Protesters’ fury over bedroom tax (From Dorset Echo)

Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances.
Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

I'm annoyed that they even have a choice to stay in a house that is bigger than they need! It should be mandatory that if someone in social housing has a change of circumstances that means they no longer require a size of property then they should be moved to a property that then suits there need. You see all the time stories of family's living in B&B accommodation because nothing suitable is available, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SELFISH PEOPLE! Even more annoying they have the audacity and enough free time to moan and protest about it, what ever happened to don't bite the hand that feeds!

Whilst Isosceles is quite correct in what he says, there is a difference. Those who wish to down-size from their own property (owned or mortgaged) usually have a choice in where they go. I understand that if those in council or housing association homes have to move, they have little choice as to where they go and have to take whatever's on offer. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Seriously, these people need to realise when they have it good! The rent you've posted here equals roughly £380 a month for a 2 bed and unber £410 a month for a 3 bed. Try getting that privately. I have a one bed place, 3 rooms total, and it costs £495 a month, before all my bills. My partner is ill and yet we do not get any housing or council tax benefit at all because i work. I'd bet with all the benefits generally being had by many complainers here they end up with a great deal more than us. Stop bloody wingeing. You want that bedroom? Then pay for it.

Isn't it just as well these folk didn't have anything pesky like having to go to work getting in the way of their protesting?

This story indicates how messed up this country is.

We pander to these people rather than telling them that if they don't like it, go get a job and not live on state handouts.

Isosceles 2 wrote:
Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances.
Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

Phone up the housing association and ask them how many vacant one bedroom properties they have..I will save you the time as obviously you are not one for checking the facts before shooting your mouth off...Zero that is how many, why should somebody who has lived in their home for 20+ years be forced to move to balance the governments payments to the millionaires and big companies?

niceonecyril
I never mentioned or implied one bedroom properties - why did you?

Islandjim wrote:
I'm annoyed that they even have a choice to stay in a house that is bigger than they need! It should be mandatory that if someone in social housing has a change of circumstances that means they no longer require a size of property then they should be moved to a property that then suits there need. You see all the time stories of family's living in B&B accommodation because nothing suitable is available, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SELFISH PEOPLE! Even more annoying they have the audacity and enough free time to moan and protest about it, what ever happened to don't bite the hand that feeds!

Another idiot who can't see the trees for the forest, how many people are going to lose their homes because of this tax? where will they end up? correct numb nuts, in B&B accommodation which costs five times more per week than what it does to pay their rent! Go figure. So they replace a couple in a two bedroom property with a couple and one dependent from B&B accommodation, then a week later that dependent joins the army, do they then have to move out, wake up and smell the coffee.

Wellbalanced wrote:
Whilst Isosceles is quite correct in what he says, there is a difference. Those who wish to down-size from their own property (owned or mortgaged) usually have a choice in where they go. I understand that if those in council or housing association homes have to move, they have little choice as to where they go and have to take whatever's on offer. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

You are correct assuming there are suitable bedroomed properties in the first place, people on here seem to think the housing company have a stockpile of properties to downsize too, which they obviously don't.

ino69 wrote:
Isn't it just as well these folk didn't have anything pesky like having to go to work getting in the way of their protesting?

Who said they don't go to work? don't let facts get in the way of your stupidity, you CAN be working and still be receiving housing benefit, jeeze is Weymouth full of morons !

This is political genius. Classic divide and rule. The ruling elite getting the middle classes to turn on the poorest in society while they continue largely unaffected. Remember folks, we're all in this together. Now might be a good time to revisit the definition of false consciousness

niceonecyril wrote:

ino69 wrote: Isn't it just as well these folk didn't have anything pesky like having to go to work getting in the way of their protesting?

Who said they don't go to work? don't let facts get in the way of your stupidity, you CAN be working and still be receiving housing benefit, jeeze is Weymouth full of morons !

You CAN be working. But do me a quick poll and let me know how many of these people are? If they were, they wouldn't need to winge so much about paying for a room they have. Why do people think they are entitled to free things at the expense of others? Money is NOT being taken from these people, they are simply being given less for free.
No need to resort to insulting me, we're all entitled to opinions and naturally, the people paying their own money they earn themselves are likely to be annoyed at others getting cheap rent and free money. Logic i think!

Leftrealist wrote:
This is political genius. Classic divide and rule. The ruling elite getting the middle classes to turn on the poorest in society while they continue largely unaffected. Remember folks, we're all in this together. Now might be a good time to revisit the definition of false consciousness

Now might also be the time to revisit the use of the words "left" and "realist" in your choice of name.

Let's not forget (as the left is quite keen for us to do) that we are in this mess not because of the rich but because of the left (profligate public spending and failure to regulate banks).

niceonecyril wrote:

Islandjim wrote:
I'm annoyed that they even have a choice to stay in a house that is bigger than they need! It should be mandatory that if someone in social housing has a change of circumstances that means they no longer require a size of property then they should be moved to a property that then suits there need. You see all the time stories of family's living in B&B accommodation because nothing suitable is available, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SELFISH PEOPLE! Even more annoying they have the audacity and enough free time to moan and protest about it, what ever happened to don't bite the hand that feeds!

Another idiot who can't see the trees for the forest, how many people are going to lose their homes because of this tax? where will they end up? correct numb nuts, in B&B accommodation which costs five times more per week than what it does to pay their rent! Go figure. So they replace a couple in a two bedroom property with a couple and one dependent from B&B accommodation, then a week later that dependent joins the army, do they then have to move out, wake up and smell the coffee.

It's not a tax. Nobody has to move out.

Let's dissect the hype with the help of http://www.turn2us.o
rg.uk, which is a great tool for working out your entitlements.

A couple with no children, working full time for the minimum wage, (around £206 each a week after tax) do not qualify for any housing benefit and will not be affected.

A couple with 2 children working full time for the minimum wage will likewise not receive housing benefit and will not be affected.

A couple with 2 children with only one working parent on the minimum wage will be affected. But their total income including credits and housing benefit, AFTER tax, is still £1400 per month, which most people would manage to live on (of this, only £160 is housing benefit anyway).

Disabled people are unlikely to be affected, where their disability means they need extra room.

So who, exactly, does this affect?

Pensioners - but you'd need to look at their personal circumstances to see whether or not the change is affordable.

People who don't work full time (solution: work more hours)

People who don't work at all
(solution: work !)

So with the possible exception of pensioners, nobody HAS to move.

It's a shame the Echo can't do a more balanced piece.

niceonecyril wrote:

Isosceles 2 wrote:
Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances.
Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

Phone up the housing association and ask them how many vacant one bedroom properties they have..I will save you the time as obviously you are not one for checking the facts before shooting your mouth off...Zero that is how many, why should somebody who has lived in their home for 20+ years be forced to move to balance the governments payments to the millionaires and big companies?

That's a bit of a silly argument.

There may be no one (or two) bed homes available.

But they will become available since people in those homes have an entitlement to a larger one.

If anything, your argument that there are no smaller homes available justifies the governments position - that it needs to free up larger homes to cope with the overwhelming demand from young families.

JamesYoung wrote:

niceonecyril wrote:

Islandjim wrote: I'm annoyed that they even have a choice to stay in a house that is bigger than they need! It should be mandatory that if someone in social housing has a change of circumstances that means they no longer require a size of property then they should be moved to a property that then suits there need. You see all the time stories of family's living in B&B accommodation because nothing suitable is available, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SELFISH PEOPLE! Even more annoying they have the audacity and enough free time to moan and protest about it, what ever happened to don't bite the hand that feeds!

Another idiot who can't see the trees for the forest, how many people are going to lose their homes because of this tax? where will they end up? correct numb nuts, in B&B accommodation which costs five times more per week than what it does to pay their rent! Go figure. So they replace a couple in a two bedroom property with a couple and one dependent from B&B accommodation, then a week later that dependent joins the army, do they then have to move out, wake up and smell the coffee.

It's not a tax. Nobody has to move out. Let's dissect the hype with the help of http://www.turn2us.o rg.uk, which is a great tool for working out your entitlements. A couple with no children, working full time for the minimum wage, (around £206 each a week after tax) do not qualify for any housing benefit and will not be affected. A couple with 2 children working full time for the minimum wage will likewise not receive housing benefit and will not be affected. A couple with 2 children with only one working parent on the minimum wage will be affected. But their total income including credits and housing benefit, AFTER tax, is still £1400 per month, which most people would manage to live on (of this, only £160 is housing benefit anyway). Disabled people are unlikely to be affected, where their disability means they need extra room. So who, exactly, does this affect? Pensioners - but you'd need to look at their personal circumstances to see whether or not the change is affordable. People who don't work full time (solution: work more hours) People who don't work at all (solution: work !) So with the possible exception of pensioners, nobody HAS to move. It's a shame the Echo can't do a more balanced piece.

Correction, in the above, the couple with two children have income of £1400 after tax ... AND rent.

ino69 wrote:
Seriously, these people need to realise when they have it good! The rent you've posted here equals roughly £380 a month for a 2 bed and unber £410 a month for a 3 bed. Try getting that privately. I have a one bed place, 3 rooms total, and it costs £495 a month, before all my bills. My partner is ill and yet we do not get any housing or council tax benefit at all because i work. I'd bet with all the benefits generally being had by many complainers here they end up with a great deal more than us. Stop bloody wingeing. You want that bedroom? Then pay for it.

Where on earth did you get those fantasy figures from ?
If your partner is not working, and you only have your own income coming in, she could claim for her half of the rent & council tax, unless your income is above the limit. So if you are not getting any benefit you must be on a good wage, so stop wingding.

ino69 wrote:

niceonecyril wrote:

ino69 wrote: Isn't it just as well these folk didn't have anything pesky like having to go to work getting in the way of their protesting?

Who said they don't go to work? don't let facts get in the way of your stupidity, you CAN be working and still be receiving housing benefit, jeeze is Weymouth full of morons !

You CAN be working. But do me a quick poll and let me know how many of these people are? If they were, they wouldn't need to winge so much about paying for a room they have. Why do people think they are entitled to free things at the expense of others? Money is NOT being taken from these people, they are simply being given less for free.
No need to resort to insulting me, we're all entitled to opinions and naturally, the people paying their own money they earn themselves are likely to be annoyed at others getting cheap rent and free money. Logic i think!

But You slag off other people for voicing Their opinions, lol. Teapot and kettle. I think.

correction to above comments
pensioners are not affected by the bed room tax
if families cant find work and are told they dont 'need' 3bedrooms as their teenagers are the same sex...but they cant afford to pay the tax... where will they get re-housed to?

greenglasses wrote:
correction to above comments
pensioners are not affected by the bed room tax
if families cant find work and are told they dont 'need' 3bedrooms as their teenagers are the same sex...but they cant afford to pay the tax... where will they get re-housed to?

I hadn't realised pensioners were exempt so thanks for clarifying. Good in one sense - unfair to displace people in their dotage - bad in another - this is the group that is hoarding all the space.

I repeat, this is NOT a tax, it is a reduction in money that you are receiving as a subsidy from other hard working tax payers.

For those that cannot accept this reduction they can ask the HA to rehouse them in a smaller house. I am sure there will be plenty of families who would be happy to swap. There are plenty of people looking for bigger houses in the council house exchange websites.

I've just looked at the Homeswapper website. Within a 5 mile radius of the centre of town:

There are 76 1 bedroom homes
There are 228 2 bedroom homes
There are 167 3 bedroom homes

Some of these are adapted, some will be people just wanting to move area rather than size. However, the sheer number of homes advertised does not imply a supply problem.

I'mavoter wrote:

ino69 wrote: Seriously, these people need to realise when they have it good! The rent you've posted here equals roughly £380 a month for a 2 bed and unber £410 a month for a 3 bed. Try getting that privately. I have a one bed place, 3 rooms total, and it costs £495 a month, before all my bills. My partner is ill and yet we do not get any housing or council tax benefit at all because i work. I'd bet with all the benefits generally being had by many complainers here they end up with a great deal more than us. Stop bloody wingeing. You want that bedroom? Then pay for it.

Where on earth did you get those fantasy figures from ? If your partner is not working, and you only have your own income coming in, she could claim for her half of the rent & council tax, unless your income is above the limit. So if you are not getting any benefit you must be on a good wage, so stop wingding.

Er...I got these 'fantasy figures' from the above article!
I was not complaining about us not getting the benefits, just stating the facts. My partner is not working due to illness and he (nice assumption there by the way) will be getting a job again as soon as he is well enough to do so. My wage is ok, enough to get us by just about, so we do not expect others to pay for us. Why do others?

niceonecyril wrote:

Isosceles 2 wrote:
Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances.
Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

Phone up the housing association and ask them how many vacant one bedroom properties they have..I will save you the time as obviously you are not one for checking the facts before shooting your mouth off...Zero that is how many, why should somebody who has lived in their home for 20+ years be forced to move to balance the governments payments to the millionaires and big companies?

Oh yes Cyril, let's check the facts, good idea!! http://www.dorsethom
echoice.org/dorset-h
omechoice/PdfFiles/P
ublicFreesheet_WDDC.
pdf

http://www.dorsethom
echoice.org/dorset-h
omechoice/PdfFiles/P
ublicFreesheet_WPBC.
pdf

You really need to reign in your 'shooting your mouth off' and 'idiot' comments, you're going to make yourself look silly ;-)

Will this affect Travellers if they have more beds than people in their caravans? And what about the denizens of Littlemoor? They wouldn't have any spare beds as they are usually asleep in them during the hours of daylight. Incidentally, all the people in the photo seem to be dressed like refugees, is this a coincidence or is this a prerequisite for being on the welfare handout bandwagon?

I'm all for bedroom tax to a certain extent. I'm stuck in a 1 bed flat with my 4 year old son and my husband. I'm currently pregnant with my second and my husbands 1st child. We are originally from weymouth Dorset. But live in Portsmouth. People up hear have been told to exchange. We can't do that due to a leak in our flat since the 23rd of December and still ongoing which therefore no1 is interested in our place. We r on housing register to get a move back down due to having no family up ere and needing support from family. However I feel sorry for my mum mate he in a 2 bed place and on list for a smaller place as it just him. Council ment to be helping to get a 1 bed for him but if they dnt do it in time then he will have to pay the bedroom tax. The government should of thought about certain situations. Like people actually looking. I have noticed tho that on homeswapper in Portsmouth people looking to exchange are being rather fussy aka they need a garden for the dog, or not the right area, or they want gf ect. Somebody up this way that I no is an alcoholic she in a 2 bed house it's well lush nice big garden big kitchen, it's lovely we offered to swap with her and she messed us around so many times she on her own. She thinks she can afford the bedroom tax n yet she is always borrowing money from others as it is. So really dnt understand how personally she will be able to afford it. She only wants to stay there because she got her Dalmatian dog so she can just let him in the garden. People like that r selfish n ignorant like that because a family more suited to that house with children would be right for it.

Islandjim wrote:
I'm annoyed that they even have a choice to stay in a house that is bigger than they need! It should be mandatory that if someone in social housing has a change of circumstances that means they no longer require a size of property then they should be moved to a property that then suits there need. You see all the time stories of family's living in B&B accommodation because nothing suitable is available, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THESE SELFISH PEOPLE! Even more annoying they have the audacity and enough free time to moan and protest about it, what ever happened to don't bite the hand that feeds!

THAT HAND THAT FEED THEM IS NOW STEELING IT BACK, IF ONE NEEDS £71 AWEEK TO LIVE ON WHY TAKE 14% OR 25% OFF THERE BENEFITS. IS THIS NOT AN UNJUST MOVE BY THE TORIES/LIB-DEMS TO CREATE THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO WANT TO DOWNSIZE BUT AS IT IS ALOVER THERE IS KNOW WERE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

niceonecyril wrote:

Isosceles 2 wrote: Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances. Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

Phone up the housing association and ask them how many vacant one bedroom properties they have..I will save you the time as obviously you are not one for checking the facts before shooting your mouth off...Zero that is how many, why should somebody who has lived in their home for 20+ years be forced to move to balance the governments payments to the millionaires and big companies?

VERY WELL SAID THESE PEOPLE HAVN'T A CLEW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE SHOUTING YOUR MOUTHS OFF.

JamesYoung wrote:

greenglasses wrote: correction to above comments pensioners are not affected by the bed room tax if families cant find work and are told they dont 'need' 3bedrooms as their teenagers are the same sex...but they cant afford to pay the tax... where will they get re-housed to?

I hadn't realised pensioners were exempt so thanks for clarifying. Good in one sense - unfair to displace people in their dotage - bad in another - this is the group that is hoarding all the space. I repeat, this is NOT a tax, it is a reduction in money that you are receiving as a subsidy from other hard working tax payers. For those that cannot accept this reduction they can ask the HA to rehouse them in a smaller house. I am sure there will be plenty of families who would be happy to swap. There are plenty of people looking for bigger houses in the council house exchange websites.

MIGHT I JUST ADD THAT ONLY 3% OF TAX PAYERS MONEY GO'S ON THE UNEMPLOYED, PLEASE LOOK THIS UP TOO. PLEASE ALSO DON'T FORGET THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD VERY VERY EXPENSIVE ADAPTIONS TOO. THERES A LADY IN A 3 BED HOME WITH A BROKEN BACK NOW SHE HAS 3 BEDROOMS SHE DON'T USE AS SHE LOST HER HUSBAND A FEW MONTHS AGO, HER SONS HAVE MOVED OUT TOO, NOW SHE HAS HAD A £50,000 BEDROOM AND WALK IN SHOWER ADDED TO THE SIDE OF HER HOME AS SHE IS UNABLE TO GO UP-STAIRS, SHE HAS 2 LADIES COME EVERY DAY TO HELP WITH HER NEEDS ETC. NOW SHE HAS TO PAY 25% HOUSING BENEFIT OF £27.25 FROM HER £109 HOUSING BENEFIT LEAVING HER WITH £43.75 AWEEK TO LIVE ON FROM HER £71 ALLOWENCE AWEEK, SHE HAS TO PAY THE 2 LADIES OUT OF HER OWN MONEY £30 THATS £15 TO EACH ONE THAT LEAVES HER WITH £13.75 TO LIVE ON NOW. SHE NOW HAS TO DECIDE FOOD OR GAS, FOOD OR ELECTICITY, OR GAS AND ELECTICITY, OR STAY DIRTY UNWASHED COLD NO LIGHTS ETC OR FOOD TO SERVIVE. PLEASE ELABERATE AND TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD SERVIVE. SEE GUYS YOU ALL MAKE YOUR MOUTHS GO BUT NONE OF YOU REALISE JUST HOW BAD THIS IS AFECTING PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD DO YOU, SO COME ON JUST THINK BEFORE YOU CALL EVERYONE.

mickmackay wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

greenglasses wrote: correction to above comments pensioners are not affected by the bed room tax if families cant find work and are told they dont 'need' 3bedrooms as their teenagers are the same sex...but they cant afford to pay the tax... where will they get re-housed to?

I hadn't realised pensioners were exempt so thanks for clarifying. Good in one sense - unfair to displace people in their dotage - bad in another - this is the group that is hoarding all the space. I repeat, this is NOT a tax, it is a reduction in money that you are receiving as a subsidy from other hard working tax payers. For those that cannot accept this reduction they can ask the HA to rehouse them in a smaller house. I am sure there will be plenty of families who would be happy to swap. There are plenty of people looking for bigger houses in the council house exchange websites.

MIGHT I JUST ADD THAT ONLY 3% OF TAX PAYERS MONEY GO'S ON THE UNEMPLOYED, PLEASE LOOK THIS UP TOO. PLEASE ALSO DON'T FORGET THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD VERY VERY EXPENSIVE ADAPTIONS TOO. THERES A LADY IN A 3 BED HOME WITH A BROKEN BACK NOW SHE HAS 3 BEDROOMS SHE DON'T USE AS SHE LOST HER HUSBAND A FEW MONTHS AGO, HER SONS HAVE MOVED OUT TOO, NOW SHE HAS HAD A £50,000 BEDROOM AND WALK IN SHOWER ADDED TO THE SIDE OF HER HOME AS SHE IS UNABLE TO GO UP-STAIRS, SHE HAS 2 LADIES COME EVERY DAY TO HELP WITH HER NEEDS ETC. NOW SHE HAS TO PAY 25% HOUSING BENEFIT OF £27.25 FROM HER £109 HOUSING BENEFIT LEAVING HER WITH £43.75 AWEEK TO LIVE ON FROM HER £71 ALLOWENCE AWEEK, SHE HAS TO PAY THE 2 LADIES OUT OF HER OWN MONEY £30 THATS £15 TO EACH ONE THAT LEAVES HER WITH £13.75 TO LIVE ON NOW. SHE NOW HAS TO DECIDE FOOD OR GAS, FOOD OR ELECTICITY, OR GAS AND ELECTICITY, OR STAY DIRTY UNWASHED COLD NO LIGHTS ETC OR FOOD TO SERVIVE. PLEASE ELABERATE AND TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD SERVIVE. SEE GUYS YOU ALL MAKE YOUR MOUTHS GO BUT NONE OF YOU REALISE JUST HOW BAD THIS IS AFECTING PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD DO YOU, SO COME ON JUST THINK BEFORE YOU CALL EVERYONE.

Would you mind typing that again without the capitals?
There may well be a few people who end up in dire straits, but most people will not.
While you are "making your mouth go" YOU might also wish to remember that the reason this friend of yours is living in this situation is because everytime the government tries to crack down on wastage, people such as you try to prevent it from happening. If the 3% was reduced to 2%, how much more money would be available to people like your friend, hmmm?

mickmackay wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

greenglasses wrote: correction to above comments pensioners are not affected by the bed room tax if families cant find work and are told they dont 'need' 3bedrooms as their teenagers are the same sex...but they cant afford to pay the tax... where will they get re-housed to?

I hadn't realised pensioners were exempt so thanks for clarifying. Good in one sense - unfair to displace people in their dotage - bad in another - this is the group that is hoarding all the space. I repeat, this is NOT a tax, it is a reduction in money that you are receiving as a subsidy from other hard working tax payers. For those that cannot accept this reduction they can ask the HA to rehouse them in a smaller house. I am sure there will be plenty of families who would be happy to swap. There are plenty of people looking for bigger houses in the council house exchange websites.

MIGHT I JUST ADD THAT ONLY 3% OF TAX PAYERS MONEY GO'S ON THE UNEMPLOYED, PLEASE LOOK THIS UP TOO. PLEASE ALSO DON'T FORGET THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD VERY VERY EXPENSIVE ADAPTIONS TOO. THERES A LADY IN A 3 BED HOME WITH A BROKEN BACK NOW SHE HAS 3 BEDROOMS SHE DON'T USE AS SHE LOST HER HUSBAND A FEW MONTHS AGO, HER SONS HAVE MOVED OUT TOO, NOW SHE HAS HAD A £50,000 BEDROOM AND WALK IN SHOWER ADDED TO THE SIDE OF HER HOME AS SHE IS UNABLE TO GO UP-STAIRS, SHE HAS 2 LADIES COME EVERY DAY TO HELP WITH HER NEEDS ETC. NOW SHE HAS TO PAY 25% HOUSING BENEFIT OF £27.25 FROM HER £109 HOUSING BENEFIT LEAVING HER WITH £43.75 AWEEK TO LIVE ON FROM HER £71 ALLOWENCE AWEEK, SHE HAS TO PAY THE 2 LADIES OUT OF HER OWN MONEY £30 THATS £15 TO EACH ONE THAT LEAVES HER WITH £13.75 TO LIVE ON NOW. SHE NOW HAS TO DECIDE FOOD OR GAS, FOOD OR ELECTICITY, OR GAS AND ELECTICITY, OR STAY DIRTY UNWASHED COLD NO LIGHTS ETC OR FOOD TO SERVIVE. PLEASE ELABERATE AND TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD SERVIVE. SEE GUYS YOU ALL MAKE YOUR MOUTHS GO BUT NONE OF YOU REALISE JUST HOW BAD THIS IS AFECTING PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD DO YOU, SO COME ON JUST THINK BEFORE YOU CALL EVERYONE.

I gather by the eloquent & subtle use of uppercase you are the product of liebour's wonderful comprehensive education system??

cj07589 says...
8:33am Sun 24 Mar 13
"I gather by the eloquent & subtle use of uppercase you are the product of liebour's wonderful comprehensive education system??"

Well, I can beat that - I'm the product of a broken home and comprehensive education.
There's no excuse for posts that bad!

mickmackay wrote:

niceonecyril wrote:

Isosceles 2 wrote: Those who own or rent private property often have to down-size in straitened or changed circumstances. Why should there be a difference for those in council or housing association homes?

Phone up the housing association and ask them how many vacant one bedroom properties they have..I will save you the time as obviously you are not one for checking the facts before shooting your mouth off...Zero that is how many, why should somebody who has lived in their home for 20+ years be forced to move to balance the governments payments to the millionaires and big companies?

VERY WELL SAID THESE PEOPLE HAVN'T A CLEW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE SHOUTING YOUR MOUTHS OFF.

Oi, thick Mick!

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE SHOUTING YOUR MOUTH OFF!

http://www.dorsethom

echoice.org/dorset-h

omechoice/PdfFiles/P

ublicFreesheet_WDDC.

pdf

http://www.dorsethom

echoice.org/dorset-h

omechoice/PdfFiles/P

ublicFreesheet_WPBC.

pdf

I posted this previously, I see Cyril hasn't returned to explain why his statements that there are NO vacant small properties are so wildly inaccurate.

Madness though to see that people post here AFTER the facts have been provided, still saying others have NO CLEW (sic)!

There are two sides to this story, just as there are always two sides to any story. I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who will be hardest hit by the bedroom tax. Imagine if you`ve occupied the same property for years and then you`re told that potentially you could have a complete stranger moving into your spare room or face the fine. Not fair and one would argue that this would make you feel vulnerable and also remind you that you`re home is not your own home.

On the other hand the country is in this mess due to the dear labour party who left it that way when the reins were handed to the Tories (who now have to clear the mess up). There are no answers and we are all going to have to pull together to make it work for our future generations.

If you are in a property that is too big for you...........try and look at it another way. You could be helping out another family who have been stuck in b and b for months and would love the opportunity to have a bigger space in which to live.

I don`t expect the labour followers to appreciate my comment.......of course intellect comes in all forms and sizes.

Just hope all these spiteful people on here who comment from their emotions (jealous nasty ones at that) rather than logic - took as much time critisising those who kicked off over the mansion tax. Then again probably not that would require self thinking instead of just spewing out mainstream media views. Then again the whole lack of social housing mess boils down to one person and her party - yet morons in the south still vote for them - be angry about the state of the country but dont blame people in social housing - blame the tories and their love of capitalism. Can't imagine all the ignorant people on here will be arguing against themselves not being treated by NHS when in agony and pain - or will protest be ok by then??

@osmington4 "If you are in a property that is too big for you...........try and look at it another way. You could be helping out another family who have been stuck in b and b for months and would love the opportunity to have a bigger space in which to live." please please tell that to those with second homes, mansions and of course those at the palace. PS think we are all aware the economy was on the mend when labour left office and the only way the tories have cut the deficit is by increasing the national debt and human misery. They will never sort the country out simply being because they dont care they are there to protect big business not the people of this country and openly admit so - so not sure how you formed your opinion expressed in rest of post.

Idc.......

But that`s just exactly it Idc..."it`s just one persons opinion".

Vote Tory.

Chav_Scum wrote:
cj07589 says...
8:33am Sun 24 Mar 13
"I gather by the eloquent & subtle use of uppercase you are the product of liebour's wonderful comprehensive education system??"

Well, I can beat that - I'm the product of a broken home and comprehensive education.
There's no excuse for posts that bad!

Would you like an Asbo badge of honour with that as well? I deduct enough from the clearly intended defamatory name tag, thanks. The saline point of the earlier post, being the inappropriate application of the written language representational of the prevailing mediocre education system. Why you've brought your colourful background into the discussion is quite frankly rather puzzling.

ldc wrote:
@osmington4 "If you are in a property that is too big for you...........try and look at it another way. You could be helping out another family who have been stuck in b and b for months and would love the opportunity to have a bigger space in which to live." please please tell that to those with second homes, mansions and of course those at the palace. PS think we are all aware the economy was on the mend when labour left office and the only way the tories have cut the deficit is by increasing the national debt and human misery. They will never sort the country out simply being because they dont care they are there to protect big business not the people of this country and openly admit so - so not sure how you formed your opinion expressed in rest of post.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce a Labour voter. Completely and utterly devoted to the same idiots that ruined the economy, and now claiming that the country was somehow "on the mend" when Labour left government. Oblivious to the fact that Browns meddling was a major factor behind British banks exposure to debt, that a credible argument can be made that Brown was also a factor in causing the banking crisis globally*, certainly presided over the biggest house price bubble ever seen in this country, which he actively encouraged by meddling with monetary policy to keep interest rates down to encourage householders to buy bigger, or, even better withdraw equity to spend, spend, spend, which created economic growth and earned him more in tax to buy votes. Oblivious also to the fact that Brown bankrupted the NHS and education systems with "buy now, pay under the Tories" PFI schemes to win votes. Oblivious to mass social engineering (when you have a falling birth rate and an aging population and you want to keep house prices up, you have to have immigration).
*In the late 1990s, Brown started meddling with financial services legislation to make it easier for banks to use depositors money in risky investments. US banks started talking about headquartering in London, prompting Clinton to repeal sections 20 and 21 of the Glass Steagal Act, which had protected American savers since the Great Depression. The scene was thus set.
The Tories have a lot to answer for, but anybody who can seriously claim that things were magically getting better and we just needed the lunatics
In charge for a while longer should not only not be allowed to vote, he should be forced to do some adult numeracy classes.

cj07589 wrote:

Chav_Scum wrote:
cj07589 says...
8:33am Sun 24 Mar 13
"I gather by the eloquent & subtle use of uppercase you are the product of liebour's wonderful comprehensive education system??"

Well, I can beat that - I'm the product of a broken home and comprehensive education.
There's no excuse for posts that bad!

Would you like an Asbo badge of honour with that as well? I deduct enough from the clearly intended defamatory name tag, thanks. The saline point of the earlier post, being the inappropriate application of the written language representational of the prevailing mediocre education system. Why you've brought your colourful background into the discussion is quite frankly rather puzzling.

I was aware of the salient (not salty!) point, but thanks for the clarification - it may have been needed by some ill educated 'liebour' types .
I'd have thought my comment a blatantly sarcastic swipe at the culture of excuses v 'entitlement', very much in line with the theme of the article and the flavour of the previous comments.
Sorry to have puzzled you. I will endeavour to put more detail in future posts. What a shower we echo contributors are eh?! Can't spell, can't punctuate, can't read in context... ;-)