http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325

 

Only 52, love him or hate him 52 is no age to die, RIP.

There's also a council house hopefully going to be given to a deserving cause now too.

Yes, thats the crux of it.

Plus I like winding Lefties up

nice one danny g

Too many Tories on this site. Depressing reading.

Too many Tories on this site. Depressing reading.

You dont have to be a Tory to disagree with folk like Crow.

I'm not a Tory

 

In fact I was staunch Labour at the last election as I believed the Tories were scare mongering with all that bollocks about us being £6b away from being as fucked as Greece.

 

However that Bob Crow was a cunt and is all that is wrong with the extreme side of the left!!

Too many Tories on this site. Depressing reading.

 

 

Fucking drivel. Let the red rags get back in and watch the place get flushed down the pan through chronic debt and total financial mismanagement.

 

Now that would be depressing.

Too many Tories on this site. Depressing reading.

 

 

I suppose one is too many?

Bob crow had a house provided by the council he paid rent on.

 

David Cameron has houses provided by the government he does not pay rent on.

 

MPs have houses in London and claim their costs as expenses.

 Left to its own devices the free market would get unemployment in this country to under a million without breaking sweat.

 

Well that made me laugh at this hour!

 

I think you could be right, but only if servitude came fashionable and we employed an army to keep people in line who hate the thought of working for others for tuppence!

Bob crow had a house provided by the council he paid rent on.

 

David Cameron has houses provided by the government he does not pay rent on.

 

MPs have houses in London and claim their costs as expenses.

MP's are not actually from London on the whole, they live in their constituencies and work in parliament during the week. This means they are given money to rent a property in the capital. They could I suppose stay in a central London hotel at £300 a night like many company executives would do but I suppose that renting somewhere is cheaper.

 

Bob Crow however didn't need a second home for his job & he wasn't doing a public service like MP's either.

Bob crow had a house provided by the council he paid rent on.

 

David Cameron has houses provided by the government he does not pay rent on.

 

MPs have houses in London and claim their costs as expenses.

 

 

I really don't get this point of view.

 

David Cameron has to worry about big picture things like nuclear proliferation, the national economy, world affairs etc. and is on 24 hour call

 

The dead Red had only to hassle the fuck out of his members employers, often just for the sake of it. Sometimes for inflated wages, sometimes because the pie warmer didn't get them hot enough. Hardly brain taxing.

 

I fail to see any realistic comparison.

Bit underhanded to speak of the dead in such a way, whichever way you felt about him in life.

 

He supported Millwall IIRC.

 

 

He supported Millwall IIRC.

 

 

Bit underhanded to speak of the dead in such a way, whichever way you felt about him in life.

.

Whether Bob Crow should be (have been) in a council house is debatable - perhaps rents should be set according to income

 

But I'm staggered with some of the attitudes to council housing on here

 

I grew up on Little Hulton council estates and a) the majority of blokes worked, why should this mean they are not be entitled to a house FFS they were good people and a good community, council estates aren't necessarily a dumping ground/slum

 

LH has gone down the shitter in the last 25/30 years admittedly but the point is - it doesn't have to be like that, and wasn't in the past

There's working and still needing assistance which plenty folk do and there's working and earning £150k. Bit of a difference there

As a council tenant we'd be fucked without the benefits system. And the security being a Council tenant brings.

 

We still work for ourselves but without tax credits and the wife's dla (not forgetting my £50 a week Carers allowance)we'd be up shit creek without a canoe. Which is shunt get so fucked off with folk taking the piss and sitting on their backsides and doing fuck all.

There's working and still needing assistance which plenty folk do and there's working and earning £150k. Bit of a difference there

 

And there's working, not needing 'assistance', and living in a council house which loads of people still do - and was par for the course for millions in the 60s, 70s, 80s

 

My point being, some folk like you and Maggie Tate seem to think Council housing is only for the destitute. Or at least is a 'benefit'. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But when did this attitude become prevalent, because it wasn't a few years back? It was just where people lived. 

 

I think we'd be better off with much more council housing and much less of our housing stock in private, often foreign hands, personally.

Who said folk have to be Destitute? There's a happy medium you know. He was on 150k. How's that concept not been grasped on this thread?

There's less council houses these days so why should someone on a fortune live in subsidised housing? Council housing is a benefit. Noone is saying those working can't live in one.

Edited March 14, 201412 yr by no balls

Who said folk have to be Destitute? There's a happy medium you know. He was on 150k. How's that concept not been grasped on this thread?

There's less council houses these days so why should someone on a fortune live in subsidised housing?

Because he could, no rules againest it , I wouldn't do it but thats me

Who said folk have to be Destitute? There's a happy medium you know. He was on 150k. How's that concept not been grasped on this thread?

There's less council houses these days so why should someone on a fortune live in subsidised housing? Council housing is a benefit. Noone is saying those working can't live in one.

 

This

There's also a council house hopefully going to be given to a deserving cause now too.

 

Who said folk have to be Destitute? There's a happy medium you know. He was on 150k. How's that concept not been grasped on this thread?

There's less council houses these days so why should someone on a fortune live in subsidised housing? Council housing is a benefit. Noone is saying those working can't live in one.

 

You did; Destitute <-> deserving?? Why should you need to 'deserve' a local authority house if you choose to pay the rent; with or without benefits. Strangely you seem to equate standard LA housing with emergency housing, a battered wives refuge or a refugee camp!!, i.e. based on need not choice!

 

I have a private property, my choice, but have no beef with those that do not wish to own a house or to be overcharged by private landlords, not for profit housing in my mind is a good thing, whoever chooses to live in it.

 

My point being, some folk like you and Maggie Tate seem to think Council housing is only for the destitute. Or at least is a 'benefit'. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But when did this attitude become prevalent, because it wasn't a few years back? It was just where people lived. 

 

I think we'd be better off with much more council housing and much less of our housing stock in private, often foreign hands, personally.

 

Cheers, thought I was going mad for a while with some of the stuff posted on here!!

Edited March 14, 201412 yr by JimmyRiddle

You need a new dictionary

You don't have to be destitute to be deserving.

 

....and theres absolutely fook all wrong with council housing.

There is a big difference between offering subsidised social housing for hard working families on low incomes and offering free housing for those who cannot be arsed to work. This is what the issue is.

 

Wether the house is on a council estate or rented from a private landlord is irrelevant.