Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Towering Inferno

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:59 - 02 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Well as long as we've established they deserved it Thumbs Up

Deserved to die? Don't be so gammon.

It's just that their deaths have no negative consequences for the country, the economy, or for anyone who matters. They're completely worthless in any meaningful sense of the word.

But they didn't deserve to die. Deportation, transportation, or having their benefits and access to housing and the NHS cut so that they die in the gutter, yes. But death? I can't believe you wished that on them. Sad
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

grr666
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:13 - 02 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
grr666 wrote:
Well most of them were at it even before the fire.

Do you have a source for that?

If .Gov had no idea who was there, how would i know? Better to just amnesty the lot up then eh? Just to be sure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-sublet-flats-prosecution-kensington-a7820106.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/01/grenfell-tower-survivor-faces-jail-police-combing-wreckage-found/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grenfell-tower-survivor-eamon-zada-was-jailed-for-1-6m-swindle-25fvqvbll

https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/11/illegal-immigrants-who-survived-grenfell-given-path-to-permanent-residency-6994077/

M.C wrote:
grr666 wrote:
Then there was a fire.

Well as long as we've established they deserved it Thumbs Up

They've certainly had their fill of things they don't deserve. Free clothes, food, money, accommodation,
UK residency, sympathy, column inches, luxury flats, mobile phones, expenses credit cards, benefit of doubt.
Those kind of things. How can I claim for my compassion fatigue. I'm worn right out by their combined plights
and it's affecting my ability to sleep at night. Sleeping #Imavictimtoo
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:26 - 02 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
It's just that their deaths have no negative consequences for the country, the economy, or for anyone who matters. They're completely worthless in any meaningful sense of the word.

You could say the same of Scots? Or the North, or half the country.

And as you still seem to be confused, I'll explain it to you simply. The council house someone. The family grows. The flat becomes overcrowded. You can't then rehouse those people in another pokey flat... well you would but I mean most normal people wouldn't.

grr666 wrote:

So one person? Is that what you meant by most? Eh?

grr666 wrote:

They've certainly had their fill of things they don't deserve. Free clothes, food, money, accommodation,
UK residency, sympathy, column inches, luxury flats, mobile phones, expenses credit cards, benefit of doubt.
Those kind of things. How can I claim for my compassion fatigue. I'm worn right out by their combined plights
and it's affecting my ability to sleep at night. Sleeping #Imavictimtoo

The ones that died got all that? Shocked
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

grr666
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:15 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah yes, the rest were just poor victims of circumstance. Here's the thing, there's only a couple we know about
beyond a reasonable doubt because the robust enquiry into who, what, why, and where really was only applied to the people
who built, paid for or governed the tower of death. Demanded by the angry mob of entitled and their sympathisers.
That means the gammons get grilled, whitey, the Tories all get a kicking too. I mean they were just the ruthless
providers of the cheap or free housing. Anyone but the poor unfortunates are in the frame for this.
The Stevie Wonder ft three wise monkeys approach was levelled at the tenants and the 'tenants' too for that matter.
Plus the claimants and the 'claimants' Nothing to see here. Even when it's clear that the lead was being swung
left right and centre. Too scared of upsetting the mob repeatedly demanding this and that. Plus they had Lily Allen.

So now we're left with the ones that died and the ones that died'? Plus their relatives? and their 'relatives'?
Some of the "survivors" were so traumatised they forgot what floor they lived on. Poor old them. Rolling Eyes
It's funny, I know exactly who is living in my houses, their approximate incomes, bank details and whether they are
entitled to be in the UK, I also have deposits from each of them, phone numbers, email addresses, the whole
nine imperial yards. Perhaps I could give Kensington and Chelsea a few pointers on how to keep an eye on who they
let to. They have offices full of staff dedicated to this task so it shouldn't be too hard. I sometimes wonder how
I manage to keep tabs on my lot what with my paltry 3 GCSEs and generally unpleasant manner. I wonder how
many graduates are working in the housing department at K&C? Regardless they would be better suited to
working at KFC taking into account their utter incompetence. And the 'turn a blind eye because sob story' government
need a kick up the arse too. Still who's keeping count of the cost eh, it's only free money, donated by hardworking people
both against their will and voluntarily? If I were in charge, half of these claimants would have been on the first plane
out to Idontgiveafuckistan as soon as I discovered they were not supposed to be in the country, and the arseholes
subletting their 'much needed' flats would be removed from the council housing list immediately too for robbing
genuine tenants of a place to live. Too bad, so sad, bye bye. But then I was always a bit of a heartless, suspicious bastard.
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off. Thumbs Up


Last edited by grr666 on 20:32 - 03 Jun 2018; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:53 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

grr666 wrote:
I mean they were just the ruthless
providers of the cheap or free housing.

Precisely, they were the landlord and responsible, the same way if you rented out a death trap, and a load of people died you'd be in the shit, regardless of how much rent you charged or if you even went all Christian and filled it up with homeless people FOC.

I agree it's an absurd situation when the landlord doesn't know who's living there, although sometimes 'the system' causes this. What I don't understand is BCF looking enviously at those living in a council block, particularly now when that block of flats is a burnt out shell Eh?

Most of the inhabitants don't want to be there. If they weren't in that block they'd be in private accommodation, either paying rent to a private landlord (and not the council), or having their rent paid... either way it's money going out of the system.

But yeah carry on believing the 8% or whatever of people left in social housing are where all your money is going. It helps those who are really stealing from you Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Jewlio Rides Again LLB
World Chat Champion



Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:54 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm concerned that I half agree with grr. Laughing
____________________
Mpd72: I can categorically say i’m Brighter than that, no matter how I come across on here.
HAHAHA HAHAHA Blew Chilly MyCrowSystems
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Johnnythefox
Traffic Copper



Joined: 01 Dec 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:02 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find myself unable to agree 100% with grrr, will 99% do?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:43 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
It's just that their deaths have no negative consequences for the country, the economy, or for anyone who matters. They're completely worthless in any meaningful sense of the word.

You could say the same of Scots? Or the North, or half the country.

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

It's OK to call a sponger a sponger. England should free itself from the burden of at least the weasel Scotch, and probably the Taffies as well. Norn Mickland goes without saying.


M.C wrote:
You can't then rehouse those people in another pokey flat...

They chose to outstrip their resources, and then demanded that they be gibsed more. See our £13,000,000,000 in foreign aid for more examples.

How's pandering to irresponsible breeders working out for us? How do we get off that vagina-go-round?


M.C wrote:
well you would but I mean most normal people wouldn't.

Since we're making flat assertions, I'm going to inform you that most normal people, the ones who pay their own way, deeply resent being rinsed in order to support the infantilised and irresponsible. Like people who block social housing by insisting on Living At Home.



M.C wrote:
What I don't understand is BCF looking enviously at those living in a council block, particularly now when that block of flats is a burnt out shell Eh?

Enviously? Eh?

M.C wrote:
Most of the inhabitants don't want to be there.

Of course not. They want to be in the luxury flats and Kensington semis that they've now been bribed with.

And I want a free mansion and Kate Upton polishing my Aston Martin with her Bristols, but why should the taxpayer gibs me that?


M.C wrote:
If they weren't in that block they'd be in private accommodation, either paying rent to a private landlord (and not the council), or having their rent paid... either way it's money going out of the system.

Yes, I said, they'll be a drain on the taxpayer wherever they're living and breeding.

That's the core problem. Not their location, their existence and unfettered fecundity.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:43 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jewlio Rides Again LLB wrote:
I'm concerned that I half agree with grr. Laughing

I thought you were in social housing? Is it a housing association property meaning you're slightly higher up the social ladder? Laughing

Rogerborg wrote:
Exactly! Now you're getting it.

It's OK to call a sponger a sponger. England should free itself from the burden of at least the weasel Scotch

So when the cull begins you'll cheerfully lead your family into the oven?

Rogerborg wrote:
How's pandering to irresponsible breeders working out for us? How do we get off that vagina-go-round?

I thought the great minds of BCF said we needed to up the birth rate? Eh?

Rogerborg wrote:
I'm going to inform you that most normal people, the ones who pay their own way, deeply resent being rinsed in order to support the infantilised and irresponsible. Like people who block social housing by insisting on Living At Home.

Ok I'll move out, stop covering almost all the rent, then you can pay for a pensioner to live in a 3 bed property Thumbs Up

Rogerborg wrote:
Enviously? Eh?

How else would you describe it? I have to work yada yada, they get to live on a grimey council estate (even if they're working as well), baww baww baww.

Rogerborg wrote:
Of course not. They want to be in the luxury flats and Kensington semis that they've now been bribed with.

Ok MPD. Every council estate up and down the country is in an exclusive area. In fact I specifically remember them being built in affluent areas as great beacons of social mobility.

Rogerborg wrote:
Yes, I said, they'll be a drain on the taxpayer wherever they're living and breeding.

That's the core problem. Not their location, their existence and unfettered fecundity.

If you actually looked at the welfare budget you'd see what the problem is. 1% on unemployment benefit? One per f**king percent. Is that really what you're going menstrual over? Ok maybe housing benefit... hang on the money goes from the government to the local authority with council estate scummers, a complete non-issue unless some daft bint was to sell off all the housing stock, nah no one would be that short-sighted. Ok child benefit, financially rewarding breeders, nah that's just BCF getting their taxes back Folded arms
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:27 - 03 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
M.C wrote:
Well as long as we've established they deserved it Thumbs Up

Deserved to die? Don't be so gammon.

It's just that their deaths have no negative consequences for the country, the economy, or for anyone who matters. They're completely worthless in any meaningful sense of the word.

But they didn't deserve to die. Deportation, transportation, or having their benefits and access to housing and the NHS cut so that they die in the gutter, yes. But death? I can't believe you wished that on them. Sad


I suppose you could say we turned a prophet
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:30 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
So when the cull begins you'll cheerfully lead your family into the oven?

I can approve of the logic of a policy while objecting to the personal consequences.


M.C wrote:
I thought the great minds of BCF said we needed to up the birth rate? :eh

Of high IQ non-criminal parents with at least one breadwinner not Living At Home and contributing more to those Living At Home than they receive back.


Rogerborg wrote:
Ok I'll move out, stop covering almost all the rent, then you can pay for a pensioner to live in a 3 bed property Thumbs Up

She shouldn't be there either. As you said, that property should be seized by the State and given to a Somalian 'asylum seeker', his wife, her three 'sisters' and their eleven children. Right?


M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Enviously? Eh?

How else would you describe it?

Contempt, revulsion and resentment.

I don't want to be them, I want rid of them.


M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Of course not. They want to be in the luxury flats and Kensington semis that they've now been bribed with.

Ok MPD. Every council estate up and down the country is in an exclusive area. In fact I specifically remember them being built in affluent areas as great beacons of social mobility.

Topic is Grenfellians. Only Sith deal in generalities.


M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
Yes, I said, they'll be a drain on the taxpayer wherever they're living and breeding.

If you actually looked at the welfare budget you'd see what the problem is.

Yes, it's the combination of Pensions, Incapacity, disability & injury benefits, Unemployment benefits, Housing benefits, Family benefits, income support & tax credits, Personal social services and other benefits.

Why are you arguing against a point that I didn't make? Successive governments have been cheerfully punting folk off the "unemployment" figures for decades by shifting them onto "ooh me back" or makework + top up.

M.C wrote:
1% on unemployment benefit? One per f**king percent. Is that really what you're going menstrual over?

No, it's not. What makes you think that?

M.C wrote:
Ok maybe housing benefit...

And Incapacity, disability & injury benefits, Family benefits, income support & tax credits, Personal social services and other benefits.

You realise that all of that is paid for by the taxpayer, yes? And every single reasonable taxpayer not Living At Home resents every single penny.

And yes, we should cull the old. Or more palatably, we should have suicide booths on every street corner of every sink estate and geezer street so that the worthless and hopeless can cull themselves in a humane, dignified manner.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:15 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
I can approve of the logic of a policy while objecting to the personal consequences.

That's called hypocrisy. If you truly believed in something you'd be prepared to accept the consequences. I said recently if no reward for breeding = me not being here I'd be fine with accepting that.

Rogerborg wrote:
Of high IQ non-criminal parents with at least one breadwinner not Living At Home and contributing more to those Living At Home than they receive back.

Again your assumptions are massively off (shocker). Cull the peasant classes based on IQ and criminal records and you'll be disappointed by how many are left.

Rogerborg wrote:
She shouldn't be there either. As you said, that property should be seized by the State and given to a Somalian 'asylum seeker', his wife, her three 'sisters' and their eleven children. Right?

Did I? Eh? This is what the bedroom tax was about, trying to encourage elderly people to leave bigger properties. Now I believe they won't give you a tenancy longer than 7 years.

Rogerborg wrote:
Yes, it's the combination of Pensions, Incapacity, disability & injury benefits, Unemployment benefits, Housing benefits, Family benefits, income support & tax credits, Personal social services and other benefits.

Why are you arguing against a point that I didn't make?

And yet...
Rogerborg wrote:
Or more palatably, we should have suicide booths on every street corner of every sink estate and geezer street so that the worthless and hopeless can cull themselves in a humane, dignified manner.

...you continually blame the same people for the issue(s). Apart from being a complete logic failure (Spock would be ashamed), it's disappointing you can't seem to move beyond a Dailymail understanding of the issue, and also can't come up with any real solutions beyond a mass culling.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:05 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
I can approve of the logic of a policy while objecting to the personal consequences.

That's called hypocrisy.

Eh? I'm advocating that England should free itself from the millstone of Scotchland; that's not something that I can accomplish unilaterally.


M.C wrote:
Cull the peasant classes based on IQ and criminal records and you'll be disappointed by how many are left.

Cull? What a repugnant word, I'd never stoop to that. Shocked

Be reasonable; I'm suggesting eugenics, not extermination. Contraception in return for benefits.


M.C wrote:
...you continually blame the same people for the issue(s).

Yes, anyone who takes out more than they pay in. How is this a difficult concept?


M.C wrote:
also can't come up with any real solutions beyond a mass culling.

I'm not suggesting anything involuntary.

Assisted suicide isn't a cull.

Benefits in return for contraception isn't a cull.

We have a surplus population of worthless wasters who produce more worthless wasters. I can tell this by looking at what's stolen from me every month to gift to them.

If you don't see that as a problem, then you're part of it.

If you don't have a solution of your own to suggest, be a good chap and rally behind mine. We can have slogans and marches and very smart uniforms and everything.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:21 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
I'm suggesting eugenics, not extermination. Contraception in return for benefits.

That's a dramatic comedown for you Shocked

Rogerborg wrote:

Yes, anyone who takes out more than they pay in. How is this a difficult concept?

And how do you measure that? BCF says anyone in social housing is a scumbag, I prefer to look at what they're actually claiming and what they're actually contributing.

Rogerborg wrote:
We have a surplus population of worthless wasters who produce more worthless wasters. I can tell this by looking at what's stolen from me every month to gift to them.

If you don't see that as a problem, then you're part of it.

aaand we're back to focusing on the same group. You haven't been looking at the welfare budget properly.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:18 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
I'm suggesting eugenics, not extermination. Contraception in return for benefits.

That's a dramatic comedown for you Shocked

Well, I might wish for something a bit more final, but it's a generational problem that requires a realistic long term solution.

Instead of providing perverse breeding incentives to those who are least valuable, we can instead leverage the power of gibs for good.


M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:

Yes, anyone who takes out more than they pay in. How is this a difficult concept?

And how do you measure that?

Er, in GBP? Would you prefer BTC? Eh?

I wasn't going to bring up the hidden cost of you blicking a bedroom that someone more needy could doss in, but it seems you've got a guilty conscience about it.

I'm not criticising, it shows that there may be hope for you yet.


M.C wrote:
aaand we're back to focusing on the same group. You haven't been looking at the welfare budget properly.

The problem with the welfare budget is that we have a welfare budget. Taxation, theft, bang bang bang goes the drum.

But what's this bizarre obsession with "the" (singular) group? Who do you imagine I'm talking about?

I assure you that it's a very broad brush. Dole claimants of all creeds and origins, too sick to work, State pensioners (directly or indirectly), the mentally infirm. Everyone who takes out more than they contribute. Grenfellians are just richly replete with all those demographics.

Again, I'm not advocating forced culling, just that when any of the above complain to the State about not being content with what they're being gifted, maybe it could be suggested to them that there's really no need for them to struggle on. Carousel!
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kawasaki Jimbo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:37 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
blicking a bedroom that someone more needy could doss in.

Who would you house in his place?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:30 - 04 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
And how do you measure that?
Er, in GBP? Would you prefer BTC? Eh?

I wasn't going to bring up the hidden cost of you blicking a bedroom that someone more needy could doss in, but it seems you've got a guilty conscience about it.

I'm not criticising, it shows that there may be hope for you yet.

I don't Wink By measure I mean actual monies claimed and actual monies paid, not imaginary subsidies.

Rogerborg wrote:
The problem with the welfare budget is that we have a welfare budget. Taxation, theft, bang bang bang goes the drum.

But what's this bizarre obsession with "the" (singular) group? Who do you imagine I'm talking about?

I assure you that it's a very broad brush. Dole claimants of all creeds and origins, too sick to work, State pensioners (directly or indirectly), the mentally infirm. Everyone who takes out more than they contribute. Grenfellians are just richly replete with all those demographics.

Again, I'm not advocating forced culling, just that when any of the above complain to the State about not being content with what they're being gifted, maybe it could be suggested to them that there's really no need for them to struggle on. Carousel!

When you talk about 'worthless wasters producing more worthless wasters' I assume you're not referring to pensioners, who tend not to breed unless they're Des O'Connor. Why haven't you taken up my suggestion of moving somewhere with no welfare? After all you'll be richer and I'm sure it'll be a lovely place to live Wink
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:58 - 05 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kawasaki Jimbo wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
blicking a bedroom that someone more needy could doss in.

Who would you house in his place?

Nobody, since I'd be paying for them anyway.

Decrease the surplus population and everyone (who matters) wins.




M.C wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:
I wasn't going to bring up the hidden cost of you blicking a bedroom that someone more needy could doss in, but it seems you've got a guilty conscience about it.

I don't Wink

Awww, I'd so hoped. Sad


M.C wrote:
By measure I mean actual monies claimed and actual monies paid, not imaginary subsidies.

How much do you imagine you'd pay to live in the style to which you have become (very, very) accustomed without the taxpayer supporting you? Thinking


M.C wrote:
When you talk about 'worthless wasters producing more worthless wasters' I assume you're not referring to pensioners

Once again, yes, I am. It's a systemic problem, and everybody getting a free ride on the welfare wagon adds to the burden of those pulling it.

This isn't a moral judgement, it's a statement of uncomfortable fact.

Those 129 flats - 72 dead that have blossomed to 210-ish households? All on the wagon, all demanding that they be gibsed things that other people are sweating to provide.

When does it get better? When do we stop robbing the productive? When do we get off the road to Idiocracy on which we are now embarked and back on the trek to the stars?


M.C wrote:
Why haven't you taken up my suggestion of moving somewhere with no welfare? After all you'll be richer and I'm sure it'll be a lovely place to live Wink

(((They))) wouldn't have me. Crying or Very sad
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:43 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Nobody, since I'd be paying for them anyway.


This is the bit that constantly confuses me, how exactly are you paying for M.C to live in the house he does?

Now theres a few assumptions here but there you go.

M.C lives in a 2 floor 3 bedroom terrace house somewhere around North Tottenham/Bruce Grove type of area in Haringay.
These houses were built pre WW11 so probably cost less than £5000 to build. In the last year the rent has been in the region of £700 a month and has been for at least 3 years. So in the last 3 years the rent has been in the region of £25200.
The house will only have had the Kitchen, toilet and Bathroom replaced once in the last 25 years and that would probably have been in the last 6 years by Mears which had a budget somewhere in the region of £2500.
Assuming the house didn't require repairs and these types of houses rarely do that is a profit for the council of £22,700. Due to the type of house the Council tax will be the region of £130 a month and will come down to rubbish collections so again there will be a profit.

So again how exactly are YOU paying for M.C's living arrangements?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:57 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 wrote:
A few! You're making it up as you go along. Smile


Actually a lot less than you think, you do think don't you?

mpd72 wrote:
It's subsidised by the state, no matter how you look at it.
Privately, that property would attract many times more in rent.


Ah so you are saying it should be sold at a loss by the local authority, thats a loss of further rental income and sold to a private landlord to profit from so the people living in it who at the moment can afford the rent need to potentially claim housing benefit/universal credit which comes direct from the local authority causing a further loss so that then YOU and Roger are subsidising it.

Hmm, can you see how your plan didn't work there?

It isn't subsiudised by the state, it provides a profitable income for local government so reducing any cost to you.

Try again please.


Last edited by sickpup on 15:59 - 06 Jun 2018; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:58 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:
This is the bit that constantly confuses me, how exactly are you paying for M.C to live in the house he does?

With taxes. Well, the other residents of his borough are, but I feel a fiduciary kinship with them.

I'm making a sweeping mean of all socialist housing. Consider the Grenfellians living in brand new £1.6 million flats. All servicing the same pool of demand for cheap or free housing, all paid for by rinsing taxpayers.


sickpup wrote:
So again how exactly are YOU paying for M.C's living arrangements?

I have to read him saying Living At Home, which really hurts my feelings. That's violence, that is.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:00 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
With taxes. Well, the other residents of his borough are, but I feel a fiduciary kinship with them.


But how are you supporting him?
How exactly are the other residents of Haringay supporting him?
His family claim no benefits and they provide a profit to the local authority, there are no direct or indirect payments to him or his family and in fact the profit from his families rent go to providing support for other members of his community so in fact he is a provider not a user.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:25 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

sickpup wrote:

But how are you supporting him?


By paying taxes for his subsidised living. Not sure where you're going with this.

If the answer is he could afford to live there without subsidy - then great, crack on.

If the answer is he couldn't but it woulda coulda shoulda cost a lot more in some other form of subsidy then that's a different question.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

sickpup
Old Timer



Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:02 - 06 Jun 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

arry wrote:
By paying taxes for his subsidised living. Not sure where you're going with this.


It should be pretty obvious, neither he nor his family receive benefits, the rent provides profit to the Local Authority so where is his subsidy?

arry wrote:
If the answer is he could afford to live there without subsidy - then great, crack on.


Which he does without any subsidy and providing a profit to the LA to benefit those who require subsidy.

arry wrote:
If the answer is he couldn't but it woulda coulda shoulda cost a lot more in some other form of subsidy then that's a different question.

There is no subsidy, what there isn't is a need to pay a mortgage, earn something out of the investment and profiteering. No subsidy.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 5 years, 322 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 31 of 37

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.85 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 180.18 Kb