You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1599075 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 929, 928, 927, 926, 925, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

FUCK THE POVVOS.
If they don't like being relocated then they can try being homeless instead.

If you expect the state to fund you then you should have no right whatsoever to be picky about it. If you don't like what they offer you get off your fat Iceland-frozen-food-consuming lazy workshy arse and get a job. Then use your salary to provide a home in whatever godforsaken chavvy shitville you chose to exist in.

. Breathes.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:02, Reply)
NWA's zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:09, Reply)
hold on a minute
i'm no expert here, but i'm fairly sure that the majority of people living is social housing aren't doing so 'free'. generally it is the cheapest, nastiest accomodation possible at a more affordable rent

these people generally provide essential services that most of us would struggle to cope without, they're the bin men, the street sweepers, the child minders, the nurses and the generally underpaid underclass who struggle to get by while doing jobs that none of us want to do.
If housing prices hadn't been allowed to escalate to ridiculous proportions over the last 40 years these people could probably afford to buy their own houses, but the greed and money-grabbing of those in power, the developers and those who paid 40,000 for a house 25 years ago and now want 400,000 for it are pricks
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:10, Reply)
Note I said "if you expect the state to fund you".
My point was not in regard to those working on a low income. Read things properly before posting.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:13, Reply)
so all those being asked to relocate don't have jobs?

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:14, Reply)
My point is that if you don't have a job and are choosing to live off the state then you can't complain about being relocated.

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:17, Reply)
and many of those being asked to relocate would have jobs
so your daily mail-esque point is somewhat undervalued
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:19, Reply)
Let me put this in to a simple enough sentence that even you can understand.
My point was not about those with jobs.

My point was about those who chose not to work and expect the state to provide for them.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:23, Reply)
we were talking about relocating people in social housing
you immediately jumped to the conclusion that all occupants of social housing are unemployed and should shut up moaning because they ahve no right to decide where they live
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:26, Reply)
Look I'm sure your mum tries very hard to look for work.
It's not her fault she's of limited ability and has 'black lung'.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:27, Reply)
it was all those minors she sucked off

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:28, Reply)
hahahaha

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:37, Reply)
It is of vital importance
that you understand the difference between "miners" and "minors" and then use the correct spelling.

Avoids misunderstandings, you see.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:39, Reply)
did it occur to you that it might be deliberate?

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:43, Reply)
Yes
But then I dismissed the possibility as laughable
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:45, Reply)
No I did not.
Read my post carefully (let us know if you need any help with words of more than two syllables).

"if you expect the state to fund you"

At no point have I said that those with jobs should have to relocate.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:28, Reply)
'if you expect the state to fund you' in a conversation about people in social housing
implying that you had assumed the majority of those in social housing were on benefits

i wonder what the ratio of unemployed but living in private property to unemployed in social housing is? i bet that would be an interesting statistic
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:30, Reply)
I made no such assumption. If you choose to infer that from my post that's due to your inability to properly grasp a point of view.

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:31, Reply)
look battered, i don't want to have to chuck you off the team
but you definitely assumed that people in social housing were on benefits
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:33, Reply)
Of course a percentage are. I did not say that all those in social housing are.
What's this team you keep dribbling on about?
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:35, Reply)
your off the team, sorry
it'll just be me and barry against you all when it kicks off
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:37, Reply)
Fuck me Quint
That was rather good. I feel justified in claiming you were not a complete knob all this time.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:49, Reply)
CHEERS MAN, YOUR ON THE TEAM

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:52, Reply)

Quints in talking sense shocker.


Next week on B3ta: Bert turns out to be a normal well adjusted, responsible adult.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:13, Reply)
Housing prices aren't 'allowed' anything.
They've risen through demand. Tough shit.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:14, Reply)
but your missing the point of demand
supply has been limited, deliberately in many cases, in order to increase prices
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:16, Reply)
The developers have massive land banks available
They choose to build slowly so prices don't fall on increased supply, and profits suffer.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:20, Reply)
It's been limited by limited availability and a rising population
not by some evil mastermind.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:20, Reply)
its been limited by local authorities and developers
population increase and immigration are things the government is aware of and rather than set targets to ensure that adequate development took place they restricted development, as did the developers so that instead of building many houses at a cheaper cost, they built few and charged extortionately for them
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:24, Reply)
So what you're saying is 'send 'em back', right?

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:26, Reply)
i'd prefer euthanisia on a large scale to some sort of newham exodus

(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:27, Reply)
Cheaper in the long run.
Society is the real winner with this plan.
(, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 9:35, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 929, 928, 927, 926, 925, ... 1