Here you will see a collection of worthless unemployed whiners, claiming they don;t get enough benefit, that they get in exchange for doing absolutely nothing.
In this amazing picture, you will see 16 "people", with 9 banners, protesting to absolutely nobody, about a "tax" that doesn't actually exist. They are simply trying to persuade those of us who work to pay tax, to keep a roof over their sorry arses, that that roof should be as big as THEY choose, no matter what the cost to those of us paying for them.
It's really very simple, want to live in a 3 bedroom house on your own, when your poisoned spawn have moved into their own council house, GET A JOB, AND PAY FOR IT.
Feel free to laugh at these wasters (including it seems Drivers Monkey) in further images posted on the page of one of their sorry apologists
A foolish apoloigist for a protesters against a non existent "tax"
YOU are keeping families in bedsits, and sponging of the rest of us, languishing in houses of a size you no longer need, and are NOT entitled to, unless YOU intend to pay for it :)
Yes they should embrace Thanet tory ethics and gain employ by the deceptive use of forged qualifications then ponce a living off their hardworking colleagues who have to carry them ?
ReplyDeleteTo whom might you be referring Richard?
ReplyDeleteTo whoever Richard refers the allegation will almost invariably be trumped up and not a shred of proof to back it up.
DeletePlease feel free to tell the lady the story below refers to that she is a sponger.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bedroom-tax-disabled-mum-of-two-lorraine-2204216
oh and a recent FOI request from Councils indicate that over 95% of people with a "spare room" couldn't move to alternative accommodation because there simply aren't enough smaller properties available on the books... could this be down to the fact that social housing stock of the 60's and 70's have been bought and never replaced?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-lie-behind-the-bedroom-tax-families-trapped-with-nowhere-to-move-face-penalty-for-having-spare-room-8745597.html
But hey, don't let facts stop you from bashing some of the most vulnerable in society, maybe you would round them all up and put them in a "workhouse"?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225491/residential-training-provision-independent-report.pdf
Couldn't agree more William, I keep him around as the group idiot, for amusement :)
ReplyDelete1 o'clock, what is the "bedroom tax" you persist in refering to? I can find no tax entitled as such.
"“The tenant in question has consistently refused to fully engage with us and has repeatedly refused to apply for a discretionary housing payment which may help to alleviate her situation"
That deals with the Scottish woman.
"a recent FOI request from Councils indicate that over 95% of people with a "spare room" couldn't move to alternative accommodation because there simply aren't enough smaller properties available on the books"
Really? So it seems the private rented sector is a mystery to you. I wonder why i should pay fo0r someone to live in a house bigger than they require, when I live in a house of a size I can afford. I wonder why that calculation should apply to someone whose housing is paid for by everyone else...
Wonder if these people understand the term "Lodger"...
These are the facts 1 o'clock, but don't let them stand in the way of you spouting some outdated, empty and totally discredited bleeding heart socialist rhetoric ;)
Oh yes, why shouldn't people whose existence relies utterly on the money forcibly extracted from me, and every other tax payer, work in return for the money they receive to keep a roof over their head, and them and their families fed and watered?
ReplyDeleteWhy would you expect them to be able to sit back in houses bigger than they require with money they haven;t earned, and give nothing in return, what a perverse view.
They haven't been able to have lodgers until recently, the law is still flaky and depends council on council.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of the private sector housing can be considerably higher than council owned accommodation, are you hoping to reduce costs or increase them?
Or is your actual wish to see them kicked out on their arses, begging for scraps on the street so you can feel all smug and superior?
No problem there then 1 o'clock, lodgers can now be accommodated, that's all the people needing 1 bed sorted out then, excellent.
ReplyDelete"Can be" i think is the operative words there, plus the accomodation freed up by those now only using the housing they NEED rather than that which they WANT will assist the situation. How about as soon as people in council owned/housing association "social housing" are compelled to pay full commercial rent when they gain a job (assuming they want one) that would certainly help, and be fair.
Your last paragraph is is the usual bleeding heart socialist false dichotomy that you have to drag out when you can answer the rest of my perfectly correct points and facts.
I look forward to more socialist rhetoric in the near future.
So you suggest the tax payer could be expected to pay more for council tenants to relocate to smaller private sector accommodation?
ReplyDeleteWhich would in turn decrease the pool available to working people, which would increase the cost of rents and house prices?...
ahh, are you a landlord with numerous empty flats and 2 bed houses?
Economics isn't your thing 1, clearly. So, once all those languishing in property they don't need, and the 2 and 3 bed accommodation is properly utilised, it will clearly be a way better and cheaper bill that those working to pay for the peoples lives have to pay for them in return for being told that those taking the money, and giving nothing in return need more, and a bigger house than those paying the tax live in.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, you're not very good at property are you, live in a council house do you by chance..
I understand economics... just not your capitalistic take on it obviously. Thankfully you just get to spout on about it on this blog.
ReplyDeleteAs for the house... nope, bought and paid for before I turned 30.
Clearly you only understand socialist "economics" which work exceptionally well, right upto the [art where you run out of other people's money to squander, as evidenced by the dire situation we find ourselves in today.
ReplyDeleteAn understanding of real world economics is something which clearly still totally eludes you, as evidenced by your posts.
I also correct wanton and 100% discredited socialist dogmatic rhetoric on many other sites, I think you need to get out a little more ;)
Well done, there was hope for you once, when did you begin to suffer from socialism...
I thought the "dire situation" we find ourselves in was due to the unregulated financial sector, supposedly based on free market capitalism, having to be bailed out by the people... sort of like socialism?
ReplyDeleteThe finance sector should have been allowed to go to the wall, as true free market capitalism dictates, but that wouldn't do, especially under a Conservative led government who gets in excess of 50% of its political donations from the finance sector.
We could have invested the money that bailed out the banks in all manner of areas that would have boosted the economy more, provided employment for a greater number of people and as a net effect provided larger tax revenue... but no, we just give it to the banks, decrease the value of the £, and then tell the banks that they need to have a higher level of capital than before so they keep the money rather than loan it out as they were supposed to do.
Funny how the finance sector has done well out of this "dire situation" isn't it.
I do have to laugh when I see people actual believe simplistic gullible socialist rhetoric has any value beyond that of a comedy script.
ReplyDeleteNow lets see, if someone is SO stupid that they borrow WAY more than they can ever afford to pay back, I wonder why the person lending the money should be blamed..
We don't ALL need nannying like emptyheaded socialists, some of us CAN borrow a great deal of money, and be defined as "high risk", yet we are bright enough to use that money to invest wisely, and pay what we owe.
Interesting that you think banks should have been allowed to goto the wall. I wonder why you would steal away the pensions of those who have saved for them through their pension schemes all their working lives. Mind you, that is the kind of simplistic and envious politics that socialism is SO well known for.
And then you go on to prove beyond all doubt that socialism is a joke today, as it's always been with your laughabvle theory that UK should have continued to use money it couldn't afford, to spend it's way out of recession.
Tell me, how would you have explained to those who would have no longer have a pension, that it's ok, because gvt has decided to resurface a road to keep soem road workers in work...
So you don't believe in free market economics then? or only as long as Joe and Josephine Public are left holding the can when it all goes wrong?
ReplyDeleteHappy to see the pound devalued, happy to see savers interest rates crippled, happy to see companies go to the wall because banks failed to live up to their agreement when bailed out with made up money that effectively means the debt will be paid by peoples great grandchildren.
So banks making billions peddling securities which are valueless was OK by you?
Just hope you or a loved one doesn't has to turn to the state for help after it's been dismantled.
I'm surprised you even stay in this country.
I love how when challenged, socialist rhetoric simply falls back to contradictory and childish attacks of capitalism.
ReplyDeleteYou work in simple all encompassing rhetoric, because you cannot think in any other terms that 1 size fits all dogma.
You whine about banks not lending enough money to business, having argued that banks should have been allowed to goto the wall! You whine about low interest rates for savers, yet would smile happily as those on pensions see them disappear as the banks that ultimately provide them close, while you giggle witlessly as your political ideology pans out.
Blair and Brown destroyed the UK economy by the usual and only socialist economic strategy, spend until there's nothing left, then borrow till nobody will give us any more money, then, tax people who are working dam hard, then run to the rest of the world with a begging bowl!
Your right on one thing, Brown's stupidity and cluelessness when faced with an economic crisis will cost my Grandchildren, thank god he was thrown out when he was, and before he could do any more damage.
It's about time the benefit culture was dismantled. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net, not the lifestyle choice many have chosen to make it. I would be more than happy to see the nanny state rolled up and consigned to history, and the benefits and health system returned to what they were intended to be, a safety net, no more, EVER.
I love the UK, I really wish those who have destroyed it, and supported that destruction would leave the country, and be served a huge dose of reality in a country where you are expected to support yourself. Where shall i send the ticket 1 o'clock
Hopefully the stark, bleak future that you wish for will never come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteYour replies are now becoming staple ad-hominem attacks with little to back up your particular ultra right wing agenda.
Obviously we are diametrically opposed and writing anything else is pointless, enjoy your Daily Mail.
Yep that stark bleak future where people are expected to look after themselves, dam i hope that day comes soon!
ReplyDeleteSadly to misrepresent exposing vacant and utterly dis credited socialist bullshit for an "ad-hominem attack" an oft repeated bleat of socialists everywhere. Simply put, don't try to claim your laughable bullshit is factual, and you won;t get humiliated by your betters :)
Now back to your 1974 copy of socialist worker, there's a good boy :)