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

[dbgtz]

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.

[jrh2002]

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 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

[Hitman]

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.

[Catzsy]

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.

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.

[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.

[Jordy]

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.

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.

[Tash.]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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?

[Jordy]

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.

[Tash.]

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.

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:

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.

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.