On benefits and proud
15 October 2013, 03:19 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2013, 03:36 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
If the government pays you benefits then the government pays your wage, im all for putting them to work on jobs that no one will take. Get them to do humiliating work that will force them to look for a better job and if they refuse then cut their benefits 
Of course in special cases ie disability this wouldnt apply
Of course in special cases ie disability this wouldnt apply
This one got me "do you expect me to take a job in McDonald's or KFC" Yes you fat trollop, I do and I expect you to work hard and advance your life.
15 October 2013, 03:46 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the big fat munter who lived in Liverpool trying to get her daughter not to take the job offer because she would only be 100 quid a month better off, seriously she needs to be exectuted with a blunt tool.
15 October 2013, 03:48 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2013, 03:49 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is that if they are spending a large part of their benefits on booze and ****, then the government is recouping a large portion of it.
15 October 2013, 04:11 PM
#40
i have always worked all my life-i even had 2 jobs when i was 15 helping out the local milkman before school and cleaning up at a local engineers after school,i was made redundant back in 2009 and for the 1st time in my life i was out of work and it hit me hard
it was in the height of the recession and there was nothing about at all,i had no choice but to sign on and thats when i realised the severity of the problem
if you dont want to work the system makes it easy for you not to work but if you do want to work its a different story-i even nearly got escorted from the job-center as the fat slop behind the counter said i have a bad attitude when i didnt want details of a job that was £6.50 per hour 37 hours a week with a 80 mile round trip every day
i kindly told him i dont have a bad attitude and the more people out of work the safer his job isi hated having to sign on @ 10 am waiting in the building with the low life scum that even turned up drinking beer at that time in the morning
there is genuine people on the dole who do want to work its a shame the system doesnt concentrate on them 1st
also kids these days,all they wanna do is sit and play their games consoles-i wonder what they will be doing in 15 years time
i was always taught that if i want something i can have it it......................as long as i paid for it
**** the system
15 October 2013, 04:43 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2013, 04:46 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any self respecting person wouldent live in ****3holes like that, let alone let someone in with a film camera and let them show it to the country.
No shame.....
15 October 2013, 04:56 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
15 October 2013, 05:09 PM
#47
TdW - you are talking simplistic idealist crap.
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
15 October 2013, 05:23 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2013, 05:38 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
TdW - you are talking simplistic idealist crap.
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
Don't feed the troll mate
15 October 2013, 06:29 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TdW - you are talking simplistic idealist crap.
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
By the very fact that people are paying rent to live in BTL's then the contribution is proven. There is a need for rented accommodation which the landlords supply.
One group of those BTL tenants could be those who would (or maybe will one day) buy their own house if they could i.e. if they could raise the capital.
A second group could be those who are some of the many professional people who come to work on projects or contracts in this country, e.g. senior engineers or designers or whatever; they know that they will be here for a year or two and need somewhere decent to live in the interim, but have no intention or need to buy long term.
Etc.
Home ownership in the Uk is somewhere around the high 60% mark - that leaves 40% who do not own a home; some are in social housing, but a lot of the rest are potential private sector tenants.
Are you proposing that only councils provide rental accommodation?
They produce as much as 'dole scrounges', i.e, nothing at all.
15 October 2013, 07:15 PM
#54
The value of property is the land we understand. The landlord just has a right to kick someone of their land, and it is by not exercising this right (and 'allowing' a tenent it stay) that they can be said to 'supply' houses. This means they don't actually contribute anything though, they just don't do something, i.e, the don't kick people out of their homes.
They produce as much as 'dole scrounges', i.e, nothing at all.
They produce as much as 'dole scrounges', i.e, nothing at all.
Got any more bizarre fairy-tales you'd like to share with us?
15 October 2013, 07:19 PM
#55
The value of property is the land we understand. The landlord just has a right to kick someone of their land, and it is by not exercising this right (and 'allowing' a tenent it stay) that they can be said to 'supply' houses. This means they don't actually contribute anything though, they just don't do something, i.e, the don't kick people out of their homes.
They produce as much as 'dole scrounges', i.e, nothing at all.
They produce as much as 'dole scrounges', i.e, nothing at all.
15 October 2013, 07:34 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your first sentence being blatantly and demonstrably false (the bulk of the cost of a putting up a house in most places outside central London go into the building materials and labour), the whole of the rest of your theory falls flat on its @rse from the get-go.
Got any more bizarre fairy-tales you'd like to share with us?
Got any more bizarre fairy-tales you'd like to share with us?
If housing could be solved just by buying bricks and cement and erecting a house we wouldn't have a housing problem.
Rest of my theory? I'm still trying to find out what landlords actually produce?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 15 October 2013 at 07:35 PM.
15 October 2013, 07:39 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2013, 07:43 PM
#58
No, to own land is the right to have a monopoly use over said land, this is essentially what is being paid for. It is this right rather than the bricks and mortar which is the real value.
If housing could be solved just by buying bricks and cement and erecting a house we wouldn't have a housing problem.
Rest of my theory? I'm still trying to find out what landlords actually produce?
If housing could be solved just by buying bricks and cement and erecting a house we wouldn't have a housing problem.
Rest of my theory? I'm still trying to find out what landlords actually produce?
As already stated, your theory is nothing but a soggy house of cards built on the foundations of yesterday's chip paper. Pull one card out from the bottom and the whole lot goes down.
15 October 2013, 07:47 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr, just because you say so makes it true? Try checking your facts before you go spouting cr@p like this. Undeveloped land, even in prime Home Counties country, is worth a few thousand pounds an acre at best, unless it comes with planning permission. Does the landowner have any say in whether he gets that or not? Like **** he does, it's down to bureaucrats in shiny glass and steel council offices, no doubt with the same idiotic sociology GCSEs as you for qualifications.
As already stated, your theory is nothing but a soggy house of cards built on the foundations of yesterday's chip paper. Pull one card out from the bottom and the whole lot goes down.
As already stated, your theory is nothing but a soggy house of cards built on the foundations of yesterday's chip paper. Pull one card out from the bottom and the whole lot goes down.
Try again.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 15 October 2013 at 07:50 PM.
15 October 2013, 07:50 PM
#60
I did not watch the programme as it would have not been good for my blood pressure. Having read some of the comments on it, I believe I made the right decision.