Rise in council house evictions

This Is Wiltshire: Coun Emma Faramarzi said eviction of council tenants from their homes was ‘the last restort’ Coun Emma Faramarzi said eviction of council tenants from their homes was ‘the last restort’

THE number of evictions from council properties rose last year to its highest level for almost a decade.

In the last financial year there were 39, the largest number since 2004/05 when there were 68.

None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living.

The majority of those evicted were single males with an average age of 35.

There was also an increase of just over £20,000 in rent arrears on the previous year, bringing the total to £650,000.

Coun Emma Faramarzi (Con, Priory Vale), who is the lead member for housing, said the team worked hard with tenants to make sure everything was done to avoid eviction.

She said: “Evicting people is always the absolute last resort. Before it gets to that stage the housing team will do everything possible.

“We work with the tenants to help them manage their budgets and make home visits. It is not like the private market where it can be one strike and you’re out.

“The decision to evict is eventually made by the courts. It is not something we make the call over.

“It is important to bear in mind that none of the evictions were down to benefit reforms.

“We are all aware of the cost of living which is something affecting everyone.”

Despite the rise last year, the figures this year are much more encouraging.

“So far this year there has only been one eviction,” said Coun Faramarzi.

“Where it was last year you would expect it to be around nine. We would prefer it to be zero but hopefully this pattern will continue.

“It is not something which is ever easy but hopefully we will see a fall this year.”

The rise in evictions has led to a call from Labour to take action against the increase in living to prevent further increases.

Coun Mark Dempsey (Lab, Walcot and Park North), who is the parliamentary candidate for North Swindon, said: “The increase in evictions shows the real life impact of the cost of living crisis.

“People in Swindon are £600 worse off under this Government and the increase in energy, food and clothes means people are feeling the squeeze.

“This is why we need action with Labour’s energy price freeze and three-year secure rents to prevent increases to help lower the number of evictions.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

Always Grumpy says...

"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

9:45am Wed 30 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Well over half a million quid in arrears?!

Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time?
Well over half a million quid in arrears?! Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time? Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -3

10:35am Wed 30 Jul 14

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

Does the adver actually mean this?

The rise in evictions has led to a call from Labour to take action against the increase in living to prevent further increases.

How dare people be living! :)

And I'd keep quiet about energy costs if I were Labour. Most energy suppliers have refused to reduce their costs because of the Labour "price freeze" policy in case Labour get in at the next election and actually implement this. It means we're all actually paying more now than we should be for energy because of some hair brained half-baked stupid populist policy pledge.
Does the adver actually mean this? The rise in evictions has led to a call from Labour to take action against the increase in living to prevent further increases. How dare people be living! :) And I'd keep quiet about energy costs if I were Labour. Most energy suppliers have refused to reduce their costs because of the Labour "price freeze" policy in case Labour get in at the next election and actually implement this. It means we're all actually paying more now than we should be for energy because of some hair brained half-baked stupid populist policy pledge. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 2

10:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

Al Smith says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term. Al Smith
  • Score: 7

11:48am Wed 30 Jul 14

Moth says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Well over half a million quid in arrears?! Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time?
The "massively reduced rents" you refer to are not far behind (and in some cases more than) the private sector. As for being slightly better off, most people are worse off. Higher prices all round - including yearly rent increases have made sure of that. Wages have either stayed the same for years or been cut. Only those in the higher earnings bracket are better off.

Having said that, people need to get their priorities right. Rent and council tax (regardless of how much we hate paying council tax for the council to squander on their pet projects) HAVE to come first. Keeping the roof above your head should be top priority, followed by utility bills and putting food on the table.

Work out a budget and stick to it. Don't buy what you can't afford.

As for who got us in this mess. Labour with their irresponsible policies that bankrupted the country, the Tories who also waste money by giving it away in foreign aid, membership of the EU etc. lining the pockets of their corrupt bankers and corporate pals and the Lib Dems, well they're not even worth a mention.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Well over half a million quid in arrears?! Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time?[/p][/quote]The "massively reduced rents" you refer to are not far behind (and in some cases more than) the private sector. As for being slightly better off, most people are worse off. Higher prices all round - including yearly rent increases have made sure of that. Wages have either stayed the same for years or been cut. Only those in the higher earnings bracket are better off. Having said that, people need to get their priorities right. Rent and council tax (regardless of how much we hate paying council tax for the council to squander on their pet projects) HAVE to come first. Keeping the roof above your head should be top priority, followed by utility bills and putting food on the table. Work out a budget and stick to it. Don't buy what you can't afford. As for who got us in this mess. Labour with their irresponsible policies that bankrupted the country, the Tories who also waste money by giving it away in foreign aid, membership of the EU etc. lining the pockets of their corrupt bankers and corporate pals and the Lib Dems, well they're not even worth a mention. Moth
  • Score: 9

11:48am Wed 30 Jul 14

Always Grumpy says...

Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -10

12:51pm Wed 30 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Moth wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
Well over half a million quid in arrears?! Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time?
The "massively reduced rents" you refer to are not far behind (and in some cases more than) the private sector. As for being slightly better off, most people are worse off. Higher prices all round - including yearly rent increases have made sure of that. Wages have either stayed the same for years or been cut. Only those in the higher earnings bracket are better off.

Having said that, people need to get their priorities right. Rent and council tax (regardless of how much we hate paying council tax for the council to squander on their pet projects) HAVE to come first. Keeping the roof above your head should be top priority, followed by utility bills and putting food on the table.

Work out a budget and stick to it. Don't buy what you can't afford.

As for who got us in this mess. Labour with their irresponsible policies that bankrupted the country, the Tories who also waste money by giving it away in foreign aid, membership of the EU etc. lining the pockets of their corrupt bankers and corporate pals and the Lib Dems, well they're not even worth a mention.
Not sure where you get the figures for Council rents being near or higher than private sector. a 2 bed council house is around £300 a month, while the private sector is pretty much double that or not far off.

Very much agree with your comments regarding priorities, far too many have no idea of what is an essential (rent, CT, basic food clothes and bills) and what is a luxury (smoking, drinking, mobile phone, sat tv, pets, video games, designer clothes etc). Having spent 25 years in debt recovery and counselling (10 in social housing), I lost count of the number of people who had no reason to be in debt other than bad management of their finances. Yes of course there were some who were the victims of circumstances but nothing like as many as most would make you believe, very few bother to save for a rainy day.

The legal process from first arrears to eviction of a council tenant is over 6 months and Judges are also very loath to evict on appeal unless they can clearly see the tenant is just not bothering to try and sort themselves out. A lot of work is put in to try and save evictions and prevent arrears in the first place by the council and it costs them more than just the arrears to evict so it is not in their interest to do so even ignoring the social implications.

I seem to remember reading that there were around 26 evictions and arrears of around £450k about 4 years ago so clearly something has happened since then, probably a combination of things, attitudes of tenants, council not being as efficient as they were, rent rises higher than inflation, but from my experiences in a housing association, 99 times out of a hundred the tenant could have saved themselves with a bit more effort on budgeting or getting off their backsides into the benefit offices to fill in or update their claims (2/3rd of council tenants are on full or part housing benefit).

This isn't a political issue but since when has that stopped politicians and their supporters from trying to make it into something it isnt!
[quote][p][bold]Moth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: Well over half a million quid in arrears?! Instead of Labour councillors banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' (come on chaps, keep up, even Red Ed's dropped that one - now we know that people in this country are actually slightly better off on average than they were four years ago), why don't they educate their voting base to actually pay their massively reduced rents on time?[/p][/quote]The "massively reduced rents" you refer to are not far behind (and in some cases more than) the private sector. As for being slightly better off, most people are worse off. Higher prices all round - including yearly rent increases have made sure of that. Wages have either stayed the same for years or been cut. Only those in the higher earnings bracket are better off. Having said that, people need to get their priorities right. Rent and council tax (regardless of how much we hate paying council tax for the council to squander on their pet projects) HAVE to come first. Keeping the roof above your head should be top priority, followed by utility bills and putting food on the table. Work out a budget and stick to it. Don't buy what you can't afford. As for who got us in this mess. Labour with their irresponsible policies that bankrupted the country, the Tories who also waste money by giving it away in foreign aid, membership of the EU etc. lining the pockets of their corrupt bankers and corporate pals and the Lib Dems, well they're not even worth a mention.[/p][/quote]Not sure where you get the figures for Council rents being near or higher than private sector. a 2 bed council house is around £300 a month, while the private sector is pretty much double that or not far off. Very much agree with your comments regarding priorities, far too many have no idea of what is an essential (rent, CT, basic food clothes and bills) and what is a luxury (smoking, drinking, mobile phone, sat tv, pets, video games, designer clothes etc). Having spent 25 years in debt recovery and counselling (10 in social housing), I lost count of the number of people who had no reason to be in debt other than bad management of their finances. Yes of course there were some who were the victims of circumstances but nothing like as many as most would make you believe, very few bother to save for a rainy day. The legal process from first arrears to eviction of a council tenant is over 6 months and Judges are also very loath to evict on appeal unless they can clearly see the tenant is just not bothering to try and sort themselves out. A lot of work is put in to try and save evictions and prevent arrears in the first place by the council and it costs them more than just the arrears to evict so it is not in their interest to do so even ignoring the social implications. I seem to remember reading that there were around 26 evictions and arrears of around £450k about 4 years ago so clearly something has happened since then, probably a combination of things, attitudes of tenants, council not being as efficient as they were, rent rises higher than inflation, but from my experiences in a housing association, 99 times out of a hundred the tenant could have saved themselves with a bit more effort on budgeting or getting off their backsides into the benefit offices to fill in or update their claims (2/3rd of council tenants are on full or part housing benefit). This isn't a political issue but since when has that stopped politicians and their supporters from trying to make it into something it isnt! house on the hill
  • Score: 3

3:26pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Russell Holland says...

Evictions are always an absolute last resort when all other steps have failed.

While evictions are regrettable this 38 out of some 13,000 tenants so this is not a significant increase.

The changes in housing benefit "bedroom tax" has not seen anyone evicted and also there has not been a significant increase in arrears since this was implemented. While I think this should have been implemented differently - there should have been a blanket exemption for people with disbailities, the Government did increase discretionary housing payment and give Councils the power to have a housing specific fund. So overall, the impact has not been as great as many predicted. Some people have chosen to downsize which means families with need of a larger house can have a larger house.

Council rents are 50-70% of market rents and the vast majority of tenants will have a lifelong tenancy.

I agree that, for whatever reason, some people do struggle with budgeting but there are going to be some people who are in genuine need who get into difficulties.

Anyone struggling to pay rent or Council tax should inform the Council immediately to avoid problems getting worse.
Evictions are always an absolute last resort when all other steps have failed. While evictions are regrettable this 38 out of some 13,000 tenants so this is not a significant increase. The changes in housing benefit "bedroom tax" has not seen anyone evicted and also there has not been a significant increase in arrears since this was implemented. While I think this should have been implemented differently - there should have been a blanket exemption for people with disbailities, the Government did increase discretionary housing payment and give Councils the power to have a housing specific fund. So overall, the impact has not been as great as many predicted. Some people have chosen to downsize which means families with need of a larger house can have a larger house. Council rents are 50-70% of market rents and the vast majority of tenants will have a lifelong tenancy. I agree that, for whatever reason, some people do struggle with budgeting but there are going to be some people who are in genuine need who get into difficulties. Anyone struggling to pay rent or Council tax should inform the Council immediately to avoid problems getting worse. Russell Holland
  • Score: -10

9:36pm Wed 30 Jul 14

REDROM says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind. REDROM
  • Score: 22

10:35pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Always Grumpy says...

REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.
You don't appear too bright.

Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to.
It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term.

Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.
[quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]You don't appear too bright. Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to. It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term. Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -11

4:23am Thu 31 Jul 14

REDROM says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.
You don't appear too bright.

Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to.
It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term.

Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.
oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]You don't appear too bright. Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to. It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term. Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.[/p][/quote]oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is REDROM
  • Score: 4

4:26am Thu 31 Jul 14

REDROM says...

REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.
You don't appear too bright.

Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to.
It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term.

Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.
oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is
forgot to say "always grump" Thumbs Up ;) troll
[quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]You don't appear too bright. Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to. It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term. Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.[/p][/quote]oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is[/p][/quote]forgot to say "always grump" Thumbs Up ;) troll REDROM
  • Score: 4

9:00am Thu 31 Jul 14

Always Grumpy says...

REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
REDROM wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
"None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living."

Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'.

Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.
Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.
No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government.
Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.
Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.
You don't appear too bright.

Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to.
It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term.

Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.
oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is
Well, that's a result then. You admitting you're not very bright.
[quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]REDROM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: "None of the evictions were as a result of the bedroom tax being introduced last year, with the main reason being give as the rise in the cost of living." Look Benke, there is no such thing as a 'bedroom tax'. Usual woeful Advertiser journalism.[/p][/quote]Sorry but there is, the term "bedroom tax" is a very widely used colloquialism used to refer to the "spare room subsidy". I suspect that the former is better known than the latter (google search results for the terms seem to confirm this). So it is perfectly acceptable for a newspaper to use a widely used and known term.[/p][/quote]No, it's not acceptable to use this term, as it's just not correct and widely used by the left to try and score points against the government. Typical left wing reporting by the Adver though.[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, your not wrong there I've never read as many negative views as your's. People are entitled to there opinions, but your always there to put them down. what a miserable piece of sh1t you are, If there is no such thing as bedroom tax, how did you know what the paper was referring to?......... "TROLL" springs to mind.[/p][/quote]You don't appear too bright. Of course I know what people are referring to when they mention 'bedroom tax' and I will continue to condemn the use of the term when it is used to describe a perfectly lawful change in the benefits system, which the left are opposed to. It would appear you don't like me having an opinion of my own and pointing out when people are using an incorrect term. Anyway, do I care what YOU think - no, of course I don't. Like I said you do not appear to be very bright, much like your little left wing buddies.[/p][/quote]oh ok then that sorts that out ya troll not very bright me is[/p][/quote]Well, that's a result then. You admitting you're not very bright. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -2

9:57am Thu 31 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Why do those of an fairly unintelligent, left-wing slant immediately refer to anyone they don't agree with as a 'troll'.

It seems the automatic response of several on here. Which, given their own 'input', seems rather ironic.
Why do those of an fairly unintelligent, left-wing slant immediately refer to anyone they don't agree with as a 'troll'. It seems the automatic response of several on here. Which, given their own 'input', seems rather ironic. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -8

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