Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
This Cannot Be Right
people who are on benefits being refused housing, this was according to the BBC News. see if i can find the story for a better overview.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“What/who is WSS ?”
Work Shy Scum
“People on benefit, ie, unemployed, disability, anyone on state benefits should not be allowed to have social housing in a capital city.”
“Wacker....that is a bonkers idea !”
It seems a perfectly sensible idea to me. There is a serious shortage of housing in many cities, not only London. Continued cries go out that essential workers cannot afford to live in them. People who do not work can live anywhere. There is no need for them to live in Central London. “Social” Housing in those areas should be reserved for essential but low-paid workers who cannot afford to live near to their work and need considerable assistance. The question to be answered is this: if there is a low-rent property available in, say, the London Borough of Camden and you have applicants for the tenancy from (a) a person who has never worked and is never likely to and (b) a nurse working at Great Ormond Street Hospital who works shifts seven days a week, who should have it?
Work Shy Scum
“People on benefit, ie, unemployed, disability, anyone on state benefits should not be allowed to have social housing in a capital city.”
“Wacker....that is a bonkers idea !”
It seems a perfectly sensible idea to me. There is a serious shortage of housing in many cities, not only London. Continued cries go out that essential workers cannot afford to live in them. People who do not work can live anywhere. There is no need for them to live in Central London. “Social” Housing in those areas should be reserved for essential but low-paid workers who cannot afford to live near to their work and need considerable assistance. The question to be answered is this: if there is a low-rent property available in, say, the London Borough of Camden and you have applicants for the tenancy from (a) a person who has never worked and is never likely to and (b) a nurse working at Great Ormond Street Hospital who works shifts seven days a week, who should have it?
"Shove all our unemployed out into the country and then expect them to find jobs ?"
Well Mikey, if having lived in the City for a time they had been unable to secure gainful employment it is probably because they were either not trying hard enough or are unemployable. People come from across Europe and further afield and seem perfectly able to find work. In either event it seems work is not for them. Fortunately some people don't mind working and preference for scarce housing in the cities where they work should be afforded to them. As jackdaw says, it may be seen by some as "social cleansing". Personally I think it is plain common sense to enable those who want to work in cities doing essential work for relatively low pay to be given the chance to live near to where they work. Those who cannot or will not work for one reason or another can live somewhere else.
Well Mikey, if having lived in the City for a time they had been unable to secure gainful employment it is probably because they were either not trying hard enough or are unemployable. People come from across Europe and further afield and seem perfectly able to find work. In either event it seems work is not for them. Fortunately some people don't mind working and preference for scarce housing in the cities where they work should be afforded to them. As jackdaw says, it may be seen by some as "social cleansing". Personally I think it is plain common sense to enable those who want to work in cities doing essential work for relatively low pay to be given the chance to live near to where they work. Those who cannot or will not work for one reason or another can live somewhere else.
"We have already ascertained that many HB claimants are in work, should they too be cast out of the Capital?"
My two substantive posts refer only to people who do not work. And to elaborate further, I mean people who do not work from choice, i.e. those who can but won't because it suits either their finances or their lifestyle not to do so. There is no reason why the taxpayer should pay in one form or another to enable them to live in expensive inner-city areas. For those who do work the situation is somewhat different but nonetheless, before lavishing oodles of taxpayers' dosh enabling them top live in "affordable housing" in, say, Inner London the question should really be asked "do they really need to live there?"
My two substantive posts refer only to people who do not work. And to elaborate further, I mean people who do not work from choice, i.e. those who can but won't because it suits either their finances or their lifestyle not to do so. There is no reason why the taxpayer should pay in one form or another to enable them to live in expensive inner-city areas. For those who do work the situation is somewhat different but nonetheless, before lavishing oodles of taxpayers' dosh enabling them top live in "affordable housing" in, say, Inner London the question should really be asked "do they really need to live there?"
Latest Posts
Motoring6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Thought Darts Final Was Played At...
Sport10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Technology19 mins ago
