Council rents in Swindon may go up by £2.60 a week

This Is Wiltshire: Brian Shakespeare, member of Swindon Tenants’ Voice and chairman of the campaign group, with residents Eileen George and Martin Wicks Brian Shakespeare, member of Swindon Tenants’ Voice and chairman of the campaign group, with residents Eileen George and Martin Wicks

COUNCIL rent could go up by an average of £2.60 per week which campaigners say could have a devastating effect.

Swindon Council has been recommended to increase its rent for its 10,500 homes by 3.7 per cent next year which would equate to around a £2.60 extra charge for the average council home rent of £77 per week.

In a report written up for the Housing Advisory Forum, council officers said the cash would generate around £16.7m per year which would be invested back in to the properties to pay for refurbishments.

This money could fund up to 801 kitchens and bathrooms in 2014/15 and 13,752 in total over 10 years.

But members of the Swindon Tenants Voice, a group set up to allow Swindon Council tenants to provide feedback on matters relating to the provision of housing services, voted unanimously in December to urge the council to ignore this recommendation and instead only increase rents by that of inflation – which is approximately 2.2 per cent.

Brian Shakespeare, who is a member of STV and the chairman of Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group, said this increase could drastically reduce someone’s quality of life when considered against the back-drop of price hikes already affecting people.

“In these dark and desperate times of austerity and belt tightening the tenant group want an inflation increase only,” said Brian, 73.

“But it appears the council’s officers have disregarded our views.

“It is yet to be decided whether or not they will increase the council tax. My fellow tenants find themselves in desperate times. As lots of people are aware, more people than ever are having to rely on foodbanks and discretionary housing grants applications have rocketed.

“Any council with a sense of responsibility towards their tenants or who is concerned about their welfare should only increase rates by inflation.”

He added the campaign against scrapping the controversial under-occupancy fee would continue throughout 2014.

“We have not forgotten about this fight to topple the unfair charge,” said Brian.

Councillor Russell Holland, cabinet member for finance, said money generated from rent was crucial for investment into the housing stock.

“I understand that tenants have concerns and these will be taken into account before any final decision is made by the council,” said Coun Holland, who represents St Margaret and South Marston.

“The essential issue is the money we have to spend on investment comes from the rent we receive. The lower the rent, the less money we have available to invest.

“Council tenants have the benefit of paying significantly less than the market rate.”

Last year, the council increased its rents by 2.6 per cent which worked out to around £1.93 per household. This was after a last minute U-turn when a 4.8 per cent price hike was scrapped.

Comments (116)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:26am Thu 2 Jan 14

gambon says...

the rise should be nearer 10% i am fed up of paying for these freeloaders they should be forced to get a job and start paying proper amounts
the rise should be nearer 10% i am fed up of paying for these freeloaders they should be forced to get a job and start paying proper amounts gambon

6:46am Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Two thirds of them are either on full or part benefit which will be adjusted to cover the increase and will make no difference to them, just the tax payer.
For the rest of them they still have rents that are about half of the going rate for private and yet they still moan. And they wonder why so many are fed up with social housing tenants who just endlessly moan and campaign against heir subsidised housing that taxpayers pay for, Even those who work may still get more in benefit in other ways than they pay in tax and dont actually contribute to society.
Unless you are truly disabled or "vulnerable" social housing should be a temporary safety net while you get back on your feet and endlessly breeding should not be an excuse not to work and receive other peoples hard earned money. "Scroungers" come in many forms not least those campaigners who can well afford private rent but instead house block for those who really are in need and still effing moan!!! The welfare state creates the 2 tier society and encourages laziness and scroungers and must be changed to reward hard work and never be a lifestyle choice for those able to work.
Two thirds of them are either on full or part benefit which will be adjusted to cover the increase and will make no difference to them, just the tax payer. For the rest of them they still have rents that are about half of the going rate for private and yet they still moan. And they wonder why so many are fed up with social housing tenants who just endlessly moan and campaign against heir subsidised housing that taxpayers pay for, Even those who work may still get more in benefit in other ways than they pay in tax and dont actually contribute to society. Unless you are truly disabled or "vulnerable" social housing should be a temporary safety net while you get back on your feet and endlessly breeding should not be an excuse not to work and receive other peoples hard earned money. "Scroungers" come in many forms not least those campaigners who can well afford private rent but instead house block for those who really are in need and still effing moan!!! The welfare state creates the 2 tier society and encourages laziness and scroungers and must be changed to reward hard work and never be a lifestyle choice for those able to work. house on the hill

6:53am Thu 2 Jan 14

swindondad says...

£77 p/w or even the near £80 after this proposed increase would still seem to be affordable.
£77 p/w or even the near £80 after this proposed increase would still seem to be affordable. swindondad

7:07am Thu 2 Jan 14

beach1e says...

people in this accommodation should pay the market rate, why is it always people on free living that moan about rises whereas decent hardworking taxpaying people are ignored?
people in this accommodation should pay the market rate, why is it always people on free living that moan about rises whereas decent hardworking taxpaying people are ignored? beach1e

8:47am Thu 2 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers? Always Grumpy

8:50am Thu 2 Jan 14

attilla the hun says...

The usual drivel, poverty,benefit cuts, blah blah blah, I see no problem with people paying the going rate for a subsidised social rental property, £10.00 a month is a paltry amount, I wonder how many poor council tennents smoke, have a beer or two, keep a pet, have sky tv etc,
A god number of people are forced into private private sector due to a shortage of social housing, as a result poverty exists in the private housing sector as well as the social housing sector, let's not forget anyone paying a mortgage has to fund their own housing repairs,decorating costs, pay insurance etc and do so at the market rate with no help from the government or local council tax payers
The usual drivel, poverty,benefit cuts, blah blah blah, I see no problem with people paying the going rate for a subsidised social rental property, £10.00 a month is a paltry amount, I wonder how many poor council tennents smoke, have a beer or two, keep a pet, have sky tv etc, A god number of people are forced into private private sector due to a shortage of social housing, as a result poverty exists in the private housing sector as well as the social housing sector, let's not forget anyone paying a mortgage has to fund their own housing repairs,decorating costs, pay insurance etc and do so at the market rate with no help from the government or local council tax payers attilla the hun

9:40am Thu 2 Jan 14

Still Claire says...

So even if the rent rises to £80 per week, if you average the amount out over the year, you are looking at paying approx. £350 per month. Not bad for a three bedroom house with central heating, double glazing, big garden etc. How many of us pay more than that on our mortgages and rent. And don't forget that this proposed increase of £2.70 is to cover the cost of new bathrooms and kitchens. It really beggars belief!!
So even if the rent rises to £80 per week, if you average the amount out over the year, you are looking at paying approx. £350 per month. Not bad for a three bedroom house with central heating, double glazing, big garden etc. How many of us pay more than that on our mortgages and rent. And don't forget that this proposed increase of £2.70 is to cover the cost of new bathrooms and kitchens. It really beggars belief!! Still Claire

9:44am Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

What would be more open, honest and transparent is if 'campaigners' such as Eileen George and Martin Wicks, who are married, let everyone know what their join pensions are worth per year.

We could then make an informed decision about whether a £2.60 per week increase in their paltry rent is 'fair' or not.

I think the taxpayers of Swindon would be rather interested to see the reality of the situation. I'd also imagine those with rather less of an income would be quite surprised to see just who have been allowed to live at the expense of others for many decades.
What would be more open, honest and transparent is if 'campaigners' such as Eileen George and Martin Wicks, who are married, let everyone know what their join pensions are worth per year. We could then make an informed decision about whether a £2.60 per week increase in their paltry rent is 'fair' or not. I think the taxpayers of Swindon would be rather interested to see the reality of the situation. I'd also imagine those with rather less of an income would be quite surprised to see just who have been allowed to live at the expense of others for many decades. Ringer

10:13am Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

It is hard to have sympathy when almost everyone has had to tighten their belts and are out of pocket. There are those who will genuinely struggle due to this rise though. The huge increase in foodbank reliance may increase further.
It is hard to have sympathy when almost everyone has had to tighten their belts and are out of pocket. There are those who will genuinely struggle due to this rise though. The huge increase in foodbank reliance may increase further. Davey Gravey

10:34am Thu 2 Jan 14

swindondad says...

Having just checked on "rightmoves" £350 PCM will just about get you a "bedsit" in Swindon's private sector so those lucky enough to be benefiting from lower costs in the social housing sector should not begrudge the proposed rent increase.
Having just checked on "rightmoves" £350 PCM will just about get you a "bedsit" in Swindon's private sector so those lucky enough to be benefiting from lower costs in the social housing sector should not begrudge the proposed rent increase. swindondad

11:02am Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs.. house on the hill

11:09am Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Ringer wrote:
What would be more open, honest and transparent is if 'campaigners' such as Eileen George and Martin Wicks, who are married, let everyone know what their join pensions are worth per year.

We could then make an informed decision about whether a £2.60 per week increase in their paltry rent is 'fair' or not.

I think the taxpayers of Swindon would be rather interested to see the reality of the situation. I'd also imagine those with rather less of an income would be quite surprised to see just who have been allowed to live at the expense of others for many decades.
Really good point and one that most feel very strongly about. Why should those who can afford to rent privately or buy still be subsidised by the taxpayer and also block those who are clearly in more need.

That is what disgusts me is the selfish ones who could afford to move out who still get on their soapboxes to say how hard done by they are totally ignoring the ones who need their house a heck of a lot more than they do. Go and live in most other countries of the world and you will find there is no such thing as social housing. We need to review the whole thing and fast/
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: What would be more open, honest and transparent is if 'campaigners' such as Eileen George and Martin Wicks, who are married, let everyone know what their join pensions are worth per year. We could then make an informed decision about whether a £2.60 per week increase in their paltry rent is 'fair' or not. I think the taxpayers of Swindon would be rather interested to see the reality of the situation. I'd also imagine those with rather less of an income would be quite surprised to see just who have been allowed to live at the expense of others for many decades.[/p][/quote]Really good point and one that most feel very strongly about. Why should those who can afford to rent privately or buy still be subsidised by the taxpayer and also block those who are clearly in more need. That is what disgusts me is the selfish ones who could afford to move out who still get on their soapboxes to say how hard done by they are totally ignoring the ones who need their house a heck of a lot more than they do. Go and live in most other countries of the world and you will find there is no such thing as social housing. We need to review the whole thing and fast/ house on the hill

11:15am Thu 2 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

The trouble is that large amounts of this increase will in fact be paid for by tax payers. As a tax payer I see no reason to celebrate this.
The trouble is that large amounts of this increase will in fact be paid for by tax payers. As a tax payer I see no reason to celebrate this. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:19am Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

swindondad wrote:
Having just checked on "rightmoves" £350 PCM will just about get you a "bedsit" in Swindon's private sector so those lucky enough to be benefiting from lower costs in the social housing sector should not begrudge the proposed rent increase.
And therein lies the rub... council tenants couldn't care less about anyone else, just as the entirely self-appointed, left-wing rabble rousing 'Swindon Tenants Voice' couldn't care less about anyone else.

All they want is to be able to pay as little rent as they possibly can.

Imagine a scenario where the council decided to charge all non-council tenants an additional £50 a month in order to reduce council housing rents by £50 a month - do you think Swindon Tenants Voice would oppose or support such a policy?

Exactly.

'Fairness' is not what they want. What they want is to have everyone else pay for them to live as cheaply as possible, regardless of their own incomes, pensions and financial situation.

People like Eileen George and Martin Wicks are unreconstructed, hardline trade unionists and Marxists. They don't care about anyone but their own political agenda and their own self-interest. Sure, they'll always come up with a 'cause' (such as Swindon Tenants Voice) in order to mask their intentions and pretend they're 'caring' for others, but it's all a smokescreen.

martinwicks.wordpres
s.com/about/
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: Having just checked on "rightmoves" £350 PCM will just about get you a "bedsit" in Swindon's private sector so those lucky enough to be benefiting from lower costs in the social housing sector should not begrudge the proposed rent increase.[/p][/quote]And therein lies the rub... council tenants couldn't care less about anyone else, just as the entirely self-appointed, left-wing rabble rousing 'Swindon Tenants Voice' couldn't care less about anyone else. All they want is to be able to pay as little rent as they possibly can. Imagine a scenario where the council decided to charge all non-council tenants an additional £50 a month in order to reduce council housing rents by £50 a month - do you think Swindon Tenants Voice would oppose or support such a policy? Exactly. 'Fairness' is not what they want. What they want is to have everyone else pay for them to live as cheaply as possible, regardless of their own incomes, pensions and financial situation. People like Eileen George and Martin Wicks are unreconstructed, hardline trade unionists and Marxists. They don't care about anyone but their own political agenda and their own self-interest. Sure, they'll always come up with a 'cause' (such as Swindon Tenants Voice) in order to mask their intentions and pretend they're 'caring' for others, but it's all a smokescreen. martinwicks.wordpres s.com/about/ Ringer

11:38am Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Still Claire wrote:
So even if the rent rises to £80 per week, if you average the amount out over the year, you are looking at paying approx. £350 per month. Not bad for a three bedroom house with central heating, double glazing, big garden etc. How many of us pay more than that on our mortgages and rent. And don't forget that this proposed increase of £2.70 is to cover the cost of new bathrooms and kitchens. It really beggars belief!!
And all repairs and maintenance paid for by other people as well.
[quote][p][bold]Still Claire[/bold] wrote: So even if the rent rises to £80 per week, if you average the amount out over the year, you are looking at paying approx. £350 per month. Not bad for a three bedroom house with central heating, double glazing, big garden etc. How many of us pay more than that on our mortgages and rent. And don't forget that this proposed increase of £2.70 is to cover the cost of new bathrooms and kitchens. It really beggars belief!![/p][/quote]And all repairs and maintenance paid for by other people as well. Ringer

11:39am Thu 2 Jan 14

Tyran66 says...

I would be in favour of massively subsidised council housing for those in genuine need, a peppercorn rent of say £10 a week. To pay for this I would like to see the entirely unnecessary subsidies withdrawn from fit and capable tenants that are dependant on social welfare or without genuine need (like those above) - they should pay full market rate, stepped up over a reasonable time frame (say 5 years).

It should be all or nothing, the middle ground is unfair on everybody.
I would be in favour of massively subsidised council housing for those in genuine need, a peppercorn rent of say £10 a week. To pay for this I would like to see the entirely unnecessary subsidies withdrawn from fit and capable tenants that are dependant on social welfare or without genuine need (like those above) - they should pay full market rate, stepped up over a reasonable time frame (say 5 years). It should be all or nothing, the middle ground is unfair on everybody. Tyran66

11:44am Thu 2 Jan 14

Tyran66 says...

I would also like to see council tenants maintaining their own properties or faced an stepped maintenance charge proportionate to neglect . It would encourage some of them to take pride in their house? If they don't simply evict them.
I would also like to see council tenants maintaining their own properties or faced an stepped maintenance charge proportionate to neglect . It would encourage some of them to take pride in their house? If they don't simply evict them. Tyran66

12:10pm Thu 2 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

If the increase is only £2.60 / week this is less than a pint of beer in most of the pubs in Swindon.

Maybe losing the ability to have an extra pint is "devastating" to some council tenants and as Brian Shakespeare, who is a member of STV and the chairman of Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group, said this increase could drastically reduce someone’s quality of life, but come on.

Won't be long before they bring out the argument about "The Old and the Vulnerable".
If the increase is only £2.60 / week this is less than a pint of beer in most of the pubs in Swindon. Maybe losing the ability to have an extra pint is "devastating" to some council tenants and as Brian Shakespeare, who is a member of STV and the chairman of Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group, said this increase could drastically reduce someone’s quality of life, but come on. Won't be long before they bring out the argument about "The Old and the Vulnerable". trolley dolley

12:19pm Thu 2 Jan 14

ging999 says...

Why is Martin Wicks even allowed to have a say in all this?. Surely with his communist leanings he should be on committee's in China.
Why is Martin Wicks even allowed to have a say in all this?. Surely with his communist leanings he should be on committee's in China. ging999

12:21pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
If the increase is only £2.60 / week this is less than a pint of beer in most of the pubs in Swindon.

Maybe losing the ability to have an extra pint is "devastating" to some council tenants and as Brian Shakespeare, who is a member of STV and the chairman of Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group, said this increase could drastically reduce someone’s quality of life, but come on.

Won't be long before they bring out the argument about "The Old and the Vulnerable".
Swindon Tenants Voice is not representative of the council tenants, it is mainly the same group of people taking it in turns to be chair and vice chair. As others have said, it is all about them and the free lunches and taxis they get and their own bloated self importance and sod anyone else. Most are on benefits of some kind or another despite having worked most of their lives but instead of saving for their retirement or becoming disabled through their own lifestyle choices we now have to pick up the tab for them. They epitomise everything that is bad about social housing and society in general.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: If the increase is only £2.60 / week this is less than a pint of beer in most of the pubs in Swindon. Maybe losing the ability to have an extra pint is "devastating" to some council tenants and as Brian Shakespeare, who is a member of STV and the chairman of Swindon Tenants’ Campaign Group, said this increase could drastically reduce someone’s quality of life, but come on. Won't be long before they bring out the argument about "The Old and the Vulnerable".[/p][/quote]Swindon Tenants Voice is not representative of the council tenants, it is mainly the same group of people taking it in turns to be chair and vice chair. As others have said, it is all about them and the free lunches and taxis they get and their own bloated self importance and sod anyone else. Most are on benefits of some kind or another despite having worked most of their lives but instead of saving for their retirement or becoming disabled through their own lifestyle choices we now have to pick up the tab for them. They epitomise everything that is bad about social housing and society in general. house on the hill

12:21pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Tyran66 says...

@ Ringer. I just looked him up - rarely have I seen so much patronising, pandering, partisan dribble in one place. He very conveniently forgets the situation his precious leftist regime inflicted upon the country.

Thankfully - Trade unions are deader than a dodo. Maggie cut their throat, Tony led them quietly towards their grave and Dave and George have been dancing on their headstone every since. Prehaps someone should take the time to drag Mr Wicks out of the 1970's - the world has changed, deal with it.
@ Ringer. I just looked him up - rarely have I seen so much patronising, pandering, partisan dribble in one place. He very conveniently forgets the situation his precious leftist regime inflicted upon the country. Thankfully - Trade unions are deader than a dodo. Maggie cut their throat, Tony led them quietly towards their grave and Dave and George have been dancing on their headstone every since. Prehaps someone should take the time to drag Mr Wicks out of the 1970's - the world has changed, deal with it. Tyran66

12:25pm Thu 2 Jan 14

nigelej says...

Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others .
Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others . nigelej

12:27pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.
Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year. Spurs Fan

12:32pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

House on the Hill, your views on swindon tenants voice are not very complimentary would you care to provide some evidence for your remarks? I would particularly like you to elaborate on how members life style choices have made them disabled.
House on the Hill, your views on swindon tenants voice are not very complimentary would you care to provide some evidence for your remarks? I would particularly like you to elaborate on how members life style choices have made them disabled. Spurs Fan

12:34pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good. Davey Gravey

12:35pm Thu 2 Jan 14

attilla the hun says...

I could be wrong but is this the same Brian Shakespeare that worked at the BMW ex rover plant for many years, who a number of years ago took voluntary redundancy,a reasonable payout in compensation , a cash lump sum from his pension pot?, if that is correct then he will of course have both a state and company pension, I'd be interested to know if mr Shakespeare receives any payment for his civic duties, also if I recal correctly mr Shakespeare had health issues, would he be in receipt of any disability benefits?, of course I may well have the wrong Brian Shakespeare and be incorrect in my recollections
I could be wrong but is this the same Brian Shakespeare that worked at the BMW ex rover plant for many years, who a number of years ago took voluntary redundancy,a reasonable payout in compensation , a cash lump sum from his pension pot?, if that is correct then he will of course have both a state and company pension, I'd be interested to know if mr Shakespeare receives any payment for his civic duties, also if I recal correctly mr Shakespeare had health issues, would he be in receipt of any disability benefits?, of course I may well have the wrong Brian Shakespeare and be incorrect in my recollections attilla the hun

12:37pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.
@Spurs Fan: nobody is 'having a go' at council tenants.

What people are pointing out is that Swindon Tenants Voice are an unelected, self-appointed group of old political activists with a far left agenda.

In terms of the rent increase, surely you cannot be surprised that the working people who're forced to pay for all of this (and by that I mean those who earn over £30kpa - anyone earning less than that takes more from the State than they contribute) find it a little ungrateful when people moan that they'll have to pay £80 a week rent for large three bedroom houses?

And remember, £80 a week would be the *average* council tenant rate, which means plenty of people will be paying LESS than that.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.[/p][/quote]@Spurs Fan: nobody is 'having a go' at council tenants. What people are pointing out is that Swindon Tenants Voice are an unelected, self-appointed group of old political activists with a far left agenda. In terms of the rent increase, surely you cannot be surprised that the working people who're forced to pay for all of this (and by that I mean those who earn over £30kpa - anyone earning less than that takes more from the State than they contribute) find it a little ungrateful when people moan that they'll have to pay £80 a week rent for large three bedroom houses? And remember, £80 a week would be the *average* council tenant rate, which means plenty of people will be paying LESS than that. Ringer

12:39pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about. Ringer

12:47pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.
Or those that can should stop scrounging off the taxpayer and provide for themselves instead of expecting the pathetically soft left who got us in the mess in the first place to make those who do take responsibility for their lives pay for them. The welfare state will bankrupt the country if it allowed to continue the way it is now with 53% being net takers rather than contributors which is a disgusting situation, sorry I have no time for those who are happy with a system that encourages laziness and is so open to abuse and forces those hardworking people to subsidise their laziness.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.[/p][/quote]Or those that can should stop scrounging off the taxpayer and provide for themselves instead of expecting the pathetically soft left who got us in the mess in the first place to make those who do take responsibility for their lives pay for them. The welfare state will bankrupt the country if it allowed to continue the way it is now with 53% being net takers rather than contributors which is a disgusting situation, sorry I have no time for those who are happy with a system that encourages laziness and is so open to abuse and forces those hardworking people to subsidise their laziness. house on the hill

12:49pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward. Spurs Fan

12:51pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Does anyone remember the last time Swindon Tenants Voice, or any council housing tenants, kicked up a big fuss and said how awful it was when Interest Rates went up and those with mortgages had no choice but to pay an extra £50, £100, £200 per month?

Of course not.

And yet we're expected to believe that £2.60 a week is a crushing example of an uncaring council? It's almost parody.
Does anyone remember the last time Swindon Tenants Voice, or any council housing tenants, kicked up a big fuss and said how awful it was when Interest Rates went up and those with mortgages had no choice but to pay an extra £50, £100, £200 per month? Of course not. And yet we're expected to believe that £2.60 a week is a crushing example of an uncaring council? It's almost parody. Ringer

12:54pm Thu 2 Jan 14

julie.porter17@ntlworld.com says...

Just to set the record straight, not everyone who lives in a council house is on benefits, "scrounging off the tax payer" or "too selfish to give up their social housing".
My husband and I both work full time, pay full rent and full council tax, pay income tax and do not claim any form of benefit, yet we could not afford to rent privately and give up our council house.
However, we do not have a problem with the suggested rent rise, we do not complain about the cost of our rent as compared to private rent we realise it is very reasonable.
Please do not tar everyone with the same brush.
Just to set the record straight, not everyone who lives in a council house is on benefits, "scrounging off the tax payer" or "too selfish to give up their social housing". My husband and I both work full time, pay full rent and full council tax, pay income tax and do not claim any form of benefit, yet we could not afford to rent privately and give up our council house. However, we do not have a problem with the suggested rent rise, we do not complain about the cost of our rent as compared to private rent we realise it is very reasonable. Please do not tar everyone with the same brush. julie.porter17@ntlworld.com

12:57pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

nigelej wrote:
Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others .
Firstly I dont think you will find it is aimed at all council tenants, just those who are capable of working but play the system so they dont have to and expect others to fund it. As for the council going bust, if that happened it would probably mean the Govt had gone bust too so there would be no social housing and they would have to join the rest of us in the real world of self dependancy and responsibility. No one minds helping those who need help, but those who don't should never have the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. Also if you overeat/drink/smoke yourself into ill health why should others pay for it. Or you could be like Japan where families look after each other no matter what and there is no social housing or nursing homes because they, you know, actually care about their family.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others .[/p][/quote]Firstly I dont think you will find it is aimed at all council tenants, just those who are capable of working but play the system so they dont have to and expect others to fund it. As for the council going bust, if that happened it would probably mean the Govt had gone bust too so there would be no social housing and they would have to join the rest of us in the real world of self dependancy and responsibility. No one minds helping those who need help, but those who don't should never have the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. Also if you overeat/drink/smoke yourself into ill health why should others pay for it. Or you could be like Japan where families look after each other no matter what and there is no social housing or nursing homes because they, you know, actually care about their family. house on the hill

12:59pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
You cannot seriously believe STV is 'non-political'. Although, interestingly, you seem to know a lot about it. Why is that?

There is actually very little bias on the Adver website until the lefties alert each other to certain threads and come wading in. Most of the stuff Davey posts is just generic astroturfing stuff via Labour HQ although your comments do interest me as they seem far more intelligent but also with a much more insidious left-wing tone.

Continually having left-wing tenants' spokespeople telling everyone that their rent should only ever rise at a rate they agree with could hardly be described as 'moving the argument forward' either.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.[/p][/quote]You cannot seriously believe STV is 'non-political'. Although, interestingly, you seem to know a lot about it. Why is that? There is actually very little bias on the Adver website until the lefties alert each other to certain threads and come wading in. Most of the stuff Davey posts is just generic astroturfing stuff via Labour HQ although your comments do interest me as they seem far more intelligent but also with a much more insidious left-wing tone. Continually having left-wing tenants' spokespeople telling everyone that their rent should only ever rise at a rate they agree with could hardly be described as 'moving the argument forward' either. Ringer

1:01pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

House on the Hill, your comment about over eating smoking etc has little to do with council housing and everything to do with society at large. Would you care to clarify your earlier remarks about members of STV making themselves disabled through lifestyle choice or would you be so kind as to retract the statement?
House on the Hill, your comment about over eating smoking etc has little to do with council housing and everything to do with society at large. Would you care to clarify your earlier remarks about members of STV making themselves disabled through lifestyle choice or would you be so kind as to retract the statement? Spurs Fan

1:02pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

julie.porter17@ntlwo
rld.com
wrote:
Just to set the record straight, not everyone who lives in a council house is on benefits, "scrounging off the tax payer" or "too selfish to give up their social housing".
My husband and I both work full time, pay full rent and full council tax, pay income tax and do not claim any form of benefit, yet we could not afford to rent privately and give up our council house.
However, we do not have a problem with the suggested rent rise, we do not complain about the cost of our rent as compared to private rent we realise it is very reasonable.
Please do not tar everyone with the same brush.
Excellent post.

How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me.
[quote][p][bold]julie.porter17@ntlwo rld.com[/bold] wrote: Just to set the record straight, not everyone who lives in a council house is on benefits, "scrounging off the tax payer" or "too selfish to give up their social housing". My husband and I both work full time, pay full rent and full council tax, pay income tax and do not claim any form of benefit, yet we could not afford to rent privately and give up our council house. However, we do not have a problem with the suggested rent rise, we do not complain about the cost of our rent as compared to private rent we realise it is very reasonable. Please do not tar everyone with the same brush.[/p][/quote]Excellent post. How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me. Ringer

1:02pm Thu 2 Jan 14

nigelej says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts .
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.[/p][/quote]What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts . nigelej

1:06pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
I dont think its right wing its about fairness and responsibility. How can it be wrong to expect those who are able, to be responsible for their own lives and provide for themselves, if everyone took your view the country would go bankrupt in no time. And nowhere do we ever see support from council tenants when interest rates rise, its just all so one sided all the time.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.[/p][/quote]I dont think its right wing its about fairness and responsibility. How can it be wrong to expect those who are able, to be responsible for their own lives and provide for themselves, if everyone took your view the country would go bankrupt in no time. And nowhere do we ever see support from council tenants when interest rates rise, its just all so one sided all the time. house on the hill

1:09pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion.
It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned.

Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about.[/p][/quote]I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion. It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned. Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie Davey Gravey

1:10pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer my own politics are left of center and I have a decent education so that may account for my "insidious" viewpoint!

I do know a fair amount about STV as I am a longstanding member. STV is constituted and as such has to operate outside of party politics.

I believe as I said earlier that rents should be linked to inflation and perhaps go up at a percentage point above inflation each year.

I would disagree with your assumption that there is little bias on this site.
Ringer my own politics are left of center and I have a decent education so that may account for my "insidious" viewpoint! I do know a fair amount about STV as I am a longstanding member. STV is constituted and as such has to operate outside of party politics. I believe as I said earlier that rents should be linked to inflation and perhaps go up at a percentage point above inflation each year. I would disagree with your assumption that there is little bias on this site. Spurs Fan

1:12pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Russell Holland says...

Few points:

Many people on benefits work but are on low incomes and many more would like to be able to work but cannot because of ill health, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find a job.

Housing benefit comes from national and not Council tax. Housing benefit pays for both private rent and social housing rent but social housing rent is less than private.

Changes are taking place to make housing allocation more needs based.

The big issue is the cost of housing relative to incomes - Council housing is one policy to assist tackle this issue.

Swindon Tenants Campaign Group is not the same as Swindon Tenant's Voice. Swindon Tenants' Voice is open to all tenants (and leaseholders) and the Chair is elected.

It is correct that around 2/3rds of the Council housing income comes from housing benefit. So for many tenants the increase in rent will be covered by housing benefit.

We had similar discussions last year ultimately Council will need to reach its own conclusions.

While it is good that tenants take an active interest in local matters, I do not consider that the position Swindon Tenant's Campaign Group adoptson some issues to be particularly helpful. For example the Campaign Group (as well as Swindon Labour) opposed the create of a housing based fund specifically to assist tenants in need http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
10367701.Don___t_use
_this_money_for_bedr
oom_tax_fund/

Tenants had the opportunity to choose whether or not to keep the Council as their landlord and they decided to keep the Council as landlord, even though the Council would face greater financial restrictions over the next 10-15 years.
Few points: Many people on benefits work but are on low incomes and many more would like to be able to work but cannot because of ill health, caring responsibilities or because they struggle to find a job. Housing benefit comes from national and not Council tax. Housing benefit pays for both private rent and social housing rent but social housing rent is less than private. Changes are taking place to make housing allocation more needs based. The big issue is the cost of housing relative to incomes - Council housing is one policy to assist tackle this issue. Swindon Tenants Campaign Group is not the same as Swindon Tenant's Voice. Swindon Tenants' Voice is open to all tenants (and leaseholders) and the Chair is elected. It is correct that around 2/3rds of the Council housing income comes from housing benefit. So for many tenants the increase in rent will be covered by housing benefit. We had similar discussions last year ultimately Council will need to reach its own conclusions. While it is good that tenants take an active interest in local matters, I do not consider that the position Swindon Tenant's Campaign Group adoptson some issues to be particularly helpful. For example the Campaign Group (as well as Swindon Labour) opposed the create of a housing based fund specifically to assist tenants in need http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 10367701.Don___t_use _this_money_for_bedr oom_tax_fund/ Tenants had the opportunity to choose whether or not to keep the Council as their landlord and they decided to keep the Council as landlord, even though the Council would face greater financial restrictions over the next 10-15 years. Russell Holland

1:14pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well. Always Grumpy

1:17pm Thu 2 Jan 14

nigelej says...

house on the hill wrote:
nigelej wrote:
Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others .
Firstly I dont think you will find it is aimed at all council tenants, just those who are capable of working but play the system so they dont have to and expect others to fund it. As for the council going bust, if that happened it would probably mean the Govt had gone bust too so there would be no social housing and they would have to join the rest of us in the real world of self dependancy and responsibility. No one minds helping those who need help, but those who don't should never have the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. Also if you overeat/drink/smoke yourself into ill health why should others pay for it. Or you could be like Japan where families look after each other no matter what and there is no social housing or nursing homes because they, you know, actually care about their family.
You should go back and read ringers comments I think that will show aimed at all social tenants . Eating drinking stocking the real people on benefits can't afforded that and I have said many times on different comments if people know people who claim benefits and have all the luxerys some of you think they have or know they have then its your duty as a taxpayer to report them to the dhss because they must be fiddling .must genuine claimants could not afforded it I have openly in the past offered to prove what it's like to live on benefits we have no sky I don't drink never have since my youth . Never smocked in my life . I don't posses a mobile phone . For the recorded I do have two small dogs that was with us before I fell unwell . And they actually keep us going so I failed on that one . I do agree that it as to be tough for people that work and want to get on . But this governments aim to turn workers against benefit claimants is wrong and will back fire on them in the long run . As a foot note I have had to deal with my Mp Justin Tomlinson and I found him to be a good and honourable man . The torys could do themselfs a favour and put him in charge of the Dhss .
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: Very interesting points on here .even more intersting you never see anyone from social housing coming on here and sticking up for themselfs. I wonder why that is . Maybe they are not envious of those that live in big houses and have the worry of paying large mortgages. Maybe they just go to work most of them and come home and worry about there family life . It's stupid to keep saying council tenants are scoungers and lazy and simply not true .how many of your parents lived in council houses were they scoungers were they lazy no of course not . I understand your anger I truly do but bashing people because they live in social housing is just getting sickly and very unpleasant now. What if the council went bankrupt and all tenants had to move into private accommodation. Then look at the cost to the tax payer . Plus then you wouldn't be able to make such discriminating remarks . Please think before you go on about people not everyone in a social houseing are scoungers we are all human some more than others .[/p][/quote]Firstly I dont think you will find it is aimed at all council tenants, just those who are capable of working but play the system so they dont have to and expect others to fund it. As for the council going bust, if that happened it would probably mean the Govt had gone bust too so there would be no social housing and they would have to join the rest of us in the real world of self dependancy and responsibility. No one minds helping those who need help, but those who don't should never have the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. Also if you overeat/drink/smoke yourself into ill health why should others pay for it. Or you could be like Japan where families look after each other no matter what and there is no social housing or nursing homes because they, you know, actually care about their family.[/p][/quote]You should go back and read ringers comments I think that will show aimed at all social tenants . Eating drinking stocking the real people on benefits can't afforded that and I have said many times on different comments if people know people who claim benefits and have all the luxerys some of you think they have or know they have then its your duty as a taxpayer to report them to the dhss because they must be fiddling .must genuine claimants could not afforded it I have openly in the past offered to prove what it's like to live on benefits we have no sky I don't drink never have since my youth . Never smocked in my life . I don't posses a mobile phone . For the recorded I do have two small dogs that was with us before I fell unwell . And they actually keep us going so I failed on that one . I do agree that it as to be tough for people that work and want to get on . But this governments aim to turn workers against benefit claimants is wrong and will back fire on them in the long run . As a foot note I have had to deal with my Mp Justin Tomlinson and I found him to be a good and honourable man . The torys could do themselfs a favour and put him in charge of the Dhss . nigelej

1:17pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

nigelej wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts .
Yes, the government wastes millions, billions even, but that does not detract from, or change, the fact that the welfare state now costs the nation £419 BILLION per year (and that excludes education and 'other public services).

To put that in context, the total government revenue from Income Tax, NI and VAT is £260 Billion per year.

Something HAS to change. We cannot keep fooling ourselves that the money spent on the welfare state is affordable. It simply isn't.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.[/p][/quote]What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts .[/p][/quote]Yes, the government wastes millions, billions even, but that does not detract from, or change, the fact that the welfare state now costs the nation £419 BILLION per year (and that excludes education and 'other public services). To put that in context, the total government revenue from Income Tax, NI and VAT is £260 Billion per year. Something HAS to change. We cannot keep fooling ourselves that the money spent on the welfare state is affordable. It simply isn't. Ringer

1:22pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion.
It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned.

Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie
Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times.

All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me.

And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site.

As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about.[/p][/quote]I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion. It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned. Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie[/p][/quote]Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times. All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me. And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site. As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)? Ringer

1:24pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

nigelej wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics.

Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact.

£80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work.

I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.
What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts .
That is a never ending list though Nigel of waste in the public sector, how about the £millions spent on gastric bands for fat people etc etc. Anyone who has worked in the public sector will tell you they could save £billions every year if it was run in an efficient manor but I doubt that would ever happen in what is basically a monopoly with a guaranteed customer base where they have no reason the be efficient and competitive. As for the defence budget, thats a hard one to quantify and probably best left to experts.....
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer - Swindon Tenants Voice is a constituted group that is non political. Many of it's members may be left leaning put it has to act outside of party politics. Plenty of council tenants earn far less that £30k pa in fact I expect many earn far less than £20K therefore any increase in rent will have a real and significant impact. £80 maybe an average so just as many will pay more as those paying less! That's how averages work. I see the arguments from both sides but there is a very right wing bias on all of the Adver's threads that does nothing to move the argument forward.[/p][/quote]What amazes me you never see these people going on about the millions wasted by this government £100 million wasted on IT mistakes made by the Dwp . How many millions wasted on appeals from atos . What about the millions wasted on the defence budget . That's where the tax payer should be moaning not at those that are less fortunate than most . And what about the greedy mps who claim £6000 to keep his horse warm when he is all ready a multi millionaire go after them if you want to clobber someone because do you no that's pure greed nothing less . So if you are Tory then say are you proud of mps like that is he no better than the picture you have about social tenants . And I'm not a labour man either before anyone's shouts .[/p][/quote]That is a never ending list though Nigel of waste in the public sector, how about the £millions spent on gastric bands for fat people etc etc. Anyone who has worked in the public sector will tell you they could save £billions every year if it was run in an efficient manor but I doubt that would ever happen in what is basically a monopoly with a guaranteed customer base where they have no reason the be efficient and competitive. As for the defence budget, thats a hard one to quantify and probably best left to experts..... house on the hill

1:25pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Scroungers and the welfare state does need sorting out,no doubt about it. What annoys me is that people make ridiculous sweeping statements about council estates and those who live there. It often ruins their valid points as they tar everyone with the same brush.

What I believe in is fairness for all. Everyone should have a right to a decent life if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too.

Currently the balance is all wrong. Scroungers and wasters take the ****,which annoys normal hardworking folk and rightly so. But this clouds their judgement making them often frown upon people not deserving of it.
Radical measures need taking to sort out the decent folk who deserve social housing and those that do not.
Scroungers and the welfare state does need sorting out,no doubt about it. What annoys me is that people make ridiculous sweeping statements about council estates and those who live there. It often ruins their valid points as they tar everyone with the same brush. What I believe in is fairness for all. Everyone should have a right to a decent life if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too. Currently the balance is all wrong. Scroungers and wasters take the ****,which annoys normal hardworking folk and rightly so. But this clouds their judgement making them often frown upon people not deserving of it. Radical measures need taking to sort out the decent folk who deserve social housing and those that do not. Davey Gravey

1:27pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion.
It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned.

Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie
Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times.

All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me.

And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site.

As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?
You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again.
You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it.
Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about.[/p][/quote]I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion. It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned. Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie[/p][/quote]Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times. All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me. And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site. As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?[/p][/quote]You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again. You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it. Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it. Davey Gravey

1:30pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell??? house on the hill

1:46pm Thu 2 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Scroungers and the welfare state does need sorting out,no doubt about it. What annoys me is that people make ridiculous sweeping statements about council estates and those who live there. It often ruins their valid points as they tar everyone with the same brush.

What I believe in is fairness for all. Everyone should have a right to a decent life if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too.

Currently the balance is all wrong. Scroungers and wasters take the ****,which annoys normal hardworking folk and rightly so. But this clouds their judgement making them often frown upon people not deserving of it.
Radical measures need taking to sort out the decent folk who deserve social housing and those that do not.
Agree with some of your points. Of course there are decent council tenants and decent areas, usually spoilt by the minority as with most things in life!

Just not sure about the "fairness" and " People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too" if its about fairness then what you get should be based on what you can afford and in effect subsidising one group over another to many is far from fair. Why should council house rents be half the cost of private? we all know the reason is to keep benefit costs down but it creates the two tier system by doing so.

Totally agree it needs sorting to be fair and affordable and that will be the trick to find the balance between the 2.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Scroungers and the welfare state does need sorting out,no doubt about it. What annoys me is that people make ridiculous sweeping statements about council estates and those who live there. It often ruins their valid points as they tar everyone with the same brush. What I believe in is fairness for all. Everyone should have a right to a decent life if they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too. Currently the balance is all wrong. Scroungers and wasters take the ****,which annoys normal hardworking folk and rightly so. But this clouds their judgement making them often frown upon people not deserving of it. Radical measures need taking to sort out the decent folk who deserve social housing and those that do not.[/p][/quote]Agree with some of your points. Of course there are decent council tenants and decent areas, usually spoilt by the minority as with most things in life! Just not sure about the "fairness" and " People should have reasonable homes at a reasonable cost if they do not earn big money too" if its about fairness then what you get should be based on what you can afford and in effect subsidising one group over another to many is far from fair. Why should council house rents be half the cost of private? we all know the reason is to keep benefit costs down but it creates the two tier system by doing so. Totally agree it needs sorting to be fair and affordable and that will be the trick to find the balance between the 2. house on the hill

1:49pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion.
It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned.

Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie
Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times.

All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me.

And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site.

As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?
You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again.
You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it.
Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it.
I never misquote you, Davey. All I do is quote your own guff back at you and then you realise you don't like it.

You accuse people, incorrectly, of manipulating voting and then demand that they're banned. What a coincidence that it just so happens that you want to ban people who you think have voted your comments down (ie, don't agree with you).

As has been pointed out to you - and is obvious in any case - your ultra-left wing agenda and out of date mindset is not popular on this website. Why you think it might be is quite beyond me as, other than Scotland and a few areas in the North, the country just doesn't think along those lines anymore. It's the same reason people such as the Swindon Tenants Voice and your beloved public sector unions come across as nothing more than an anachronistic misfire.

This news did make me smile yesterday:


For the next six months, Greece holds the presidency of the European Union. The country is virtually bankrupt, and has been bailed out several times by the EU. Now it's in charge of the EU's daily agenda.


On the same day, Clegg laid out his stall massively in favour of the EU. You left-wingers just cannot see the irony of all this. If you had your way, we'd be in exactly the same situation as Greece and their failed socialist government/society.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about.[/p][/quote]I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion. It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned. Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie[/p][/quote]Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times. All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me. And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site. As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?[/p][/quote]You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again. You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it. Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it.[/p][/quote]I never misquote you, Davey. All I do is quote your own guff back at you and then you realise you don't like it. You accuse people, incorrectly, of manipulating voting and then demand that they're banned. What a coincidence that it just so happens that you want to ban people who you think have voted your comments down (ie, don't agree with you). As has been pointed out to you - and is obvious in any case - your ultra-left wing agenda and out of date mindset is not popular on this website. Why you think it might be is quite beyond me as, other than Scotland and a few areas in the North, the country just doesn't think along those lines anymore. It's the same reason people such as the Swindon Tenants Voice and your beloved public sector unions come across as nothing more than an anachronistic misfire. This news did make me smile yesterday: [quote] For the next six months, Greece holds the presidency of the European Union. The country is virtually bankrupt, and has been bailed out several times by the EU. Now it's in charge of the EU's daily agenda. [/quote] On the same day, Clegg laid out his stall massively in favour of the EU. You left-wingers just cannot see the irony of all this. If you had your way, we'd be in exactly the same situation as Greece and their failed socialist government/society. Ringer

2:13pm Thu 2 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Russell Holland said:
"Housing benefit comes from national and not Council tax."

You can give it whatever name you like, but the reality is that it doesn't *come from* national or local tax. It comes from the pockets of the tax payer.
Russell Holland said: "Housing benefit comes from national and not Council tax." You can give it whatever name you like, but the reality is that it doesn't *come from* national or local tax. It comes from the pockets of the tax payer. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

2:48pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.
If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here.

No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion.

It tells us all exactly what you're all about.
I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion.
It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned.

Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie
Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times.

All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me.

And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site.

As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?
You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again.
You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it.
Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it.
I never misquote you, Davey. All I do is quote your own guff back at you and then you realise you don't like it.

You accuse people, incorrectly, of manipulating voting and then demand that they're banned. What a coincidence that it just so happens that you want to ban people who you think have voted your comments down (ie, don't agree with you).

As has been pointed out to you - and is obvious in any case - your ultra-left wing agenda and out of date mindset is not popular on this website. Why you think it might be is quite beyond me as, other than Scotland and a few areas in the North, the country just doesn't think along those lines anymore. It's the same reason people such as the Swindon Tenants Voice and your beloved public sector unions come across as nothing more than an anachronistic misfire.

This news did make me smile yesterday:


For the next six months, Greece holds the presidency of the European Union. The country is virtually bankrupt, and has been bailed out several times by the EU. Now it's in charge of the EU's daily agenda.


On the same day, Clegg laid out his stall massively in favour of the EU. You left-wingers just cannot see the irony of all this. If you had your way, we'd be in exactly the same situation as Greece and their failed socialist government/society.
You misquote me all the time. Again in this thread. So that's a lie straight away. First sentence. FALSE STATEMENT

I have repeatedly said that I do not care how many people agree with me or not when you wrongly claim I do. FALSE STATEMENT

I'm no lefty like you keep calling me. Again I repeatedly point this out. FALSE STATEMENT

Labour are not my party, again as you repeatedly say this to me. FALSE

I have no agenda at all. Again you always say this towards me. FALSE STATEMENT

You call me a liar all the time. I do not lie on here. FALSE STATEMENT

You tell me where I shop. FALSE STATEMENT

You tell me what I think. FALSE STATEMENT

Every time you say the same things about me and I keep having to correct you over and over again.

I have no issue with debate and the whole site disagreeing with me if that is their view on any topic. I don't know how many times I have to say it?
I couldn't give a hoot if i get 1000 thumbs down as long as that is a genuine 1000 thumbs down.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People get put off making comment due to the bullying and manipulation of the site by the odd Tory loyal. One in particular who misquotes and makes up lies about other contributors in desperation to try to sway debate in their favour. Hopefully the new year will kick the site mods into gear and remove these few trolls for good.[/p][/quote]If anyone on this site should be banned, it's you - for your continuous childish insults. However, unlike you left-wingers, I believe everyone should be allowed the right to post here. No surprise that you feel anyone who doesn't share your view should be banned and prevented from expressing their opinion. It tells us all exactly what you're all about.[/p][/quote]I don't feel that way at all. I agree that anyone should be allowed an opinion. It's those who fiddle with the site, misquote others and lie about other posters who should be banned. Above you do exactly that. Misquote and lie[/p][/quote]Absolutely untrue. Lying is something you've been caught out doing on here before now, several times. All I've ever done with your quotes is quote your left-wing ideology back to you. That you then quickly backtrack and accuse me of 'lying' says far more about you than it does me. And, of course, you're lying again now. You have said you want 'trolls' banned from this site. You are well known for labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a 'troll'. Empty Car Park does exactly the same thing, despite both you and he being quite clearly the biggest trolls on this site. As for manipulating the thumbs up/down voting, you can't really believe I haven't noticed exactly how you do that with my posts (and those of others)?[/p][/quote]You fool only yourself Ringer. You misquote me daily on here. You are doign it again. You clearly are either blind to what you do or are just lying about it. Even after correcting you time and time again you continue to do it.[/p][/quote]I never misquote you, Davey. All I do is quote your own guff back at you and then you realise you don't like it. You accuse people, incorrectly, of manipulating voting and then demand that they're banned. What a coincidence that it just so happens that you want to ban people who you think have voted your comments down (ie, don't agree with you). As has been pointed out to you - and is obvious in any case - your ultra-left wing agenda and out of date mindset is not popular on this website. Why you think it might be is quite beyond me as, other than Scotland and a few areas in the North, the country just doesn't think along those lines anymore. It's the same reason people such as the Swindon Tenants Voice and your beloved public sector unions come across as nothing more than an anachronistic misfire. This news did make me smile yesterday: [quote] For the next six months, Greece holds the presidency of the European Union. The country is virtually bankrupt, and has been bailed out several times by the EU. Now it's in charge of the EU's daily agenda. [/quote] On the same day, Clegg laid out his stall massively in favour of the EU. You left-wingers just cannot see the irony of all this. If you had your way, we'd be in exactly the same situation as Greece and their failed socialist government/society.[/p][/quote]You misquote me all the time. Again in this thread. So that's a lie straight away. First sentence. FALSE STATEMENT I have repeatedly said that I do not care how many people agree with me or not when you wrongly claim I do. FALSE STATEMENT I'm no lefty like you keep calling me. Again I repeatedly point this out. FALSE STATEMENT Labour are not my party, again as you repeatedly say this to me. FALSE I have no agenda at all. Again you always say this towards me. FALSE STATEMENT You call me a liar all the time. I do not lie on here. FALSE STATEMENT You tell me where I shop. FALSE STATEMENT You tell me what I think. FALSE STATEMENT Every time you say the same things about me and I keep having to correct you over and over again. I have no issue with debate and the whole site disagreeing with me if that is their view on any topic. I don't know how many times I have to say it? I couldn't give a hoot if i get 1000 thumbs down as long as that is a genuine 1000 thumbs down. Davey Gravey

2:56pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...


I'm no lefty like you keep calling me.


Assuming you actually believe that, it's impossible to take you seriously.
[quote] I'm no lefty like you keep calling me. [/quote] Assuming you actually believe that, it's impossible to take you seriously. Ringer

3:06pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:

I'm no lefty like you keep calling me.


Assuming you actually believe that, it's impossible to take you seriously.
You are the one who keeps making everything political. Some of us just want to make points on the topics.
You went after me initially after I was critical of the Tories. Since then it's been lefty this,labour that.
Agenda this, socialist or communist that.
You just cannot help yourself. Desperate man.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote] I'm no lefty like you keep calling me. [/quote] Assuming you actually believe that, it's impossible to take you seriously.[/p][/quote]You are the one who keeps making everything political. Some of us just want to make points on the topics. You went after me initially after I was critical of the Tories. Since then it's been lefty this,labour that. Agenda this, socialist or communist that. You just cannot help yourself. Desperate man. Davey Gravey

3:07pm Thu 2 Jan 14

knittynora says...

Ringer says: "How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me."
Well as far as I know there's nothing stopping them attending tenants meetings and putting their point of view. Maybe they haven't got the hang-ups with these 3 people that you seem to have. Interesting that someone who is not actually a tenant (??) has such a close and personal interest in the affairs of the local tenants organisations and in their leading members.
Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?
Ringer says: "How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me." Well as far as I know there's nothing stopping them attending tenants meetings and putting their point of view. Maybe they haven't got the hang-ups with these 3 people that you seem to have. Interesting that someone who is not actually a tenant (??) has such a close and personal interest in the affairs of the local tenants organisations and in their leading members. Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda? knittynora

3:10pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Take no notice of Ringer.
He's just a political zealot.
Totally incapable of discussing the simplest, local topic without turning into a plastic westminster rant and resorting to calling everyone else a lefty.
He's just a tool
Take no notice of Ringer. He's just a political zealot. Totally incapable of discussing the simplest, local topic without turning into a plastic westminster rant and resorting to calling everyone else a lefty. He's just a tool Empty Car Park

3:11pm Thu 2 Jan 14

street2000 says...

So I will be paying another £2.60 a week as i work for a living and pay taxes! Don't they think I would like to watch Jeremy kyle all day on my 50 inch super flat screen whilst munching my dinner from the food bank!
So I will be paying another £2.60 a week as i work for a living and pay taxes! Don't they think I would like to watch Jeremy kyle all day on my 50 inch super flat screen whilst munching my dinner from the food bank! street2000

4:33pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Take no notice of Ringer.
He's just a political zealot.
Totally incapable of discussing the simplest, local topic without turning into a plastic westminster rant and resorting to calling everyone else a lefty.
He's just a tool
How can an issue relating to council tenants rent and what tax payers have to contribute, when advanced by a self-proclaimed 'political activist' (Martin Wicks) possibly NOT have political associations? It's utterly ridiculous to even try and pretend otherwise.

Good to see your shoe-horned your stupid and meaningless 'Plastic Westminster' thing in again. That really makes your look clever.

Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual.

When are you moving?
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of Ringer. He's just a political zealot. Totally incapable of discussing the simplest, local topic without turning into a plastic westminster rant and resorting to calling everyone else a lefty. He's just a tool[/p][/quote]How can an issue relating to council tenants rent and what tax payers have to contribute, when advanced by a self-proclaimed 'political activist' (Martin Wicks) possibly NOT have political associations? It's utterly ridiculous to even try and pretend otherwise. Good to see your shoe-horned your stupid and meaningless 'Plastic Westminster' thing in again. That really makes your look clever. Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual. When are you moving? Ringer

4:37pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

knittynora wrote:
Ringer says: "How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me."
Well as far as I know there's nothing stopping them attending tenants meetings and putting their point of view. Maybe they haven't got the hang-ups with these 3 people that you seem to have. Interesting that someone who is not actually a tenant (??) has such a close and personal interest in the affairs of the local tenants organisations and in their leading members.
Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?
The only 'agenda' I have is one of transparency.

I actually used to work for the same organisation as Eileen George and so know *exactly* what kind of a person she is, how much she earned and how much her pension is. Her husband is in the same boat, give or take a few quid.

The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times.

It would only be fair for people to know the reality, especially the very poor people who find it hard to even get into council housing because people like this have hogged them all their lives despite earning very comfortable salaries.

It's the shameless hypocrisy of it that I think people should be informed about.
[quote][p][bold]knittynora[/bold] wrote: Ringer says: "How do you feel about the likes of Shakespeare, Wicks and George purporting to speak for you and other decent council tenants like you? It would infuriate me." Well as far as I know there's nothing stopping them attending tenants meetings and putting their point of view. Maybe they haven't got the hang-ups with these 3 people that you seem to have. Interesting that someone who is not actually a tenant (??) has such a close and personal interest in the affairs of the local tenants organisations and in their leading members. Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?[/p][/quote]The only 'agenda' I have is one of transparency. I actually used to work for the same organisation as Eileen George and so know *exactly* what kind of a person she is, how much she earned and how much her pension is. Her husband is in the same boat, give or take a few quid. The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times. It would only be fair for people to know the reality, especially the very poor people who find it hard to even get into council housing because people like this have hogged them all their lives despite earning very comfortable salaries. It's the shameless hypocrisy of it that I think people should be informed about. Ringer

4:43pm Thu 2 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

Russell Holland is good at quoting the obvious but adds little if any to the debate. But that is politics for you, always remember there is an election just around the corner. So be it.

nitty nora, You ask Ringer, "Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?"

"These peoples" being STV are trying to project an image of, LOW PAY and IMPOVORISHMENT to make their point. They are not telling people the whole story but then that would spoil it.
Russell Holland is good at quoting the obvious but adds little if any to the debate. But that is politics for you, always remember there is an election just around the corner. So be it. nitty nora, You ask Ringer, "Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?" "These peoples" being STV are trying to project an image of, LOW PAY and IMPOVORISHMENT to make their point. They are not telling people the whole story but then that would spoil it. trolley dolley

4:56pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Why post the same comment, with spelling mistakes, under a different login?

Pathetic
Why post the same comment, with spelling mistakes, under a different login? Pathetic Empty Car Park

5:01pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Ringbit says
Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual.


Nope.
Not possible to lose a debate if one hasn't got a strong opinion either way.

Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change
Ringbit says [quote]Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual.[/quote] Nope. Not possible to lose a debate if one hasn't got a strong opinion either way. Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change Empty Car Park

5:01pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views. Always Grumpy

5:05pm Thu 2 Jan 14

nigelej says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Russell Holland is good at quoting the obvious but adds little if any to the debate. But that is politics for you, always remember there is an election just around the corner. So be it.

nitty nora, You ask Ringer, "Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?"

"These peoples" being STV are trying to project an image of, LOW PAY and IMPOVORISHMENT to make their point. They are not telling people the whole story but then that would spoil it.
Who does tell the whole story I don't think you can trust any council/ political words .watch prime ministers questions that will show you all you need to see about truths and lies . I have personally written to Dave, Goerge,Eric,and IanDuncan Smith where I have openly told them they have lied and I have the proof .ive asked them why they do it . Why do you come on tv and tell bare faced lies . Now if they weren't they could and should have had me arrested for defamation of character . Yet not one of them replied and I do have the proof so I guess they want . They can all quote rubbish and until we say enough is enough and all stick together nothing will change .
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Russell Holland is good at quoting the obvious but adds little if any to the debate. But that is politics for you, always remember there is an election just around the corner. So be it. nitty nora, You ask Ringer, "Why do you feel it necessary to make unsubstantiated allegations about these peoples` finances in order to make a point? what's your agenda?" "These peoples" being STV are trying to project an image of, LOW PAY and IMPOVORISHMENT to make their point. They are not telling people the whole story but then that would spoil it.[/p][/quote]Who does tell the whole story I don't think you can trust any council/ political words .watch prime ministers questions that will show you all you need to see about truths and lies . I have personally written to Dave, Goerge,Eric,and IanDuncan Smith where I have openly told them they have lied and I have the proof .ive asked them why they do it . Why do you come on tv and tell bare faced lies . Now if they weren't they could and should have had me arrested for defamation of character . Yet not one of them replied and I do have the proof so I guess they want . They can all quote rubbish and until we say enough is enough and all stick together nothing will change . nigelej

5:08pm Thu 2 Jan 14

knittynora says...

Ringer says" The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times."

I cant recall any of the three individuals saying that they are affected by any of the welfare benefit cuts. Have you never heard of campaigning in the interests of others? Its called social responsibility or altruism.
Ringer says" The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times." I cant recall any of the three individuals saying that they are affected by any of the welfare benefit cuts. Have you never heard of campaigning in the interests of others? Its called social responsibility or altruism. knittynora

5:22pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

knittynora wrote:
Ringer says" The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times."

I cant recall any of the three individuals saying that they are affected by any of the welfare benefit cuts. Have you never heard of campaigning in the interests of others? Its called social responsibility or altruism.
This is absolutely priceless!
[quote][p][bold]knittynora[/bold] wrote: Ringer says" The only 'interest' I have is that these three, self-appointed, politically motivated mischief makes are continually in the Adver with their press releases and yet portray themselves as poor old pensioners just trying to get by in tough times." I cant recall any of the three individuals saying that they are affected by any of the welfare benefit cuts. Have you never heard of campaigning in the interests of others? Its called social responsibility or altruism.[/p][/quote]This is absolutely priceless! Ringer

5:23pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes.
Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0

It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score.
Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse.
I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes. Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0 It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score. Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse. Davey Gravey

5:25pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringbit says
Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual.


Nope.
Not possible to lose a debate if one hasn't got a strong opinion either way.

Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change
Yes, we all know how much you'd like to prevent anyone other than those who share your view from expressing their opinion.

That works on your local Labour forum where the 10 of you can simply hound, censor and ban any views that don't chime with your socialist agenda but on this website there is freedom of opinion.

I'm actually very glad you don't like reading my posts, mainly because I'm aware that you find reality impossible to accept.

When are you moving?
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Ringbit says [quote]Nice personal insult to end with, as usual, which handily means you've lost the debate, as usual.[/quote] Nope. Not possible to lose a debate if one hasn't got a strong opinion either way. Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change[/p][/quote]Yes, we all know how much you'd like to prevent anyone other than those who share your view from expressing their opinion. That works on your local Labour forum where the 10 of you can simply hound, censor and ban any views that don't chime with your socialist agenda but on this website there is freedom of opinion. I'm actually very glad you don't like reading my posts, mainly because I'm aware that you find reality impossible to accept. When are you moving? Ringer

5:39pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

I love reading your posts.
It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe
I love reading your posts. It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe Empty Car Park

6:00pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work. Davey Gravey

6:25pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
I love reading your posts.
It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe
Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this:


Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: I love reading your posts. It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe[/p][/quote]Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this: [quote] Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change [/quote] Ringer

6:26pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money? Ringer

6:27pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes.
Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0

It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score.
Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse.
Which is interesting, because you've openly admitted on here that you ALWAYS vote my posts down regardless of the content.

It's very clear that you vote at least two or three times on the same posts.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes. Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0 It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score. Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, because you've openly admitted on here that you ALWAYS vote my posts down regardless of the content. It's very clear that you vote at least two or three times on the same posts. Ringer

6:42pm Thu 2 Jan 14

funkmouse says...

not all people who have council houses are jobless wasters who sit at home doing drugs or drinking, some of us are hard workers who are on a very low wage. don't be so judgmental we are not all the same.
not all people who have council houses are jobless wasters who sit at home doing drugs or drinking, some of us are hard workers who are on a very low wage. don't be so judgmental we are not all the same. funkmouse

6:49pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer wrote:
Empty Car Park wrote:
I love reading your posts.
It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe
Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this:


Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change
Ringbit says
Empty Car Park wrote:
I love reading your posts.
It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe

Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this:


Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change


Just because I suggest it would be nice for people to read the comments without having to scroll past your zealous rants does not mean I don't also laugh at you.

You seriously think you're some kind of force to be reckoned with.
That is so funny
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: I love reading your posts. It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe[/p][/quote]Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this: [quote] Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change [/quote][/p][/quote]Ringbit says [quote]Empty Car Park wrote: I love reading your posts. It's hilarious to read such fanatical tripe[/quote] Make your mind up. Only a little while back you posted this: [quote]Just thought it would be nice to browse through some comments without reading your usual zealot rants for a change[/quote] Just because I suggest it would be nice for people to read the comments without having to scroll past your zealous rants does not mean I don't also laugh at you. You seriously think you're some kind of force to be reckoned with. That is so funny Empty Car Park

6:53pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes.
Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0

It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score.
Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse.
Which is interesting, because you've openly admitted on here that you ALWAYS vote my posts down regardless of the content.

It's very clear that you vote at least two or three times on the same posts.
When did I openly admit that? You are lying as I do not do it and have not admitted it.
You are lying and I worry for your mental state. I'd get to the doctor if I were you.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: I made a comment the other day wishing a bride,her husband to be and her terminally ill father best wishes. Someone even manipulated the thumbs down for that comment as my score went from +4 to 0 It doesn't matter what some people type,others will do what they can to make sure it gets a - score. Very sad that the site moderators cannot rid the site of this type of abuse.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, because you've openly admitted on here that you ALWAYS vote my posts down regardless of the content. It's very clear that you vote at least two or three times on the same posts.[/p][/quote]When did I openly admit that? You are lying as I do not do it and have not admitted it. You are lying and I worry for your mental state. I'd get to the doctor if I were you. Davey Gravey

7:03pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

No point. He's beyond help.

Probably drive the doctor nuts.

His datalibium has burst
No point. He's beyond help. Probably drive the doctor nuts. His datalibium has burst Empty Car Park

7:07pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

@Empty Car Park:


You seriously think you're some kind of force to be reckoned with.
That is so funny


Do I? What on earth makes you think that?

Still, I'm glad you've, er, clarified that you would rather not read my posts but also enjoy reading my posts.
@Empty Car Park: [quote] You seriously think you're some kind of force to be reckoned with. That is so funny [/quote] Do I? What on earth makes you think that? Still, I'm glad you've, er, clarified that you would rather not read my posts but also enjoy reading my posts. Ringer

7:12pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?
No.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?[/p][/quote]No. Davey Gravey

7:19pm Thu 2 Jan 14

faatmaan says...

a simple annual means test, carried out by inland revenue of all living at said address could determine either their eligibility for council housing, or determine the level of rent to be paid,(income related).Nobody period wants to pay more .
a simple annual means test, carried out by inland revenue of all living at said address could determine either their eligibility for council housing, or determine the level of rent to be paid,(income related).Nobody period wants to pay more . faatmaan

8:20pm Thu 2 Jan 14

dmw1984 says...

gambon wrote:
the rise should be nearer 10% i am fed up of paying for these freeloaders they should be forced to get a job and start paying proper amounts
Not everyone who lives in a council property is a freeloader, I work full time for the NHS for low pay and do so, so I can look after people like you, and I do part time weekend work as well and I am just able to pay all my bills I only have a phone and internet no other extra's. I am grateful for my council property. So climb off your soapbox and take your blinkers off.
[quote][p][bold]gambon[/bold] wrote: the rise should be nearer 10% i am fed up of paying for these freeloaders they should be forced to get a job and start paying proper amounts[/p][/quote]Not everyone who lives in a council property is a freeloader, I work full time for the NHS for low pay and do so, so I can look after people like you, and I do part time weekend work as well and I am just able to pay all my bills I only have a phone and internet no other extra's. I am grateful for my council property. So climb off your soapbox and take your blinkers off. dmw1984

8:35pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?
No.
So, then you're saying they wouldn't turn to crime if their benefits were cut?

Which is odd, because only earlier today you very clearly said:


What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?


Which appears to be a thinly veiled threat that people on benefits would turn to crime, which would 'rocket', if their benefits were cut.

You appear to be losing the plot a little, Davey.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?[/p][/quote]No.[/p][/quote]So, then you're saying they wouldn't turn to crime if their benefits were cut? Which is odd, because only earlier today you very clearly said: [quote] What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? [/quote] Which appears to be a thinly veiled threat that people on benefits would turn to crime, which would 'rocket', if their benefits were cut. You appear to be losing the plot a little, Davey. Ringer

8:43pm Thu 2 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

dmw984,

If you work fulltime and weekends surely an increase of £2.60 is not going to drive you into the poorhouse.

We all have to budget to get by and as a beneficiary of a low cost council house and I cannot believe that such a small amount would create a real problem.

No one likes paying an increase in price on anything but when it is on your home it should be priority number one.
dmw984, If you work fulltime and weekends surely an increase of £2.60 is not going to drive you into the poorhouse. We all have to budget to get by and as a beneficiary of a low cost council house and I cannot believe that such a small amount would create a real problem. No one likes paying an increase in price on anything but when it is on your home it should be priority number one. trolley dolley

8:55pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?
No.
So, then you're saying they wouldn't turn to crime if their benefits were cut?

Which is odd, because only earlier today you very clearly said:


What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?


Which appears to be a thinly veiled threat that people on benefits would turn to crime, which would 'rocket', if their benefits were cut.

You appear to be losing the plot a little, Davey.
No. You clearly need help.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits is a criminal that we have to bribe not to commit crime by handing them free money?[/p][/quote]No.[/p][/quote]So, then you're saying they wouldn't turn to crime if their benefits were cut? Which is odd, because only earlier today you very clearly said: [quote] What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? [/quote] Which appears to be a thinly veiled threat that people on benefits would turn to crime, which would 'rocket', if their benefits were cut. You appear to be losing the plot a little, Davey.[/p][/quote]No. You clearly need help. Davey Gravey

10:19pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Oik1 says...

Such a shame that a topic that has raised such emotion should degenerate into so much personal mudslinging, tomorrow, this will be like yesterdays newspapers, just crap !
Such a shame that a topic that has raised such emotion should degenerate into so much personal mudslinging, tomorrow, this will be like yesterdays newspapers, just crap ! Oik1

10:40pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country.
I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country. I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop. Always Grumpy

8:24am Fri 3 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Have to agree AG, we cant continue to be the worlds Red Cross Parcel all the time as well as having more than half the adult population here net takers rather than contributors to the economy. Both from a social and economic standpoint it is unsustainable. As I said right at the start, 2/3rds of council tenants are on full or part benefit, so the increase doesnt affect any of them, just the tax payers who fund the bottomless pit that the welfare state is to so many. And the rest of them still have the best deal in town so please stop fvcking moaning!
Have to agree AG, we cant continue to be the worlds Red Cross Parcel all the time as well as having more than half the adult population here net takers rather than contributors to the economy. Both from a social and economic standpoint it is unsustainable. As I said right at the start, 2/3rds of council tenants are on full or part benefit, so the increase doesnt affect any of them, just the tax payers who fund the bottomless pit that the welfare state is to so many. And the rest of them still have the best deal in town so please stop fvcking moaning! house on the hill

9:06am Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

There does seem to be a set of double standards being applied here. Just before Xmas many posters on this thread were bemoaning the council for proposing to put council tax up by 1.9%. One avid poster went so far as to call the council communist! Yet it is somehow ok according to the same posters for the council to put rents up by 3.7%.

As I said above council rent increases should be capped at 1% above inflation and maybe the same should apply to council tax. After all many tenants still pay Council Tax as well as rent.
There does seem to be a set of double standards being applied here. Just before Xmas many posters on this thread were bemoaning the council for proposing to put council tax up by 1.9%. One avid poster went so far as to call the council communist! Yet it is somehow ok according to the same posters for the council to put rents up by 3.7%. As I said above council rent increases should be capped at 1% above inflation and maybe the same should apply to council tax. After all many tenants still pay Council Tax as well as rent. Spurs Fan

9:21am Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
There does seem to be a set of double standards being applied here. Just before Xmas many posters on this thread were bemoaning the council for proposing to put council tax up by 1.9%. One avid poster went so far as to call the council communist! Yet it is somehow ok according to the same posters for the council to put rents up by 3.7%.

As I said above council rent increases should be capped at 1% above inflation and maybe the same should apply to council tax. After all many tenants still pay Council Tax as well as rent.
Er, you can't see the difference between yet more taxation and people in already massively subsidised housing being asked to pay a tiny increase for their accommodation?

Taxation is already far too high, council tenant's rate charges are too low.

It's not rocket science.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: There does seem to be a set of double standards being applied here. Just before Xmas many posters on this thread were bemoaning the council for proposing to put council tax up by 1.9%. One avid poster went so far as to call the council communist! Yet it is somehow ok according to the same posters for the council to put rents up by 3.7%. As I said above council rent increases should be capped at 1% above inflation and maybe the same should apply to council tax. After all many tenants still pay Council Tax as well as rent.[/p][/quote]Er, you can't see the difference between yet more taxation and people in already massively subsidised housing being asked to pay a tiny increase for their accommodation? Taxation is already far too high, council tenant's rate charges are too low. It's not rocket science. Ringer

9:26am Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.
Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit. Spurs Fan

9:45am Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact?
Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact? Spurs Fan

9:59am Fri 3 Jan 14

Still Claire says...

This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything!
This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything! Still Claire

11:25am Fri 3 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Still Claire wrote:
This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything!
Until the one individual hell bent on fiddling the thumbs up and down, goading and twisting others points goes away it will only continue.
Sad but true and the site moderators do nothing about it.
[quote][p][bold]Still Claire[/bold] wrote: This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything![/p][/quote]Until the one individual hell bent on fiddling the thumbs up and down, goading and twisting others points goes away it will only continue. Sad but true and the site moderators do nothing about it. Davey Gravey

11:38am Fri 3 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country.
I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop.
As if that would happen. Now i'm all for stamping out the scroungers but I have no idea of a realistic way of doing so unless breeding is controlled. Simply scrapping benefits would impose more on the tax payer I think due to crime it would trigger.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country. I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop.[/p][/quote]As if that would happen. Now i'm all for stamping out the scroungers but I have no idea of a realistic way of doing so unless breeding is controlled. Simply scrapping benefits would impose more on the tax payer I think due to crime it would trigger. Davey Gravey

12:47pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Blackwell 2 says...

If you bother to read the comments on the following topics you would know what's happening
http://www.thisiswil
tshire.co.uk/news/98
11281.Young_high_fly
er_to_take_on_Tomlin
son_in_North_Swindon
/?ref=rss
If you bother to read the comments on the following topics you would know what's happening http://www.thisiswil tshire.co.uk/news/98 11281.Young_high_fly er_to_take_on_Tomlin son_in_North_Swindon /?ref=rss Blackwell 2

1:53pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.
Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'?

How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week?


Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact?


What's that got to do with anything?
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.[/p][/quote]Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'? How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week? [quote] Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact? [/quote] What's that got to do with anything? Ringer

1:55pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Blackwell 2 wrote:
If you bother to read the comments on the following topics you would know what's happening
http://www.thisiswil

tshire.co.uk/news/98

11281.Young_high_fly

er_to_take_on_Tomlin

son_in_North_Swindon

/?ref=rss
Just read through the comments on that thread... 'I Too', also known as 'Empty Car Park' and 'Blackwell 2' come across as a worryingly deranged and obsessive stalker.

Thanks for the link. I knew the bloke as a bit mental but, Jesus, that's BAD.
[quote][p][bold]Blackwell 2[/bold] wrote: If you bother to read the comments on the following topics you would know what's happening http://www.thisiswil tshire.co.uk/news/98 11281.Young_high_fly er_to_take_on_Tomlin son_in_North_Swindon /?ref=rss[/p][/quote]Just read through the comments on that thread... 'I Too', also known as 'Empty Car Park' and 'Blackwell 2' come across as a worryingly deranged and obsessive stalker. Thanks for the link. I knew the bloke as a bit mental but, Jesus, that's BAD. Ringer

1:56pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?
Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..
I didn't mention benefits.
If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them.
Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.
And how would you do that pray tell???
Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets.
Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them.
Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.
Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy.
What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut?
They wouldn't simply just disappear would they?
Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves?

I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.
Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country.
I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop.
As if that would happen. Now i'm all for stamping out the scroungers but I have no idea of a realistic way of doing so unless breeding is controlled. Simply scrapping benefits would impose more on the tax payer I think due to crime it would trigger.
You said people on benefits aren't criminals - so why would cutting their benefits result in a rise in crime?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Nowhere near enough rise in rents - they should all paying the going rate. Why should these people be subsidised by the rest of the council tax payers?[/p][/quote]Housing Benefit come from central Govt so all taxpayers not out of council tax. No council tax is used to fund social housing, it is a completely separate entity in all respects, benefits and running costs..[/p][/quote]I didn't mention benefits. If they aren't paying the going rate for a council house, then the rest of us are subsidising them. Seeing you mentioned benefits, I would slash them as well.[/p][/quote]And how would you do that pray tell???[/p][/quote]Charge them the going rate for their house and if they can't/won't pay then put them out onto the streets. Stop all benefits to all those who won't work, criminals, single parents, child benefit, have self inflicted illnesses (smokers, drinkers, fat people etc.)., immigrants. Just stop paying them. Don't forget, you mentioned benefits, not me, so you only have yourself to blame if you don't like my views.[/p][/quote]Sorry to jump in your discussion but i have questions for Always Grumpy. What do you think would happen to the people whose benefits you would cut? They wouldn't simply just disappear would they? Wouldn't it just see crime rocket as they would do whatever they could to fund themselves? I would like to see those type of people not fleece the tax payer but i cannot see how just cutting their benefits would work.[/p][/quote]Thay could rely on handouts from the rest of the world. In much the same way half the world seem to rely on handouts from this country. I'm sick of my taxes funding so many people's lives - it really is time to stop.[/p][/quote]As if that would happen. Now i'm all for stamping out the scroungers but I have no idea of a realistic way of doing so unless breeding is controlled. Simply scrapping benefits would impose more on the tax payer I think due to crime it would trigger.[/p][/quote]You said people on benefits aren't criminals - so why would cutting their benefits result in a rise in crime? Ringer

1:58pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Still Claire wrote:
This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything!
Until the one individual hell bent on fiddling the thumbs up and down, goading and twisting others points goes away it will only continue.
Sad but true and the site moderators do nothing about it.
You are correct. Several people have told me they've reported Empty Car Park for doing what you've accused him of and still the Adver haven't banned him.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Still Claire[/bold] wrote: This comment thread started with contributors giving their comments on this news item. Then as usual you get the same 4 or 5 people that turn it into a personal slanging match. This is one of the reasons that I rarely read the Adver online anymore. So come on, you all seem like reasonably intelligent people, try to be grown ups and if you cant think of anything nice to say, don't say anything![/p][/quote]Until the one individual hell bent on fiddling the thumbs up and down, goading and twisting others points goes away it will only continue. Sad but true and the site moderators do nothing about it.[/p][/quote]You are correct. Several people have told me they've reported Empty Car Park for doing what you've accused him of and still the Adver haven't banned him. Ringer

2:43pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.
Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'?

How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week?


Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact?


What's that got to do with anything?
Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement??

The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.[/p][/quote]Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'? How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week? [quote] Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact? [/quote] What's that got to do with anything?[/p][/quote]Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement?? The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having. Spurs Fan

2:58pm Fri 3 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.
Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'?

How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week?


Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact?


What's that got to do with anything?
Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement??

The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having.
Council housing rents are significantly below average market rates so while no subsidised as such, they are most definitely massively cheaper than the equivalent housing in the private sector. This is not because private landlords are "making a killing". Indeed many are thinking of leaving the sector entirely due to increasing levels of regulation, costs and falling returns on investment.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.[/p][/quote]Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'? How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week? [quote] Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact? [/quote] What's that got to do with anything?[/p][/quote]Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement?? The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having.[/p][/quote]Council housing rents are significantly below average market rates so while no subsidised as such, they are most definitely massively cheaper than the equivalent housing in the private sector. This is not because private landlords are "making a killing". Indeed many are thinking of leaving the sector entirely due to increasing levels of regulation, costs and falling returns on investment. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

3:28pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.
Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'?

How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week?


Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact?


What's that got to do with anything?
Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement??

The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having.
Firstly: Council Housing is very much subsidised by every single tax payer. If it wasn't, the council would be renting all of their properties out at the market rate - which they quite clearly do not. In fact, most seem to be around 50% to 40% lower than market rate.

The taxpayer does not see that money because that money is not charged and is therefore a subsidy to keep council property rent artificially low.

You can dress it up and pretend all you may wish, but all council housing rent charges ARE subsidised. I was not being flippant towards you, I just cannot believe that a clearly educated person cannot understand and accept that council housing rent rates are very much subsidised.

Private landlords charge the market rate. By definition, if they significantly overcharge nobody will rent out their property. What you will actually find is that private landlords who rent to the State are actually providing relatively cheap rent rates as the properties they tend to buy and rent are at the lower end of the market. So, again, your point holds no water in reality.

In fact, it's interesting you accuse me of prejudice when your own post contains glaring misconceptions and tired old left-wing cliches. I mean, seriously, what do you think should happen? The government should make compulsory purchase orders against all current private landlords, buy up their properties and then rent them out to people at half the current rate? Because, if not, I don't see what problem you have with private landlords... unless you believe they should be forced to only accept rent rates set by the government?

And this is the problem with all left-wing approaches, it all just boils down to the same thing: 'Let the government/state do everything' - which is the very LAST thing any sane human being would want. I mean, just look at what happens in countries where the state owns and runs everything.

Not good. Not good AT ALL.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer please explain how Council Housing is subsidised? Don't say HB as not all tenants are in receipt of Housing Benefit.[/p][/quote]Is that supposed to be some kind of a 'joke'? How do you think anybody is able to rent a 3-bedroom house for £77 per week? [quote] Most housing benefit in monetary terms is paid to private Landlords, why are posters not saying anything about this fact? [/quote] What's that got to do with anything?[/p][/quote]Ringer I have always to the best of my ability attempted to answer your questions with good grace and yet you fail to answer mine and you are flippant and dismissive. I ask again how is Council Housing subsidised? If you take away HB which pays for some council tenants rents and some in the private sector as well, how is living in a council house subsidised? Is the reason you say things like is that a joke, because you know it is not subsidised at all. Are you letting your innate prejudice cloud your judgement?? The reason I mention the fact that the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to tenants of private landlords is that the current system favours private landlords who make a killing out of the state. However, it would appear that many right wing contributors to this post think that is insignificant in the debate we are having.[/p][/quote]Firstly: Council Housing is very much subsidised by every single tax payer. If it wasn't, the council would be renting all of their properties out at the market rate - which they quite clearly do not. In fact, most seem to be around 50% to 40% lower than market rate. The taxpayer does not see that money because that money is not charged and is therefore a subsidy to keep council property rent artificially low. You can dress it up and pretend all you may wish, but all council housing rent charges ARE subsidised. I was not being flippant towards you, I just cannot believe that a clearly educated person cannot understand and accept that council housing rent rates are very much subsidised. Private landlords charge the market rate. By definition, if they significantly overcharge nobody will rent out their property. What you will actually find is that private landlords who rent to the State are actually providing relatively cheap rent rates as the properties they tend to buy and rent are at the lower end of the market. So, again, your point holds no water in reality. In fact, it's interesting you accuse me of prejudice when your own post contains glaring misconceptions and tired old left-wing cliches. I mean, seriously, what do you think should happen? The government should make compulsory purchase orders against all current private landlords, buy up their properties and then rent them out to people at half the current rate? Because, if not, I don't see what problem you have with private landlords... unless you believe they should be forced to only accept rent rates set by the government? And this is the problem with all left-wing approaches, it all just boils down to the same thing: 'Let the government/state do everything' - which is the very LAST thing any sane human being would want. I mean, just look at what happens in countries where the state owns and runs everything. Not good. Not good AT ALL. Ringer

3:29pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer as I said and you have now agreed with, Council or social rents are not subsidised. They may be below market rents but they bring in enough revenue to support the system. No money from income tax or council tax is used to support council housing.

Individuals in both the social and private sector in receipt of housing benefit could be classed as being subsidised if you care to use that terminology, but the fact remains Council Housing as an asset is not propped up by the tax payer.

It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector.
Ringer as I said and you have now agreed with, Council or social rents are not subsidised. They may be below market rents but they bring in enough revenue to support the system. No money from income tax or council tax is used to support council housing. Individuals in both the social and private sector in receipt of housing benefit could be classed as being subsidised if you care to use that terminology, but the fact remains Council Housing as an asset is not propped up by the tax payer. It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector. Spurs Fan

3:32pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

The above post you have started Grumpy old man not Ringer sorry for that!
The above post you have started Grumpy old man not Ringer sorry for that! Spurs Fan

3:42pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

A definition of subsidy: A subsidy is a form of financial supportt extended to an economic institution.

There is no subsidy in council housing none of HM governments money or your tax goes into the system. Your tax may pay HB for tenants in both the social and private sector but I repeat Council housing is not subsidised. It may not charge market rent, but it does not need to to be financially viable. The definition of subsidy has nothing to do with the market rent.

Ringer you now seem to be questioning my sanity "and this is the problem with all left-wing approaches, it all just boils down to the same thing: 'Let the government/state do everything' - which is the very LAST thing any sane human being would want. I mean, just look at what happens in countries where the state owns and runs everything."

Let's keep the debate civilised please.
A definition of subsidy: A subsidy is a form of financial supportt extended to an economic institution. There is no subsidy in council housing none of HM governments money or your tax goes into the system. Your tax may pay HB for tenants in both the social and private sector but I repeat Council housing is not subsidised. It may not charge market rent, but it does not need to to be financially viable. The definition of subsidy has nothing to do with the market rent. Ringer you now seem to be questioning my sanity "and this is the problem with all left-wing approaches, it all just boils down to the same thing: 'Let the government/state do everything' - which is the very LAST thing any sane human being would want. I mean, just look at what happens in countries where the state owns and runs everything." Let's keep the debate civilised please. Spurs Fan

3:46pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

@Spurs Fan: so you would like to see the state own/run everything?

Council housing IS subsidised. If it isn't why is the rent rate charged around HALF the market rate?

Let's put it this way... you would no doubt think it's a bad thing that large corporations make arrangements to avoid paying tax. You would likely believe that is money that has been 'missed out on' by the state, yes? I would suggest that the rest of the country therefore subsidises those large corporations profits. Agreed?
@Spurs Fan: so you would like to see the state own/run everything? Council housing IS subsidised. If it isn't why is the rent rate charged around HALF the market rate? Let's put it this way... you would no doubt think it's a bad thing that large corporations make arrangements to avoid paying tax. You would likely believe that is money that has been 'missed out on' by the state, yes? I would suggest that the rest of the country therefore subsidises those large corporations profits. Agreed? Ringer

3:48pm Fri 3 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Council Housing is subsidised in that taxpayers money was used to build them in the first place and they are now still paying off the massive loan to the Govt (which could and should have been a lot smaller if the idiotic decision to ask the tenants to vote and they were then scaremongered into voting no by the usual politically driven suspects trying to protect their own with no consideration for others on the waiting list who would have been housed earlier as the £70miilion plus interest could and should have been used to build more houses). Also over half of housing's income comes from the taxpayer in the form of benefit, without which it would just crumble away. Rents are kept low to avoid increasing the taxpayer/benefit costs. A recent report said that by not charging market rents for social housing we lose £6billion a year, so for me it is being subsidised.
Council Housing is subsidised in that taxpayers money was used to build them in the first place and they are now still paying off the massive loan to the Govt (which could and should have been a lot smaller if the idiotic decision to ask the tenants to vote and they were then scaremongered into voting no by the usual politically driven suspects trying to protect their own with no consideration for others on the waiting list who would have been housed earlier as the £70miilion plus interest could and should have been used to build more houses). Also over half of housing's income comes from the taxpayer in the form of benefit, without which it would just crumble away. Rents are kept low to avoid increasing the taxpayer/benefit costs. A recent report said that by not charging market rents for social housing we lose £6billion a year, so for me it is being subsidised. house on the hill

3:49pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

@Spurs Fan


It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector.


This makes no sense - there are more privately owned and rented properties in this country than council owned properties. Therefore, the private sector supplies MORE housing.

Although, I can see where you're headed with this. Would you like to see a scenario where ALL housing is state owned?
@Spurs Fan [quote] It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector. [/quote] This makes no sense - there are more privately owned and rented properties in this country than council owned properties. Therefore, the private sector supplies MORE housing. Although, I can see where you're headed with this. Would you like to see a scenario where ALL housing is state owned? Ringer

4:07pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

There are less private rented houses in the UK than social ones. However, more HB now goes to private landlords than to social landlords. Ringer I did not mention owner occupiers as you now seem to be doing.
House on the Hill I actually voted and campaigned for Swindon housing to be transferred to an RSL, one of the minority in that matter.
Ringer I would not like to see state ownership of everything. I would like to see some kind of rent control in the private sector though. And more house building of all tenures,
There are less private rented houses in the UK than social ones. However, more HB now goes to private landlords than to social landlords. Ringer I did not mention owner occupiers as you now seem to be doing. House on the Hill I actually voted and campaigned for Swindon housing to be transferred to an RSL, one of the minority in that matter. Ringer I would not like to see state ownership of everything. I would like to see some kind of rent control in the private sector though. And more house building of all tenures, Spurs Fan

4:16pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
There are less private rented houses in the UK than social ones. However, more HB now goes to private landlords than to social landlords. Ringer I did not mention owner occupiers as you now seem to be doing.
House on the Hill I actually voted and campaigned for Swindon housing to be transferred to an RSL, one of the minority in that matter.
Ringer I would not like to see state ownership of everything. I would like to see some kind of rent control in the private sector though. And more house building of all tenures,
Surely housing people is about, well, housing people? There are less rented houses than mortgaged/owned houses. In that regard, the private sector wins out (again).

Why on earth should the state be allowed to set the rate at which people may rent out property that they legally own?
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: There are less private rented houses in the UK than social ones. However, more HB now goes to private landlords than to social landlords. Ringer I did not mention owner occupiers as you now seem to be doing. House on the Hill I actually voted and campaigned for Swindon housing to be transferred to an RSL, one of the minority in that matter. Ringer I would not like to see state ownership of everything. I would like to see some kind of rent control in the private sector though. And more house building of all tenures,[/p][/quote]Surely housing people is about, well, housing people? There are less rented houses than mortgaged/owned houses. In that regard, the private sector wins out (again). Why on earth should the state be allowed to set the rate at which people may rent out property that they legally own? Ringer

4:26pm Fri 3 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer as I said and you have now agreed with, Council or social rents are not subsidised. They may be below market rents but they bring in enough revenue to support the system. No money from income tax or council tax is used to support council housing.

Individuals in both the social and private sector in receipt of housing benefit could be classed as being subsidised if you care to use that terminology, but the fact remains Council Housing as an asset is not propped up by the tax payer.

It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector.
That's the thing though, they do not bring in enough revenue to support the system. Even if you ignore the tax payer funded cost of building these houses several decades ago in the first place (something we're still paying for as tax payers now), you overlook that council housing is a diminishing resource as the funds do not exist to replace old housing stock or those purchased through right to buy.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer as I said and you have now agreed with, Council or social rents are not subsidised. They may be below market rents but they bring in enough revenue to support the system. No money from income tax or council tax is used to support council housing. Individuals in both the social and private sector in receipt of housing benefit could be classed as being subsidised if you care to use that terminology, but the fact remains Council Housing as an asset is not propped up by the tax payer. It is just as easy to argue that the private housing sector is flawed as it provides less housing at greater cost to the nation than the social sector.[/p][/quote]That's the thing though, they do not bring in enough revenue to support the system. Even if you ignore the tax payer funded cost of building these houses several decades ago in the first place (something we're still paying for as tax payers now), you overlook that council housing is a diminishing resource as the funds do not exist to replace old housing stock or those purchased through right to buy. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

5:12pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy Old Man : RTB receipts could pay for the building of new social housing only successive governments of all persuasions have not allowed that to happen. The great majority of RTB receipts have gone back to central government, even if the loans used to build them have been paid off! Tax payer costs for house building in the social sector are paid back usually over 30 years. Money is and was borrowed from the PWLB and paid back very much like a mortgage in that respect.

Ringer: The state intervenes in setting rail fares, the rail companies are in private ownership. There are and have been many instances whereby the state intervenes in price setting from energy to water etc. Having a greater control of rents charged in the private sector would bring down HB bills.

Anyway we seem to have wandered far from the original thread. it was interesting to debate the issues even if we will never agree in a million years.
Here's to the next Advertiser fueled exchange!
Grumpy Old Man : RTB receipts could pay for the building of new social housing only successive governments of all persuasions have not allowed that to happen. The great majority of RTB receipts have gone back to central government, even if the loans used to build them have been paid off! Tax payer costs for house building in the social sector are paid back usually over 30 years. Money is and was borrowed from the PWLB and paid back very much like a mortgage in that respect. Ringer: The state intervenes in setting rail fares, the rail companies are in private ownership. There are and have been many instances whereby the state intervenes in price setting from energy to water etc. Having a greater control of rents charged in the private sector would bring down HB bills. Anyway we seem to have wandered far from the original thread. it was interesting to debate the issues even if we will never agree in a million years. Here's to the next Advertiser fueled exchange! Spurs Fan

6:41pm Sat 4 Jan 14

oddbob says...

Ringer wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.
@Spurs Fan: nobody is 'having a go' at council tenants.

What people are pointing out is that Swindon Tenants Voice are an unelected, self-appointed group of old political activists with a far left agenda.

In terms of the rent increase, surely you cannot be surprised that the working people who're forced to pay for all of this (and by that I mean those who earn over £30kpa - anyone earning less than that takes more from the State than they contribute) find it a little ungrateful when people moan that they'll have to pay £80 a week rent for large three bedroom houses?

And remember, £80 a week would be the *average* council tenant rate, which means plenty of people will be paying LESS than that.
I earn less than £30K and do not claim any benefits. I live in a small 1 bed council property and rent wise I am paying about the same as the low-mid range flats for rent in private renting so for me it's not that subsidised (and is more than £80). I am not complaining about any potential increases as that's just life. I don't smoke and stopped drinking about a year ago as it became too expensive. I don't have a TV to save money and I don't have any expensive phones or gadgets. I do repairs myself rather than call the council and have saved and paid to refurbish my bathroom and kitchen myself so have said no to these freebies. I am in a work pension and am trying to provide for my future so I'm not sure we are all freeloaders.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Very encouraging to see the usual suspects on the Adver with their right wing views having a go at council tenants. The problem you all face is the more rents go up the more the HB bill will increase and the more you will all contribute! As someone said above about 6 out of 10 tenants are on Housing Benefit which all tax payers contribute to. I would argue that council rents should be inflation linked perhaps rising one percent above inflation each year.[/p][/quote]@Spurs Fan: nobody is 'having a go' at council tenants. What people are pointing out is that Swindon Tenants Voice are an unelected, self-appointed group of old political activists with a far left agenda. In terms of the rent increase, surely you cannot be surprised that the working people who're forced to pay for all of this (and by that I mean those who earn over £30kpa - anyone earning less than that takes more from the State than they contribute) find it a little ungrateful when people moan that they'll have to pay £80 a week rent for large three bedroom houses? And remember, £80 a week would be the *average* council tenant rate, which means plenty of people will be paying LESS than that.[/p][/quote]I earn less than £30K and do not claim any benefits. I live in a small 1 bed council property and rent wise I am paying about the same as the low-mid range flats for rent in private renting so for me it's not that subsidised (and is more than £80). I am not complaining about any potential increases as that's just life. I don't smoke and stopped drinking about a year ago as it became too expensive. I don't have a TV to save money and I don't have any expensive phones or gadgets. I do repairs myself rather than call the council and have saved and paid to refurbish my bathroom and kitchen myself so have said no to these freebies. I am in a work pension and am trying to provide for my future so I'm not sure we are all freeloaders. oddbob

8:29pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Laneylane says...

Pensioners owning their own properties are worse off than those in social housing claiming housing benefit as they have to maintain, repair and insure their property out of the same amount of state pension with no means of being able to earn any extra to pay out for these expenses. How fair is that?
Pensioners owning their own properties are worse off than those in social housing claiming housing benefit as they have to maintain, repair and insure their property out of the same amount of state pension with no means of being able to earn any extra to pay out for these expenses. How fair is that? Laneylane

2:51pm Mon 6 Jan 14

slicker says...

I think you should only get a council house subsidised for 12 months. It's a safety net not a lifestyle. After the 12 months you should then pay full market value. Me and my wife earn very little for the hours we do and we pay £600 pcm for a privately rented 2 bedroom house. Maybe if all the lazy lowlifes got off their backsides from watching sky tv on their 50 inch plasma tv the rent rise would not be a problem. I wish I could afford all the luxuries these people seem to have but hey they are still hard done by, or so they will try and have you believe. Simple solution is cut their benefits or do community work to earn it
I think you should only get a council house subsidised for 12 months. It's a safety net not a lifestyle. After the 12 months you should then pay full market value. Me and my wife earn very little for the hours we do and we pay £600 pcm for a privately rented 2 bedroom house. Maybe if all the lazy lowlifes got off their backsides from watching sky tv on their 50 inch plasma tv the rent rise would not be a problem. I wish I could afford all the luxuries these people seem to have but hey they are still hard done by, or so they will try and have you believe. Simple solution is cut their benefits or do community work to earn it slicker

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree