Ant9x 25 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 So Bob Crowe 'should be forced to go private' In other words evct him?. Jesus christ. Think about the implications of what you write. Don't you think that's a thuggish nazi-style policy? Would you also support that inbred family of parasites in Buckingham Palace being forced from their council house? Of course not, that's unthinkable in your bigoted cap doffing, forehead knuckling world. I don't recall pretending to be morally correct. I stressed I was no angel. Any guy with my experiences and background would vomit at the thought of being a private landlord. Where would housing be without private landlords? Under the auspices of properly run, government inspected housing associations-- at a rent people could afford. Private landlords who rent their properties to people on benefit must be the biggest beneficiaries of social security of all.They charge exorbitant rents and collect it from me and you. The whole corrupt, business makes me want to spew. How about the government helping young couples with deposits for mortgages? That's a revolutionary idea! Your view is that it's ok for Mr Crowe to live in a subsided council house whilst having a gross income in excess of £220,00 a year. My view is that this property should go to someone whose is homeless and cannot afford to buy or rent in the private sector. The days of the Rachmans are long gone, and now tenants have so many rights that it is often the landlords who are taken advantage of, if it were not for private landlords ( and I am not one ) there would be a massive shortage of properties to rent, and many more properties empty. I thought that rent charges were dictated by the market, and that many local authorities tell the landlords what they are going to pay. Wondered when you would get round to the royal family, it is a fact that they bring in much much more income to Britain then they cost the state to run, and in an earlier comment you made here it would appear you rather like the idea of Mr Crowe being knighted by them. As you have said to WILF many times could you please restrict any further comments you have without insults. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Like the picture! Lol Seeing as you always try and avoid the difficult questions, let me put it another way, do you think someone who lives in a 4 bedroom house should pay more in tax ( council, income or whatever) than someone who lives in a 2 bedroom house? Simple question really? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here...the point your trying to make is not what I was suggesting. I don't know how it is in your part of the country but up here your council tax is calculated by the area in which you live. These Banded areas differ in the amount of Council tax they charge, say you lived in a caravan at one end of the street and your pal had a mansion at the other end you'd both be paying the same amount....capice! other than that I can't be arsed I'm going to my bed.....You quite good at avoiding the issues yourself Wilfy It was you that said that you thought it was disgusting that someone in a twenty room mansion pays the same council tax as someone living in a 2 / 3 bed council flat. Yip and I stand by that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paid 935 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Reading both sides of the argument here, and agreeing with bits from both sides, makes me realise why tony bliar was so successful, there must be a middle way 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waz 4,252 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Council tax is on the property, & poll tax was on the individual adult (from memory!). Services have to be paid, which one is fairest? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Why? If one person lives in that home regardless of his big the property is, then they are using no more or no less than the guy in the council flat. Tbh when I was on the tools and had to go to these big posh houses, well most hadn't a pot to piss in, rattling about in. Big freezing cold house with decor from the 80s lol then you see done council homes that wouldn't be out of place in a vougue magazine. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Just a point on 'subsidised' social housing.. It's not subsidised if you pay full rent, only if you receive housing benefit.. Housing association rents are pretty much on a par with the sensible private rents in my area, and council houses are cheaper because they only have to pay for their maintenance and don't have to make any landlords a profit.. Example.. I've got a family member in a council property, a friend in an ex council private house, a friend living in an ex council house which is now a housing association house, all in the same street. The rents are as follows.. Council: £85 per week H/A: £105 per week Private: £85 per week All are working households and all pay full rent. The private one is on a 5 year tenancy and the landlord is only charging the equivalent of the council rent because he intends to sell the house on retirement and isn't interested in exploiting a local family like most private landlords in the area.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ant9x 25 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. That don't mean it's subsidised though, that just shows the private rental sector and social housing providers have different profit margins.. The whole point of the private housing sector is to make money. The point of the social housing sector is to provide housing. Two totally different things so of course there's going to be disparity between them both.. My point was about subsidised housing though, not whether it was ethical for someone with a big wage to live in low cost housing meant for those who couldn't afford to buy their own place or rent private.. That is a different argument... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. So is saving money a crime as well now...he should just spend spend spend. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ant9x 25 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. That don't mean it's subsidised though, that just shows the private rental sector and social housing providers have different profit margins.. The whole point of the private housing sector is to make money. The point of the social housing sector is to provide housing. Two totally different things so of course there's going to be disparity between them both.. My point was about subsidised housing though, not whether it was ethical for someone with a big wage to live in low cost housing meant for those who couldn't afford to buy their own place or rent private.. That is a different argument... During a debate like this it is so easy to get off track. ( like defining words such as subsidised ) Bob Crowe has taken advantage of a loophole in the rules of the housing association which did not consider at that time an occupants income once the family had tenancy. They are now considering having short term tenancies with means tests in the future, to free up property for those in need, which is the whole point of such systems in the first place.Bob Crowe is just one example of many left wing supporters who do not practice what they preach and then have a go at the tories for being hypocrites, and I am not defending tory tax dodgers who I also despise. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. That don't mean it's subsidised though, that just shows the private rental sector and social housing providers have different profit margins.. The whole point of the private housing sector is to make money. The point of the social housing sector is to provide housing. Two totally different things so of course there's going to be disparity between them both.. My point was about subsidised housing though, not whether it was ethical for someone with a big wage to live in low cost housing meant for those who couldn't afford to buy their own place or rent private.. That is a different argument... During a debate like this it is so easy to get off track. ( like defining words such as subsidised ) Bob Crowe has taken advantage of a loophole in the rules of the housing association which did not consider at that time an occupants income once the family had tenancy. They are now considering having short term tenancies with means tests in the future, to free up property for those in need, which is the whole point of such systems in the first place.Bob Crowe is just one example of many left wing supporters who do not practice what they preach and then have a go at the tories for being hypocrites, and I am not defending tory tax dodgers who I also despise. I agree.. I come from an area that has a huge shortage of affordable housing, I know families stuck in unsuitable accommodation with little hope of moving on and families who are forced to live in substandard rented places with Rigsby like landlords who take the piss. Someone with a family income like Bob Crowe shouldn't be living in accommodation meant for people on a low income IMO.. On the whole left/right/red/blue thing - I don't particularly see myself as any of them and don't see why I should be. I agree and disagree with many things they both come out with, and I reckon this is the problem with our current political system. Red or blue it don't f*****g work either way in the long term. A whole new system of politics is needed.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stabba 10,745 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. That don't mean it's subsidised though, that just shows the private rental sector and social housing providers have different profit margins.. The whole point of the private housing sector is to make money. The point of the social housing sector is to provide housing. Two totally different things so of course there's going to be disparity between them both.. My point was about subsidised housing though, not whether it was ethical for someone with a big wage to live in low cost housing meant for those who couldn't afford to buy their own place or rent private.. That is a different argument... During a debate like this it is so easy to get off track. ( like defining words such as subsidised ) Bob Crowe has taken advantage of a loophole in the rules of the housing association which did not consider at that time an occupants income once the family had tenancy. They are now considering having short term tenancies with means tests in the future, to free up property for those in need, which is the whole point of such systems in the first place.Bob Crowe is just one example of many left wing supporters who do not practice what they preach and then have a go at the tories for being hypocrites, and I am not defending tory tax dodgers who I also despise. I agree.. I come from an area that has a huge shortage of affordable housing, I know families stuck in unsuitable accommodation with little hope of moving on and families who are forced to live in substandard rented places with Rigsby like landlords who take the piss. Someone with a family income like Bob Crowe shouldn't be living in accommodation meant for people on a low income IMO.. On the whole left/right/red/blue thing - I don't particularly see myself as any of them and don't see why I should be. I agree and disagree with many things they both come out with, and I reckon this is the problem with our current political system. Red or blue it don't f*****g work either way in the long term. A whole new system of politics is needed.. Good God miss Jones :laugh: 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ant9x 25 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 According to metro.co.uk. April 2011 Mr Crowe was at that stage paying £150.0 per week rent, whilst in the private sector it would of been £300 a week. Having been there for ten years he saved an estimated £78,000 on renting cost. That don't mean it's subsidised though, that just shows the private rental sector and social housing providers have different profit margins.. The whole point of the private housing sector is to make money. The point of the social housing sector is to provide housing. Two totally different things so of course there's going to be disparity between them both.. My point was about subsidised housing though, not whether it was ethical for someone with a big wage to live in low cost housing meant for those who couldn't afford to buy their own place or rent private.. That is a different argument... During a debate like this it is so easy to get off track. ( like defining words such as subsidised ) Bob Crowe has taken advantage of a loophole in the rules of the housing association which did not consider at that time an occupants income once the family had tenancy. They are now considering having short term tenancies with means tests in the future, to free up property for those in need, which is the whole point of such systems in the first place.Bob Crowe is just one example of many left wing supporters who do not practice what they preach and then have a go at the tories for being hypocrites, and I am not defending tory tax dodgers who I also despise. I agree.. I come from an area that has a huge shortage of affordable housing, I know families stuck in unsuitable accommodation with little hope of moving on and families who are forced to live in substandard rented places with Rigsby like landlords who take the piss. Someone with a family income like Bob Crowe shouldn't be living in accommodation meant for people on a low income IMO.. On the whole left/right/red/blue thing - I don't particularly see myself as any of them and don't see why I should be. I agree and disagree with many things they both come out with, and I reckon this is the problem with our current political system. Red or blue it don't f*****g work either way in the long term. A whole new system of politics is needed.. Good God miss Jones :laugh: Wrong site. I wonder what he has said on the sex site thread ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 To keep it simple, without personal attacks and without changing the subject, are you able too. 1) Defend the Bob Crowe's earnings of about £124,000 a year, and whose partner earns about £,000 whilst living in a council house ? 2) Defend your view of council tax being related to the size of your house ? I have no issue with what anyone earns or where they live as long as they pay their way... Why is living in council house an issue? My point being Mr Crowe who leads the RMT Union, and whom is very left wing, supporting various equal rights for all, gets a more equal wage then his members, I thought about £124,000 a year, but now having looked at Wikipedia it appears he's on over £140,000 a year, and his partner earns at least £,000 a year. I feel he should vacate his council property to a family who cannot afford to go into the private sector. I thought left wing views supported housing associations in supplying people who were unable to do otherwise with a house. Do you feel it's right for a couple whose gross income is some £220,00 a year to live in subsidised housing, whilst preaching equal living standards to others ? Do you feel it's right for a couple whose gross income is some £220,00 a year to live in subsidised housing, whilst preaching equal living standards to others Like the MPs expenses scandal.? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bezza Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) So Bob Crowe 'should be forced to go private' In other words evct him?. Jesus christ. Think about the implications of what you write. Don't you think that's a thuggish nazi-style policy? Would you also support that inbred family of parasites in Buckingham Palace being forced from their council house? Of course not, that's unthinkable in your bigoted cap doffing, forehead knuckling world. I don't recall pretending to be morally correct. I stressed I was no angel. Any guy with my experiences and background would vomit at the thought of being a private landlord. Where would housing be without private landlords? Under the auspices of properly run, government inspected housing associations-- at a rent people could afford. Private landlords who rent their properties to people on benefit must be the biggest beneficiaries of social security of all.They charge exorbitant rents and collect it from me and you. The whole corrupt, business makes me want to spew. How about the government helping young couples with deposits for mortgages? That's a revolutionary idea! Your view is that it's ok for Mr Crowe to live in a subsided council house whilst having a gross income in excess of £220,00 a year. My view is that this property should go to someone whose is homeless and cannot afford to buy or rent in the private sector. The days of the Rachmans are long gone, and now tenants have so many rights that it is often the landlords who are taken advantage of, if it were not for private landlords ( and I am not one ) there would be a massive shortage of properties to rent, and many more properties empty. I thought that rent charges were dictated by the market, and that many local authorities tell the landlords what they are going to pay. Wondered when you would get round to the royal family, it is a fact that they bring in much much more income to Britain then they cost the state to run, and in an earlier comment you made here it would appear you rather like the idea of Mr Crowe being knighted by them. As you have said to WILF many times could you please restrict any further comments you have without insults. http://www.guardian....ivate-landlords There are a growing number of Rachman landlords. STOP PRESS: Wilf and I agree that the greatest obscenity is poverty. However we still have a little way to go on how to tackle it. Ant9x, I think you started the insult ball rolling by calling me 'morally correct' when I was at pains to point out I was not adopting that particular stance. You also accused me of 'hero worship' which I found insulting. Edited October 24, 2012 by bezza Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.