-
Posts
-
No slayer, it’s the fact that the council tax payers are being ask for 169 million pounds in Brighton over the next few years to re fit them.
Which works about 12k on each of them.
The fact that only people with 3 or more kids, or 5 family members meet the eligibly criteria.
Which means immigrates families are give first choice; there are few people in Brighton with 3 kids.
(You don’t see many kids in Kemptown, I can’t understand why?)
Single pensioners who still live in 3 bedroom houses.
Now we are being asked to find another 50 million pounds for the building of new homes. Then sold to tenants in a few years when they qualify for the “tenants discount”.
So in a town that is 96% white, we are offering discounted homes to immigrants, which is leading to “ghettos” and trouble.
And the rest of us are being asked to fund it.
It seems like a waste of money to me and I don’t seem the need for council homes in the year 2007.
But many your not being ask to find 3k a year in council tax to pay for it.
@ubermik wrote:
Well the first point is yes I have, from age 9 till age 16, then again from age 18 right through to age 25 and I still now live in a staunchly council orientated area albeit not what could be called an “estate”
But once again you miraculously managed to read what was clearly written but chose to totally miss any point being made and read it how you wanted it to have been written
I DIDNT say predominatly white council estates CANT be sink estates, I didnt even say they cant be Hot Chocolate holes, what I DID say is that they arent called and arent deemed to be “ghettos”, that privelidge is reserved for the poor ickle downtrodden discriminated against immigrants and ethnics, who coincidentally are “discriminated” against by being paid the exact same amount of money as a white person, even tho that amount makes an ethnic “poor” and living ona ghetto according to lefties and the press, whilst a whitey living on the same money on an equally disgusting estate is just a dole bludger
Thats the point I WAS making, hence saying it WASNT to do with skin colour which you miraculously chose to skip past during your selective interpretation (yet again)
But where the term ghetto DOES have meaning its a byproduct of the residents and not the housing or the income level, its how they choose to live and in many cases WHERE they choose to live as they will choose to live by their own kind rather than in a mixed enviroment
Err, perhaps you should re read your post as you clearly write anything down without reading it
@ubermik wrote:
And yet we have oodles of whities living in council housing on the exact same money but WITHOUT it being called or resembling a “ghetto”
Now forgive me if Im wrong, but you are quite clearly here stating that “whities” council estates dont “resemble” a ghetto whereas quite clearly they do, even if they are not given that particular name- we both know that to be a fact
And “deemed to be” is quite different in emphasis and interpretation to “resembles”
Not really
Had I said that all council estates where non whites live ARE ghettos, and that NONE of the council estates where whites live are a mess I’d be saying what you seem to be reading
But have I used ALL or NONE anywhere?
So “some” can be not just assumed, but in lieu of a totally inclusive or exclusive word is the ONLY assumption that is acurate
What we are asked to believe is that ALL black council estates are ghettos because they are poor, yet we have white council estates that ARENT even tho the residents on both estates will be getting the SAME benefits
The point with that is it leaves two possible reasons
1) it has nothing to do with money, otherwise the white estates would also be in ALL cases as much of a mess AND would or should then also be called ghettos
2) Not ALL none white estates will or should be a mess either, meaning its purely to do with who lives on them, not the colour of their skin and most definitely not because they are on benefits
I cant quite honestly comment on “nice” none white council estates as to be totally honest all of the ones I’ve ever been to or worked in around the midlands HAVE been a total mess, whereas with white ones some are and some arent, so to have the extreme based on personal experience I can ONLY comment on the fact that there ARE non messy white council estates, saying black or of any majorative colour would simply be an assumption, not an observation
But the main point revolved around the money and the claim that they create these ghettos because they iz “poor”, so to show ANY ethnic group on the same money who DONT live in such squalor disproves the excuse given leaving other reasons of either a cultural or not quite so all inclusive nature
I will however half concede that seeing as there are bits that could have been clearer, but only half purely because what you are saying I meant WOULD need me to have used words like ALL and NONE which you do seem to have chosen to read when the words I used only intimate that some of each are and some arent or MIGHT not be also reinforced by me quite clearly offering the possibility that it WASNT to do with the colour of someones skin, merely the people who live there which was quite clearly stated and doesnt imply or suggest any one particular ethnicity or lack thereof which isnt vague at all, but it IS a very good way of stating something to see how people choose to read and interpret it which is why you’ll notice I do it quite a lot lol
Hmmm what is a “ghetto”
The term is now commonly used to refer to any poverty-stricken urban area.
“Ghetto” is also used figuratively to indicate geographic areas with a concentration of any type of person (e.g. gay ghetto, student ghetto) or for non-geographic categories (e.g. “sci fi ghetto”)
You have to live in the real world.
In Brighton house prices are high, the average house price for a 3-bed room house is £400,000.
So can you see anyone who meets the eligibly criteria for council housing buying there own home with out the tenants discount program?
Brighton is not the north of England where house prices are lower.
There’s 2 universities’ in the town and a lot of accommodation to rent.
I read the replies to this post and see that like always people are trying to “muddily the waters “ with there own engenders.
The facts are simple in Brighton, we are all force to pay 20% of our council tax to “help out” deprived areas in the rest of country.
Now we are being force to pay for repairs and new council building for people, who are not from our local area and who are likely to buy there houses in a few years times, just to sell them on.
Has interest rates and council tax rise, why are we all being force to pay for them?
If council homes are so important let central government fund them and not the local council tax payers
Now whos missing thge point?
Who IS the council?
Suppose you track a hundred quid of your money spent internally, you pay it, then its paid from central funds where most tax goes to begin with, then its given to the benefits agency, is used to pay someones council rent, and THEN, it goes back to central funds and is used elsewhere, lets say a hospital, a school or a bin mans wages
So even after its used to pay rent it STILL eventually and in total gets spent again because council rents are a bit of a misnomer like civil servants paying tax, the money stays within the government until it gets spent on an external non governmental thing
So that £100 could in effect have paid 50 peoples COUNCIL rents, which would then be shown on paper as £5000 of tax payers money being spent on funding housing
Now lets suppose we didnt have council houses, the very first time that £100 gets paid to a private landlord the government dont have it anymore, its gone, so to ACTUALLY pay £5000’s worth of private rent it DOES cost that amount, whereas paying council rent is like throwing a boomerang whereas paying a private rent is more akin to throwing a thousand frisbees
Personally the way I would RATHER see the issue of cost that seems SOOOO important to you fixed isnt your way, it would be by fixing the price of land for domestic dwellings across the country and equalising the value of property build on it, so a house in the centre of glasgow would cost the exact same price as an identical house with an identical amount of land in london OR even brighton
The point you and people like you miss is if you had kids you would want them educated, you;d want them to be able to go to hospital if needed, you’d want your bins emptied, your car washed, a burger if you wanted to visit macdonald, subway or where ever
People doing those jobs and countless others will NEVER be able to afford a £400,000 house, council housing ISNT the vestige of the immigrant exclusively, its the place where many civil servants and working class people doing grunt jobs live because they will in many cases NEVER be able to afford to buy
A house being council owned has an added advantage of being more able to be a council “home” for them to raise a family in as they offer far more stability than private renting which is fraught with people changing the type of rental, selling the property, kicking tenants out to aim for a higher paying type of tenant etc etc etc
So how about to phase out the need for council houses we make your house and every other one like it in the entire country worth £125,000 so that nurses and teachers can afford to buy one then?
Which in turn would negate many government pay increases, lower your council tax and save you having to pay as much for council houses anyway? Because the reason some houses DO cost £3/4/500,000 pounds in one part of the country that ALSO has schools but the same house would cost a quarter of that elsewhere in itslelf is reason enough for us to have council housing with controlled rents
None working immigrants however shouldnt be being sent to seaside areas with little work, but should be being shipped to the cheaper poorer more industrialised areas or just not be being allowed into the country to begin with unless they already have a job or are being sponsored, and even then NOT if they have any dependants whatsoever
As for your ghetto comment
“a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.”
A well off area popuilatred by turd tappers WOULDNT be called a gay ghetto now would it?
So it DOESNT refer simply to an area populared by a social group alone, and its racial connotation IS still its majorative useage in that even the worst crappiest WHITE areas doesnt get called a ghetto by the press or left wing touchy feely tofu munching recycling tree huggers, THAT is more commonly refered to as a “sink estate” and is blames on the inhabitants attitude as per left wing government spoonfed directives
But were the exact same area filled with pakis and blacks then it would be a ghetto, and would be due to them being discriminated against and “herded” together by the racist establishment and the racist white population not welcoming them in true multicultural ecstatic open armed friendship etc blah de blah
Two scenarios, same country, same level of benefits but two totally different left wing explainations for it and two totally different reactions two it as well as two totally different ways of labelling it
But the “ghetto” would be the first in line to get regenerative money spent on it tho, “coz they iz poor ickle downtrodden oppressed poor blackies innit”
If you want to criticise most government spending you shouldnt react to the “culprit” as handed to you by the government, you should look deeper as its rarely got anything whatsoever to do with whoever is being blamed, most tax and rates money is wasted before it even gets a sniff of the services its collected for. Stop that wasteage and the services would have more money than they knew what to do with
i would have thought a ghetto is where people with no sence of community allow the area where they live to become dirty down market eg,everyone painting houses different sickly colours such as baby blue and pink with a good smattering of fancy coloured net curtains to match
. where gangs of kids congregate on street corners selling drugs and smokin weed and selling saame to passers by. throw in a smattering of failed businesses boarded up and a filthy bookies overflowing with customers daily and everyone trying to avoid the provvie man on pay day and shop owners cashing in on the poverty by selling single slices of bread or tea bags by the ten and so on. this is my idea of a ghetto
and it doesnt matter what colour the people who happen to live there but they tend to be all the same colour either black white or asian mainlyas peope tend to stick to the same as they are. broke downtrodden and miserable…Whereas I disagree,,so called Ghettoish areas have the strongest community spirit, A feeling of unison to better themselves,,How low does one person have to be .before they kick back and refuse to be known as scum..and ironically its the so called ” scum” that are better parents,and better human beings.
Council house sales should NEVER have happened..another GREAT idea from fekkin Thatcher.to gain votes and win awards in the Divide and Conquer party.As a woman of 47.and with a daughter that waited 2 years for a house ,,im damm annoyed as the better houses have been bought up,usually by greedy Peers to make a buck on their Mothers houses..We have pensioners in 4 bedroom houses..of a community that was bult post war to house the working classes and remove so called ” ghettos” .
Once we had 3 main classes working .middle and upper.I have noticed a great split even in the class system.it seemns to be those that bought their council house,work in factories etc..are now calling themself Middle class ! and in sociology a New class was invented..by that of the Underclass !
If succesive councils have no budgets to build..they dont..yet everywhere i see are the multi story flats knocked down in every part of UK.I see mass bulding here in Dundee..of en suite flats for the student population.The west end is full of lovely accomodation.
I live in..as whats known as a “decent” council area.its quiet and its proud.Yet in other areas where “ghettos” are encouraged.usually single parents all shoved into the same block of H block maisonettes! But their clean and tidy..and above all they have pride!
IF I was Tory Blair..ho hum id have blocked the sell off of council houses..and built more..but heck im not..and i feel cheated somehow..
Im selfishly happy,,but i worry about gnerations to come.who have not been born yet !@rubyred wrote:
We have pensioners in 4 bedroom houses..
And?
Its their HOME
You mention several aspects of the derision of society, of the “pride” in some areas but not in others, but THEN you whinge about little old dears occupying houses that are too big for them
Well without that possibility and option you dont have a home, you have a place you are staying for now, that mindset is hardly one that would encourage pride either in the house or the area as it is transient and without any feeling of permanence
I personally think someone should be allowed to stay in a house they rent long term till THEY want to move out or until they have breached the terms they rent it under, they should be allowed to class it as a HOME rather than just a house, and to that end have no quibble with wrinklies taking up council houses, didnt when me and my ex were waiting for 8 years to get one and never will
Its not THEIR fault the councils couldnt manage a shagfest in a whorehouse, or that the government are more bothered about making more money for their country club chums than they are about creating a decent country for the people who pay their wages
Its their home and should be treated as such till THEY want to live elsewhere IMO
My reply was to ms Waspish,,,IF I would have required an essay of tedium id have re-read Haralambus.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!