Reply to: Fast breeder to go ECO

[IR35FanClub]

There is a solution to this, but describing it on an open forum would put me foul of the anti terror laws. Though as they usually get invoked to spy on people who are letting their dog tulipe on a verge then maybe actually talking about how to go about murdering people might be ok.

[original PM]

I dont get it? It makes farting noises and the wheels fall off??? Eh?

[Durbs]

Furious neighbour: 'It's a disgrace. She treats her womb like a clown car'

I dont get it? It makes farting noises and the wheels fall off??? Eh?

[d000hg]

key point was her attitude that she could refuse. Its not dissimilar to a comment by one of the wife's acquaintances (an underachiever who only has 5 kids by different dads), she refused a house because it hadn't been redecorated throughout.

It's the sense of entitlement.

Good point. I guess she can refuse, and stay where she is now.

[vetran]

indeed.

Should have kicked them on to the streets for a night or two...

that may teach them that they get what they are given

feckin doleite scumbags

Friends of mine have just escaped a hostel where far right convicted criminals were mixed with decent folk (who happened to be black) who want to work but will lose their benefits if they do. They moved into a house I would quite happily live in paid for by benefits.

Trust me the terror of the Hostel was enough, I thought the single mum (abandoned by her husband) was going to have a breakdown.

Its a case of fixing people who don't want to work and stopping them breeding.

[vetran]

And some people tend to think immigrants are a problem

they are an additional problem.

Half of Pakistan, Bangladesh,Somalia & Uganda seem to live in Slough, many on benefits. many because they couldn't afford to live here otherwise.

If they do more than 16 hours work they can't afford a house. Sometimes the hatchet falls at any work at all.

not sure how forcing immigrants into subsidised accommodation or into part time jobs makes sense.

The whole thing is very complicated because we make it so.

[original PM]

key point was her attitude that she could refuse. Its not dissimilar to a comment by one of the wife's acquaintances (an underachiever who only has 5 kids by different dads), she refused a house because it hadn't been redecorated throughout.

It's the sense of entitlement.

indeed.

Should have kicked them on to the streets for a night or two...

that may teach them that they get what they are given

feckin doleite scumbags

[The Spartan]

key point was her attitude that she could refuse. Its not dissimilar to a comment by one of the wife's acquaintances (an underachiever who only has 5 kids by different dads), she refused a house because it hadn't been redecorated throughout.

It's the sense of entitlement.

And some people tend to think immigrants are a problem

[vetran]

key point was her attitude that she could refuse. Its not dissimilar to a comment by one of the wife's acquaintances (an underachiever who only has 5 kids by different dads), she refused a house because it hadn't been redecorated throughout.

It's the sense of entitlement.

[d000hg]

Yes there is. Tougher benefit laws.
If you're not working you should expect some hardship, like overcrowding, particularly if you've chosen to have so many children.

It's going to be 12+ people in a 5-bed house. Not a 12-bedroom mansion with ensuite on every room. Seems a fairly efficient way for the council to cram them in!

And looking at the garden, it seems some of the squalor is self-created.
I feel sorry for their new neighbours, who presumably will have paid for their houses.

Who says their current neighbours didn't buy their homes too? The fact this is a new-build seems irrelevant to me, it's not like new houses are more valuable than old ones. Presumably all that eco crap will, with so many people, end up saving money down the line from our pockets?

The underlying problem is real of course, but building a new house to cram them all into seems reasonable if they have to be housed in the first place... ultimately it's creating more housing.

[formant]

Yes there is. Tougher benefit laws.

It's more of a child welfare than a benefit issue. The former tends to override what would be sensible in terms of the latter. :-/

[sasguru]

Doubt there is something like a 'good' solution to this sort of thing though.

Yes there is. Tougher benefit laws.
If you're not working you should expect some hardship, like overcrowding, particularly if you've chosen to have so many children.
And looking at the garden, it seems some of the squalor is self-created.
I feel sorry for their new neighbours, who presumably will have paid for their houses.

[formant]

And each one of them would want a house and benefits of their own?!

Well, they're probably already receiving their own benefits (at least income based JSA, I'd guess).

Thing is - they'll get that house built, moving expenses paid, and within no time a few of the older kids will move out anyway (particularly those kids of their own), making the rest of the family ineligible for their massive new house.

Would make more sense if the kids were all minors.

Doubt there is something like a 'good' solution to this sort of thing though.

[SimonMac]

Yeah. Though what I don't get is why they don't move out the three over-18s. Would solve the overcrowding, and probably mean they remaining ones would fit back into just one of their existing two houses.

And each one of them would want a house and benefits of their own?!

[original PM]

indeed I will lend you a plank....