through being forced to sell their housing stock at below market rates meant that revenue incomes were reduced which in turn hampered their ability to carry out the repairs and improvements required to maintain their dwindling housing stock. You can't expect any government of any persuasion just to be able to rectify that even in 13 years. Labour have brought 1.5 million council houses up to a decent standard, with over 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000new bathrooms and over a million new central heating systems fitted but it will take decades not 13 years to replace the numbers sold off. That is why housing benefit was probably introduced to allow people that were on the waiting list to get affordable rented properties. The next goverment will have the same problem whoever it is.

---

That's because at the start of the 1980s the country was in enormous debt to the IMF, the money has to be repaid some how. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though, supporting a party which borrows during 10 years of economic goodness when Brown was chancellor. Right To Buy inspired people to own their own homes and make them proud of their community again instead of being dragged along by the government. I'm afraid in 13 years, you have more than enough time to plan and build social housing, it does not take decades. I don't even see any planning or policies from the Labour Party promising to build or plan more, and even if they had done, it's 13 years too late. The Conservatives however are going to encourage more houses to be built by incentives for local councils which will result in less people depending on social housing. Fewer houses are being built at any time during the past 80 years, Labour has continued to fail in building houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

I'm going to agree in part with Catzsy here. Yes, from the headline, it is a terrible situation and one you might be able to imagine happening in this country. If it's as straightforward as that then sure, something needs to be done. However, nothing is straightforward. As Catzsy rightly said before me, there will be others on that list, probably not all have fought in the army but they deserve housing just as much as he does. I respect anyone who has been in the army, but right now it's being used as some sort of moral high ground, when really I don't see how it can be. These people are putting their lives at risk for the country, fair enough, there isn't enough respect in the world to give to them. But why it is increasingly used to make a mockery of the government by highlighting individual cases like this is beyond me. Nobody is forcing these people to sign up to be in the army, it is their choice. If you make that choice then yes, you should be well compensated for it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it does not give you the immediate right to free housing and the such like above others on an already existing list.

We do not know the reason(s) he has decided to leave the army, they may be completely understandable, but again, you cannot expect things to be done at the click of your fingers. The world doesn't work like that for anybody. This story has been written with the purpose of making things seem a whole lot worse than they actually are.

1. The unemployed - i've been there, many of us have now, and i'd like to think that had I been thrown out of home and found myself with nowhere to live that I would not have been frowned upon for being above someone on a list when I was in need first. I understand that some people are less honest when they say they are unemployed, simply because they cannot be bothered to get a job, the vast majority of people aren't that way. Not to mention that because of the current economic climate, people have lost their homes due to redundancy, so technically they would be in the unemployed category. Why would you begrudge these people housing?

2. Criminals - I have very limited sympathy for anybody who has committed a crime, but not every criminal is a thug. There are such things as people who perhaps did something quite silly like thieved when they were younger, but now wish to actually rebuild their lives, things like this do happen. These people would still be under the tag of 'criminal' and I wouldn't begrudge them a house if needed. Not to mention that if you leave a person fresh out of prison on the streets with no home, the likelihood they will reoffend is probably quite high, then they are back in prison.. so it's sort of a vicious circle.

3. Asylum Seekers - doesn't shock me this is on a list from a story written by the dailymail if i'm honest. Again, there are such things as people who really do need asylum, not everybody is here to take benefits and generally be a nuisance to society.

It's very easy to generalise, and let's face it, this story has. Sometimes you do need to think a little deeper.

---

I think risking your life for queen and country does put you on a moral high-ground and should therefore be rewarded by the state more than others. Housing is one of the most basic of demands and these people aren't even allowed priorities. These people have done more than any criminals and asylum seekers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

I think risking your life for queen and country does put you on a moral high-ground and should therefore be rewarded by the state more than others. Housing is one of the most basic of demands and these people aren't even allowed priorities. These people have done more than any criminals and asylum seekers.

---

Really? I get where you are coming from, but it's a choice, one they made without force. Not to mention that the people above him on that list, discounting all criminals and asylum seekers to be sure my point gets across, may well themselves have applied to join the army. Not everybody is allowed in. So because they aren't allowed in, someone who got that chance to do what they wanted is rewarded first? No thank you, you wait your turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

But the problem was with the scheme that the money raised was not re-invested in more social housing which left a huge problem especially with the discounts given. At the start of the 1980s, local authorities were one of the biggest direct providers of housing. ‘Right to Buy’ nullified this and so providing homes is nowadays far less significant for them. Consequently, through being forced to sell their housing stock at below market rates meant that revenue incomes were reduced which in turn hampered their ability to carry out the repairs and improvements required to maintain their dwindling housing stock. You can't expect any government of any persuasion just to be able to rectify that even in 13 years. Labour have brought 1.5 million council houses up to a decent standard, with over 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000new bathrooms and over a million new central heating systems fitted but it will take decades not 13 years to replace the numbers sold off. That is why housing benefit was probably introduced to allow people that were on the waiting list to get affordable rented properties. The next goverment will have the same problem whoever it is.

---

As Jordy said, at the time we had to pay off the enormous debts that the Labour Party had built up and that in 1979 we had to get an emergency loan from the IMF just to keep running as a country. To add to this, a lot of money was cut from the state budget to lower taxes dramatically which helped millions of families and indivuals across Britain to buy shares, to set up business and to be able to help stimulate an economy which was until this point, on the brink of total collapse. Of course as usual, many of you Labour supporters on here know nothing on history/or totally ignore it and just run off with the idea that 'Thatcher was bad, Thatcher was evil' well how about for once actually thinking about the whole situation and using thought with it rather than petty party political politics?

I can expect a government to build more housing and we do expect a government which raises tax after tax to actually fix a situation, especially when you bash the Conservatives so much over it. I know you, like the rest of the left despises the thought of people bettering themselves and you always have, you dont know it but thats what you and your idealogy stands for because the thought that people can unhinge themselves off the hook of the state is, in your line of thought, an awful idea. Your party has had 13 years (longer than most other governments have had in power) to build more social housing, couple that with the fact you had a global boom which brought an immense amount of money to the country which generated the biggest housing boom we had ever seen. To add to that, you have also had taxes raised year on year so quite frankly there is no excuse.

Thanks to the right-to-buy scheme, millions were given the chance to buy their own house, something they would never of been able to do. They were able to have some pride in their house and gave them something to asspire to. The awful sink-estates became privatised and suddenly people started taking a lot more respect for property, people started slowly but surely improving their homes which benefitted the area and raised house prices thus allowing people to climb up the property ladder and better themselves along with being able to leave a legacy behind to their children when they died which would help their kids when they were starting off in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

I'm going to agree in part with Catzsy here. Yes, from the headline, it is a terrible situation and one you might be able to imagine happening in this country. If it's as straightforward as that then sure, something needs to be done. However, nothing is straightforward. As Catzsy rightly said before me, there will be others on that list, probably not all have fought in the army but they deserve housing just as much as he does. I respect anyone who has been in the army, but right now it's being used as some sort of moral high ground, when really I don't see how it can be. These people are putting their lives at risk for the country, fair enough, there isn't enough respect in the world to give to them. But why it is increasingly used to make a mockery of the government by highlighting individual cases like this is beyond me. Nobody is forcing these people to sign up to be in the army, it is their choice. If you make that choice then yes, you should be well compensated for it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it does not give you the immediate right to free housing and the such like above others on an already existing list.

We do not know the reason(s) he has decided to leave the army, they may be completely understandable, but again, you cannot expect things to be done at the click of your fingers. The world doesn't work like that for anybody. This story has been written with the purpose of making things seem a whole lot worse than they actually are.

1. The unemployed - i've been there, many of us have now, and i'd like to think that had I been thrown out of home and found myself with nowhere to live that I would not have been frowned upon for being above someone on a list when I was in need first. I understand that some people are less honest when they say they are unemployed, simply because they cannot be bothered to get a job, the vast majority of people aren't that way. Not to mention that because of the current economic climate, people have lost their homes due to redundancy, so technically they would be in the unemployed category. Why would you begrudge these people housing?

2. Criminals - I have very limited sympathy for anybody who has committed a crime, but not every criminal is a thug. There are such things as people who perhaps did something quite silly like thieved when they were younger, but now wish to actually rebuild their lives, things like this do happen. These people would still be under the tag of 'criminal' and I wouldn't begrudge them a house if needed. Not to mention that if you leave a person fresh out of prison on the streets with no home, the likelihood they will reoffend is probably quite high, then they are back in prison.. so it's sort of a vicious circle.

3. Asylum Seekers - doesn't shock me this is on a list from a story written by the dailymail if i'm honest. Again, there are such things as people who really do need asylum, not everybody is here to take benefits and generally be a nuisance to society.

It's very easy to generalise, and let's face it, this story has. Sometimes you do need to think a little deeper.

---

1. The unemployed - nobody is saying lets not allow the genuinely unemployed to have a hand when they are in their greatest need, what we are arguing about is why should those who refuse point-blank to work have the ability to live off the state when they have never ever put anything into this country before. The people who refuse to work point-blank should not even be entitled to free housing or benefits, let alone be put infront of a solideron the housing register who has worked and contributed to his country.

2. Criminals - there is a very big difference, those who have committed a small offence in the past normally have done well for themselves as they are law-abiding people. A large quantity who live on council estates and rely on the state for their housing are criminals who have committed numerous acts, not to mention the fact you have to think of it rationally; if a thief has 50 convictions for theft, they have most likely done over 200 robberies before. These people should be excluded from the benefits system and the housing system and locked up. You say they are back out of prison and its a never ending circle well here is the simple solution; do not let them out in the first place.

3. Asylum seekers - yes, its a shame the Daily Mail and others newspapers which are right wing (coincidentally the right wing papers are the best selling papers) expose the fraud and cheating that goes on in our system, of course people such as yourself would much rather we trust Gordon Browns' figures on immigration (which he was caught out on last week) and just accept how great and fantastic asylum seekers are for our country - well we are not stupid and you are losing the battle.

If you are an asylum seeker, why not just settle in another country rather than the United Kingdom which is an isolated island far away from Africa or the Middle East in which to get to the United Kingdom, you have to cross numerous developed countries + oceans to get here. I'll explain with a map actually because it makes much more sense.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100406C/wor...rants94441.bmp

Now if these people are fleeing their country, why are they coming to the United Kingdom. To get to Britain you have to cross numerous waterways, oceans, channels, countries and the English Channel just to get here. Could it possibly be (or am I just being the nasty Daily Mail reader that I am) that they come all that way to here for the simple reason that is benefits and housing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

Really? I get where you are coming from, but it's a choice, one they made without force. Not to mention that the people above him on that list, discounting all criminals and asylum seekers to be sure my point gets across, may well themselves have applied to join the army. Not everybody is allowed in. So because they aren't allowed in, someone who got that chance to do what they wanted is rewarded first? No thank you, you wait your turn.

---

People not allowed into the army have not risked their lives or given up anything for the country and should be rewarded as such, by not being rewarded (They may well of been prepared to but that's different to doing so) as they have not done anything. It's like going on the X Factor, the winner deserves the record contract because they are being rewarded for winning the show. Someone kicked out in the first round does not warrant a reward because they have not done anything remarkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

1. The unemployed - nobody is saying lets not allow the genuinely unemployed to have a hand when they are in their greatest need, what we are arguing about is why should those who refuse point-blank to work have the ability to live off the state when they have never ever put anything into this country before. The people who refuse to work point-blank should not even be entitled to free housing or benefits, let alone be put infront of a solideron the housing register who has worked and contributed to his country.

2. Criminals - there is a very big difference, those who have committed a small offence in the past normally have done well for themselves as they are law-abiding people. A large quantity who live on council estates and rely on the state for their housing are criminals who have committed numerous acts, not to mention the fact you have to think of it rationally; if a thief has 50 convictions for theft, they have most likely done over 200 robberies before. These people should be excluded from the benefits system and the housing system and locked up. You say they are back out of prison and its a never ending circle well here is the simple solution; do not let them out in the first place.

3. Asylum seekers - yes, its a shame the Daily Mail and others newspapers which are right wing (coincidentally the right wing papers are the best selling papers) expose the fraud and cheating that goes on in our system, of course people such as yourself would much rather we trust Gordon Browns' figures on immigration (which he was caught out on last week) and just accept how great and fantastic asylum seekers are for our country - well we are not stupid and you are losing the battle.

If you are an asylum seeker, why not just settle in another country rather than the United Kingdom which is an isolated island far away from Africa or the Middle East in which to get to the United Kingdom, you have to cross numerous developed countries + oceans to get here. I'll explain with a map actually because it makes much more sense.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100406C/wor...rants94441.bmp

Now if these people are fleeing their country, why are they coming to the United Kingdom. To get to Britain you have to cross numerous waterways, oceans, channels, countries and the English Channel just to get here. Could it possibly be (or am I just being the nasty Daily Mail reader that I am) that they come all that way to here for the simple reason that is benefits and housing?

---

1. Please show me in that article where it says all the people who are both above the solider and unemployed are there because they simply do not want to work. You can't because you don't know that. Chances are it is untrue so please, stop the generalisation.

2. Did I really just see you advocate keeping people locked up in prison, indefinitely, for multiple offences of theft? That is not only stupid, it's unworkable. Also, the point you made about someone who has committed an offence in the past now having done well for themselves, I aren't sure where you are getting this. Any offence on your record is going to be looked down upon and is likely to at least hinder your chances of getting a well paid job. Especially in the current climate. I'm unsure what you meant by this:

Quote:

---

A large quantity who live on council estates and rely on the state for their housing are criminals who have committed numerous acts

---

But if you meant what I think, then shame on you. Not everybody who lives in a council house has a member of their family who has committed an offence and put them there. I do hope i'm thinking the worst of you here, hopefully you will prove me right and tell me thats not what you meant.

3. Right wing papers are the best selling papers? Oh well then the majority of the country must be both narrowminded and judgemental. Lovely. But actually no, my mum buys the Daily Mail (despite protests from myself about its content) and she does not share your political ideologies. Some people just buy it for different reasons than it's excellent writing. Back to the main issue, yes people travel far to be here and through adverse conditions. Less cynical people will tell you that's something to be proud of. You think the worst of everyone and everything. Yes there are asylum seekers that come here to exploit the kindness that we show, others see nothing of this kindness and work for a pittance simply because it's better than the poverty, oppression and danger they face back home. You really didn't need to provide me with a map, i'm fully aware of where the majority of asylum seekers come from. It's also no coincidence they come from wartorn, corrupt and drought-ridden places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

People not allowed into the army have not risked their lives or given up anything for the country and should be rewarded as such, by not being rewarded (They may well of been prepared to but that's different to doing so) as they have not done anything. It's like going on the X Factor, the winner deserves the record contract because they are being rewarded for winning the show. Someone kicked out in the first round does not warrant a reward because they have not done anything remarkable.

---

Perhaps they haven't done anything remarkable such as putting their lives at risk in practice, but they were willing to. It is not their fault they were declined, sometimes down to the silliest of things such as an inch of height or the inability to swallow a pill. What i'm saying is, why should a person who is willing to do the exact same as that soldier did, but was denied the chance to show it, be penalised and be moved down the list a place because someone else has decided to leave the army, thus making themselves and their family homeless.

Quote:

---

1. Please show me in that article where it says all the people who are both above the solider and unemployed are there because they simply do not want to work. You can't because you don't know that. Chances are it is untrue so please, stop the generalisation.

---

We know the registers do not place people above others based on crimes/what your status is, which they should do. I find it very unfair that somebody who is an asylum seeker/does not and never has contributed to this country and never will should be put ahead on the list infront of a solider who has served his country. Do you find that fair?

Quote:

---

2. Did I really just see you advocate keeping people locked up in prison, indefinitely, for multiple offences of theft? That is not only stupid, it's unworkable. Also, the point you made about someone who has committed an offence in the past now having done well for themselves, I aren't sure where you are getting this. Any offence on your record is going to be looked down upon and is likely to at least hinder your chances of getting a well paid job. Especially in the current climate. I'm unsure what you meant by this:

---

Indeed you just did see me suggesting that people who are involved in multiple thefts be locked up indefinitely until it is deemed they are no longer going to commit the crime again, at the very least I suggest longer sentences for those who commit multiple offences because while people such as yourself continue to spout about how prison doesnt work, prison does work if used properly. The whole point of prison is to keep those who commit crimes off our streets, so why is it that with this government these people are out on our streets?

I understand you will never stop crime completely, however I and the vast majority just cannot work out how people with something like 50 odd offences to their name are still out on our streets. Perhaps maybe one day if you or the politicians are ever unfortunate enough to live in an area where criminals are rampant and the crime is never ending, you will understand why people want criminals to be locked up, especially criminals who commit offence after offence and just get a slapped wrist each time they do it.

Quote:

---

But if you meant what I think, then shame on you. Not everybody who lives in a council house has a member of their family who has committed an offence and put them there. I do hope i'm thinking the worst of you here, hopefully you will prove me right and tell me thats not what you meant.

---

I did not say everyone living on a council estate is a criminal, however it is common sense and knowledge that a lot of people on those estates are unemployed and commit crime hence why those areas are called sink-estates. Those who are unfortunate enough to be poor or unemployed sadly do end up living next to the worst of the worst and it would be stupid if you attempted to ignore that. A lot of criminals come from these areas and rely on the state to provide them with housing and benefits, I want that to be cut.

The message is simple; if you commit crimes and have no intention of looking for work then you will not be entitled to benefits or housing from the state, which if you remember is funded by the taxpayer.

Quote:

---

3. Right wing papers are the best selling papers? Oh well then the majority of the country must be both narrowminded and judgemental. Lovely. But actually no, my mum buys the Daily Mail (despite protests from myself about its content) and she does not share your political ideologies. Some people just buy it for different reasons than it's excellent writing. Back to the main issue, yes people travel far to be here and through adverse conditions. Less cynical people will tell you that's something to be proud of. You think the worst of everyone and everything. Yes there are asylum seekers that come here to exploit the kindness that we show, others see nothing of this kindness and work for a pittance simply because it's better than the poverty, oppression and danger they face back home. You really didn't need to provide me with a map, i'm fully aware of where the majority of asylum seekers come from. It's also no coincidence they come from wartorn, corrupt and drought-ridden places.

---

Yes you heard me, right-wing papers are the best selling papers with the exception of the Daily Mirror. I very much think your mum would share my political idealogies; does she support broadly; lower taxes, more prisons, smaller state and the principle of minimum state interference with the lives of the people? - if so, then we do share the same principles. She may vote for a totally different party, but that is tribal voting and the fact is that the United Kingdom is right wing with its base being in England. This country is right wing whether you like it or not.

You say asylum seekers come here to flee political opression/bad conditions at home, well if that is the case then why do they feel the need to travel across various oceans/sea and channels to get to this island (which coincidently has a very generous and exploitable benefits system) when they could very easily settle perfectly in another developed country such as the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and numerous others. I have no doubt there are those who really could contribute to this country, however they are dwarfed by a large majority which does not speak English, does not want to work and have the intention of committing crime when they get here.

You may wonder why people vote for the BNP; there is your reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

That's because at the start of the 1980s the country was in enormous debt to the IMF, the money has to be repaid some how. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though, supporting a party which borrows during 10 years of economic goodness when Brown was chancellor. Right To Buy inspired people to own their own homes and make them proud of their community again instead of being dragged along by the government. I'm afraid in 13 years, you have more than enough time to plan and build social housing, it does not take decades. I don't even see any planning or policies from the Labour Party promising to build or plan more, and even if they had done, it's 13 years too late. The Conservatives however are going to encourage more houses to be built by incentives for local councils which will result in less people depending on social housing. Fewer houses are being built at any time during the past 80 years, Labour has continued to fail in building houses.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As Jordy said, at the time we had to pay off the enormous debts that the Labour Party had built up and that in 1979 we had to get an emergency loan from the IMF just to keep running as a country. To add to this, a lot of money was cut from the state budget to lower taxes dramatically which helped millions of families and indivuals across Britain to buy shares, to set up business and to be able to help stimulate an economy which was until this point, on the brink of total collapse. Of course as usual, many of you Labour supporters on here know nothing on history/or totally ignore it and just run off with the idea that 'Thatcher was bad, Thatcher was evil' well how about for once actually thinking about the whole situation and using thought with it rather than petty party political politics?

I can expect a government to build more housing and we do expect a government which raises tax after tax to actually fix a situation, especially when you bash the Conservatives so much over it. I know you, like the rest of the left despises the thought of people bettering themselves and you always have, you dont know it but thats what you and your idealogy stands for because the thought that people can unhinge themselves off the hook of the state is, in your line of thought, an awful idea. Your party has had 13 years (longer than most other governments have had in power) to build more social housing, couple that with the fact you had a global boom which brought an immense amount of money to the country which generated the biggest housing boom we had ever seen. To add to that, you have also had taxes raised year on year so quite frankly there is no excuse.

Thanks to the right-to-buy scheme, millions were given the chance to buy their own house, something they would never of been able to do. They were able to have some pride in their house and gave them something to asspire to. The awful sink-estates became privatised and suddenly people started taking a lot more respect for property, people started slowly but surely improving their homes which benefitted the area and raised house prices thus allowing people to climb up the property ladder and better themselves along with being able to leave a legacy behind to their children when they died which would help their kids when they were starting off in the world.

---

There is no denying the 'old labour' government left debts so were the houses sold off to pay off the IMF or to inspire people to be owner occupiers? Also this vision saw one of worst ever house booms that crashed leaving 1000's re-possessed and more in negative equity. When the tories left office they
left all the houses that were still tenented in disrepair. They had a long time from the early 1980s to do something about this. So with all these houses gone and no rent coming in where do you think the labour government could suddenly find the money from? Also where would they be built? It was a problem finding enough brown field sites so they introduced housing benefit to help them rent private houses. That's quite an initiative but one both of you disagree with. Also the last recession had nothing to do with the government it was a global recession bought on by greedy capitalists who thought it was okay to lend money to people who couldn't afford it and it too lead to a huge housing boom which has crashed again leaving more houses re-possessed and negative equity but this time NOT the fault of the government. Also Britain’s GDP per per capita rose 21 per cent since 1997, with GDP overall rising 28 per cent, behind only Canada (35 per cent) and the US (31 per cent) creating millions of jobs, providing a better standard of living for a decade, and mending the broken public services infrastructure. Now I really do feel sorry for this soldier, if what he says, is true but I am sure there are many more on the list too. There is housing benefit is he is entitled to it and I am sure he would have the money to provide the bond for renting a private property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

There is no denying the 'old labour' government left debts so were the houses sold off to pay off the IMF or to inspire people to be owner occupiers? Also this vision saw one of worst ever house booms that crashed leaving 1000's re-possessed and more in negative equity. When the tories left office they
left all the houses that were still tenented in disrepair. They had a long time from the early 1980s to do something about this. So with all these houses gone and no rent coming in where do you think the labour government could suddenly find the money from? Also where would they be built? It was a problem finding enough brown field sites so they introduced housing benefit to help them rent private houses. That's quite an initiative but one both of you disagree with. Also the last recession had nothing to do with the government it was a global recession bought on by greedy capitalists who thought it was okay to lend money to people who couldn't afford it and it too lead to a huge housing boom which has crashed again leaving more houses re-possessed and negative equity but this time NOT the fault of the government. Also Britain’s GDP per per capita rose 21 per cent since 1997, with GDP overall rising 28 per cent, behind only Canada (35 per cent) and the US (31 per cent) creating millions of jobs, providing a better standard of living for a decade, and mending the broken public services infrastructure. Now I really do feel sorry for this soldier, if what he says, is true but I am sure there are many more on the list too. There is housing benefit is he is entitled to it and I am sure he would have the money to provide the bond for renting a private property.

---

Dan and me both agree that the economic downturn wasn't our governments fault, we also haven't mentioned this in the thread. Like I previously said, the economy was doing well under Brown (Thanks to Thatcher's policies IMO) but either way, it was doing well under Brown whoever is to thank, yet he felt the need to continue borrowing from the IMF and throwing money at every problem he encountered. His government has failed to plan or build anymore council houses, it does not take decades to do so, Canary Wharf Tower was built in three years lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

Perhaps they haven't done anything remarkable such as putting their lives at risk in practice, but they were willing to. It is not their fault they were declined, sometimes down to the silliest of things such as an inch of height or the inability to swallow a pill. What i'm saying is, why should a person who is willing to do the exact same as that soldier did, but was denied the chance to show it, be penalised and be moved down the list a place because someone else has decided to leave the army, thus making themselves and their family homeless.

---

We shouldn't reward people who haven't done anything. It's called a "reward" for a reason, these people have done nothing. Denying someone a reward or opportunity is not penalising, it is a fact of life and also a reason why our army happens to be one of the best in the world (consistently throughout it's history) due to it's high standards. The reason it is a reward is because they have done something and they are being thanked accordingly, hopefully with near-priority council housing. The whole reason behind social housing was for troops after WWI and later for returning troops from WWII, while the wars today maybe completely different, the idea should stay the same. It's attitudes like yours which put the education system in such a mess, reward the badly behaved kids for doing one good thing and forget about the students who consistently do what's expected of them.

So are they on the waiting list for a house? Strangely I know how it all works LOL. Well really thats a bit **** because he should be recognised (SP) for his time at the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

There is no denying the 'old labour' government left debts so were the houses sold off to pay off the IMF or to inspire people to be owner occupiers? Also this vision saw one of worst ever house booms that crashed leaving 1000's re-possessed and more in negative equity. When the tories left office they left all the houses that were still tenented in disrepair. They had a long time from the early 1980s to do something about this. So with all these houses gone and no rent coming in where do you think the labour government could suddenly find the money from? Also where would they be built? It was a problem finding enough brown field sites so they introduced housing benefit to help them rent private houses. That's quite an initiative but one both of you disagree with. Also the last recession had nothing to do with the government it was a global recession bought on by greedy capitalists who thought it was okay to lend money to people who couldn't afford it and it too lead to a huge housing boom which has crashed again leaving more houses re-possessed and negative equity but this time NOT the fault of the government. Also Britain’s GDP per per capita rose 21 per cent since 1997, with GDP overall rising 28 per cent, behind only Canada (35 per cent) and the US (31 per cent) creating millions of jobs, providing a better standard of living for a decade, and mending the broken public services infrastructure. Now I really do feel sorry for this soldier, if what he says, is true but I am sure there are many more on the list too. There is housing benefit is he is entitled to it and I am sure he would have the money to provide the bond for renting a private property.

---

Hang on a second, a housing boom (which creates wealth and gives people extra income) is a bad thing? - I really do not know where you get this stuff from, but perhaps the Labour government could get this extra money from its foreign aid fund, the money it gives to the European Union (£45 million per day in direct membership bills, set to rise by a margin of £10 million this year) or it could even use the money we pay on various taxes of which Labour has put up and up over the past 13 years to fund these houses - how about that for a thought?

As for the brownfield sites, come to Liverpool where thousands of houses lay empty, come to Liverpool where sites in various areas lay empty, go to any city and you will find brownfield sites. I am unsure on whether you do geography, but you should know that this country has many brownfield sites and many of the after-war towns in need of more housing and building. Now lets be honest here, now you are just making up excuses to defend your points against Thatcher, all of which have so far been disproven. You have had 13 years and tax hike after tax hike to fund the building of more houses yet you sit by and do nothing.

To add to this, it is estimated (from the video below) that out of the 600,000 new houses being built in the South West, 86% of them will go to first-generation migrants. It is entirely the fault of your party that we have no social housing, and its entirely the fault of your party that we have such a demand for social housing due the United Kingdom having no control over its borders. The problem is also set to get worse with the demographic time bomb that is clocking up right as we speak as the population ages - we are heading for a complete disaster regarding social housing & even including private housing, and thats if you dont class what we have now as a disaster because its certainly a crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxyPw8Q3gyM

..(see 6:17 to 7:25 for some figures concerning housing & migration)

Quote:

---

Hang on a second, a housing boom (which creates wealth and gives people extra income) is a bad thing? - I really do not know where you get this stuff from, but perhaps the Labour government could get this extra money from its foreign aid fund, the money it gives to the European Union (£45 million per day in direct membership bills, set to rise by a margin of £10 million this year) or it could even use the money we pay on various taxes of which Labour has put up and up over the past 13 years to fund these houses - how about that for a thought?

---

A housing boom that isn't artificially inflated is fine but not when it is because ot just leads to a big crash. I would have thought you would have agreed with that. Well we are in the EU which a conservative government took is into
- not even the next government whoever it is can get away with not paying. What taxes exactly have they put up apart from the 10p to 20p for the lowest earners which was substituted by a higher tax allowance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

We know the registers do not place people above others based on crimes/what your status is, which they should do. I find it very unfair that somebody who is an asylum seeker/does not and never has contributed to this country and never will should be put ahead on the list infront of a solider who has served his country. Do you find that fair?

---

I find it fair that people are placed on a waiting list for a house in the order they request it. There are certain factors that put you above other people no matter when you join the list, namely whether you have children, so the fact that he has those will mean he won't be at the bottom of the list at all. He will simply be behind the people with children who asked for the housing first. That I find fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Indeed you just did see me suggesting that people who are involved in multiple thefts be locked up indefinitely until it is deemed they are no longer going to commit the crime again, at the very least I suggest longer sentences for those who commit multiple offences because while people such as yourself continue to spout about how prison doesnt work, prison does work if used properly. The whole point of prison is to keep those who commit crimes off our streets, so why is it that with this government these people are out on our streets?

I understand you will never stop crime completely, however I and the vast majority just cannot work out how people with something like 50 odd offences to their name are still out on our streets. Perhaps maybe one day if you or the politicians are ever unfortunate enough to live in an area where criminals are rampant and the crime is never ending, you will understand why people want criminals to be locked up, especially criminals who commit offence after offence and just get a slapped wrist each time they do it.

---

The logistics of what you are saying are mind blowing. You say you want the government to build more prisons, well even if you were to see this become reality we still would not have the space to house people indefinitely for crimes which are considered fairly minor such as theft. It is my personal opinion that simply sticking someone in prison, amongst other offenders, then letting them out does not work. Even if you do keep them in prison until you deem them safe, if you let them out on the streets, with possibly nowhere to live and no job, they will reoffend. It's simple. You don't want these people given houses, so where are they supposed to live? You don't want them given benefits, well then you find them somewhere to work, because i'm sure I wouldn't particularly be happy employing someone with multiple offences of theft.

I actually live in an area which is quite bad for theft and quite violent crimes, infact a number of such people live a 5 minute walk from my house. So yes, i'm aware of what these people are like, I went to school with their offspring and they are no different. Prison does not work, their parents have been in there and they come out no different. Things need to be done on a deeper level, to ensure that the next generation don't continue the work of their parents in this manner. Placing people in prison indefinitely will simply make them more corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I did not say everyone living on a council estate is a criminal, however it is common sense and knowledge that a lot of people on those estates are unemployed and commit crime hence why those areas are called sink-estates. Those who are unfortunate enough to be poor or unemployed sadly do end up living next to the worst of the worst and it would be stupid if you attempted to ignore that. A lot of criminals come from these areas and rely on the state to provide them with housing and benefits, I want that to be cut.

The message is simple; if you commit crimes and have no intention of looking for work then you will not be entitled to benefits or housing from the state, which if you remember is funded by the taxpayer.

---

I aren't attempting to ignore that, I live not far from these people on a housing estate, believe me when I say that I am aware what these people are like. However, I do take offence to the fact that you are implying that the majority of people living on housing estates do not work. If you don't live on one, you don't know what goes on. I'll happily admit I do not live on the worst of estates, there are much worse, but really implying that the majority of people who live on housing estates are either unemployed, criminals or both is below the belt.

Please see above for what I said about criminals and benefits/social housing, I won't repeat myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Yes you heard me, right-wing papers are the best selling papers with the exception of the Daily Mirror. I very much think your mum would share my political idealogies; does she support broadly; lower taxes, more prisons, smaller state and the principle of minimum state interference with the lives of the people? - if so, then we do share the same principles. She may vote for a totally different party, but that is tribal voting and the fact is that the United Kingdom is right wing with its base being in England. This country is right wing whether you like it or not.

You say asylum seekers come here to flee political opression/bad conditions at home, well if that is the case then why do they feel the need to travel across various oceans/sea and channels to get to this island (which coincidently has a very generous and exploitable benefits system) when they could very easily settle perfectly in another developed country such as the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and numerous others. I have no doubt there are those who really could contribute to this country, however they are dwarfed by a large majority which does not speak English, does not want to work and have the intention of committing crime when they get here.

You may wonder why people vote for the BNP; there is your reason.

---

The fact is that no, my mum does not echo those principles. Everybody would love lower taxes, reality is it just isn't going to happen. Even discounting immigration, our population is growing and aging. This means that we need both more housing and more care facilities, both which cost huge amounts of money, which unfortunately we all have to chip in with. I'm unsure what you mean by 'smaller state' but i'm going to presume you mean removing all unneccessaries from the country, thus reducing the population. Well i'm afraid if you are advocating that, might as well try and chuck out all those unmentionable corners of society such as couples who reproduce despite having no means to actually care for those children. The majority of such people are white, 'english' people. I doubt you'd say throw them out. I won't accept this country is right wing, but I see it becoming increasingly xenophobic, particularly amongst the naive and it's frightening.

I've already addressed the majority of the points about the asylum seekers which choose to travel here, so again, I won't repeat myself because you don't agree and haven't listened. However, I will take umbrage with the point you made about these people not speaking english. Really, thats an appalling attitude considering our own citizens choose to move abroad to places in the EU such as Spain, France and even further afield and yet will not learn the language or customs of those countries. Somehow thats ok, because as long as we don't get the impact of it, it doesn't happen. I'm afraid it does, and particularly in Spain, there are certain areas where English people have taken over the and the spanish people won't live there. So really, before we start harping on about foreigners being in our country who don't speak our language etc, we need to think about where our citizens are and what impact they are having also. It's quite hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

We shouldn't reward people who haven't done anything. It's called a "reward" for a reason, these people have done nothing. Denying someone a reward or opportunity is not penalising, it is a fact of life and also a reason why our army happens to be one of the best in the world (consistently throughout it's history) due to it's high standards. The reason it is a reward is because they have done something and they are being thanked accordingly, hopefully with near-priority council housing. The whole reason behind social housing was for troops after WWI and later for returning troops from WWII, while the wars today maybe completely different, the idea should stay the same. It's attitudes like yours which put the education system in such a mess, reward the badly behaved kids for doing one good thing and forget about the students who consistently do what's expected of them.

---

Attitudes like mine? I'm sorry but my opinions on this subject and on the subject of the awards systems in schools are hugely different. You haven't heard my thoughts on that matter, and you are unlikely to in this thread because it's not about that, but please stop casting assumptions on my beliefs. I've noticed that people tend to do that around here, and I am slightly irritated at being painted as something I aren't.

Back to the point at hand, you cannot compare things which happened after WWI and WWII to now, the society is vastly different and families are not comparable to what we see now. The point is, from the sounds of it this soldier has left the army through choice and has thus left himself and his family homeless. Anybody who decides to leave a property and ask to be placed on a social housing register is given the same treatment. If you have another option for housing, no matter how bad that option may be, unfortunately you are expected to remain there until adequate housing can be found. To me, that's the correct method to use. For example, if a couple break up, and one half of the partnership is then left with the need to find somewhere else to live, you are given no preferrential treatment because where you are, no matter how bearable it is to live there on a personal level, you are adequately housed. Similarly in this case, he was adequately housed by the army and he chose to leave. Why others on that list, perhaps who have been waiting several months/years themselves should be penalised and dropped a few places due to his choice is beyond me.

Ah, I see Spain has cropped up yet again. I agree that a lot of British in Spain do not speak Spanish, however there are a lot that do. Many Brits who have lived in Spain for a long time speak good Spanish and many try. Everybody I knew, friends of friends and friends of friend's friends all attempted to speak Spanish. You would not be given a free translator, for example if you were trying to get residence and you couldn't speak Spanish then you'd have to either hire a translator or try your best with what you know. I believe here in the UK they have translators on hand for free.

As for customs of those countries, have you ever been to Spain, or better yet lived in Spain? There aren't a huge amount of differences. Lots of Brits integrate with the Spanish lifestyle, when I went to a Spanish school a third of the kids were foreign, about three quarters of that third were English, which amounted to a lot of students. There are private English schools in Spain which a lot of the wealthy Brits send their children to, but guess what? A lot of Spanish kids attend these schools too, to improve their English. A third of the kids in English schools weren't English, they were Spanish or some other nationality.

I laughed at the English take over part. Benidorm, you can quite safely say, is probably one of the most British places in Spain, right? I lived there for a while and there are loads of Spanish people there - most of the Brits go on holiday there and not a huge amount live there. Everywhere I've been in Spain there have been British people and Spanish people, along with other nationalities living together. There aren't huge ghettos of British people. Please name a place that's totally taken over by Brits and no Spaniards will live there. Even Gran Alacant has loads of Brits, but there are also lots of Spanish there too. It's a lot less segregated unlike the UK, where you have estates of whites and estates of Muslims. My friend (who's Muslim) was pointing this out to me, saying that if one of my white friends ever visited his house he'd get beat up and vice versa. The urbanisation I lived on near Malaga had a lot of British but again there were a lot of Spanish people too.

When people pull out the 'Brits in Spain card' it's not the same when you think about it. Yes, there are some Brits who go to Spain and cause havoc - these are the holiday makers though. I'd say 98 out of 100 Brits who go to Spain try to integrate with their lifestyle. I'd probably but it higher than that. And you know what, the Spanish people don't particularly mind. In the long run it created more jobs and a load of money for the Spanish economy, before the "British invasion" as you may like to call it Spain was a rather poor country but now it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Ah, I see Spain has cropped up yet again. I agree that a lot of British in Spain do not speak Spanish, however there are a lot that do. Many Brits who have lived in Spain for a long time speak good Spanish and many try. Everybody I knew, friends of friends and friends of friend's friends all attempted to speak Spanish. You would not be given a free translator, for example if you were trying to get residence and you couldn't speak Spanish then you'd have to either hire a translator or try your best with what you know. I believe here in the UK they have translators on hand for free.

As for customs of those countries, have you ever been to Spain, or better yet lived in Spain? There aren't a huge amount of differences. Lots of Brits integrate with the Spanish lifestyle, when I went to a Spanish school a third of the kids were foreign, about three quarters of that third were English, which amounted to a lot of students. There are private English schools in Spain which a lot of the wealthy Brits send their children to, but guess what? A lot of Spanish kids attend these schools too, to improve their English. A third of the kids in English schools weren't English, they were Spanish or some other nationality.

I laughed at the English take over part. Benidorm, you can quite safely say, is probably one of the most British places in Spain, right? I lived there for a while and there are loads of Spanish people there - most of the Brits go on holiday there and not a huge amount live there. Everywhere I've been in Spain there have been British people and Spanish people, along with other nationalities living together. There aren't huge ghettos of British people. Please name a place that's totally taken over by Brits and no Spaniards will live there. Even Gran Alacant has loads of Brits, but there are also lots of Spanish there too. It's a lot less segregated unlike the UK, where you have estates of whites and estates of Muslims. My friend (who's Muslim) was pointing this out to me, saying that if one of my white friends ever visited his house he'd get beat up and vice versa. The urbanisation I lived on near Malaga had a lot of British but again there were a lot of Spanish people too.

When people pull out the 'Brits in Spain card' it's not the same when you think about it. Yes, there are some Brits who go to Spain and cause havoc - these are the holiday makers though. I'd say 98 out of 100 Brits who go to Spain try to integrate with their lifestyle. I'd probably but it higher than that. And you know what, the Spanish people don't particularly mind. In the long run it created more jobs and a load of money for the Spanish economy, before the "British invasion" as you may like to call it Spain was a rather poor country but now it's not.

---

Thank you for the informative post on Spain and it's customs. You have a good stand point on this, having lived in both countries. However, as you can see in my post, Spain was one of many examples I could have used. You seem to have managed to put a positive spin on a lot of things which I would consider to be bad. I didn't actually say there were parts of Spain where english people lived and now absolutely no spanish people live there. Similarly in this country, there isn't anywhere that is solely composed of immigrants, people would have you believe this was true though. My post wasn't meant to demonise the British people who choose to live abroad, it was meant to simply point out that before you start criticising those who come and live here, you have to realise that the British aren't always welcome wherever we move either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

Thank you for the informative post on Spain and it's customs. You have a good stand point on this, having lived in both countries. However, as you can see in my post, Spain was one of many examples I could have used. You seem to have managed to put a positive spin on a lot of things which I would consider to be bad. I didn't actually say there were parts of Spain where english people lived and now absolutely no spanish people live there. Similarly in this country, there isn't anywhere that is solely composed of immigrants, people would have you believe this was true though. My post wasn't meant to demonise the British people who choose to live abroad, it was meant to simply point out that before you start criticising those who come and live here, you have to realise that the British aren't always welcome wherever we move either.

---

I thought this, "there are certain areas where English people have taken over the and the spanish people won't live there" meant no Spanish lived in certain areas where the British were. Anyway, regarding other countries I don't know, maybe it is like that. It's just people tend to use the argument that the Brits going to Spain are like the immigrants coming to the UK, it's not a good comparison because most of the immigrants coming to the UK are looking for jobs or a better quality life. Nearly all British immigrants going to Spain are going for the weather. I suppose what I'm trying to say is Britain is a rich country, whereas Poland, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan are not rich countries, so the British leaving Britain for Spain have money (Spain is becoming quite expensive in fact) but the immigrants leaving their country don't have money due to their country being poor, so when they get to the UK they have nothing. When times are getting tough in Spain lots of the British come back to Britain, they don't use the Spanish benefits system whereas immigrants (where eligible) will use the very generous benefits system because going back to their home country is worse.

I'm useless at explaining things so I hope I explained my point in an understandable way.