This Cannot Be Right

[emmie]

people who are on benefits being refused housing, this was according to the BBC News. see if i can find the story for a better overview.

[emmie]

possibly DSS?

[wolf63]

Them? Nasty place, I did 23 years and 33 days there. Then we parted company.

[EDDIE51]

WSS = Work shy scroungers ?

[wolf63]

Thanks Eddie - that fits in. I was a little bamboozled.

[Jackdaw33]

Me too. I was about to ask for an explanation till I saw your post.

[wolf63]

jd - bet you never ask for directions either.

I am building up the energy to go pick up my drugs run and then go to Tesco.

[New Judge]

“What/who is WSS ?”

Work Shy Scum

“People on benefit, ie, unemployed, disability, anyone on state benefits should not be allowed to have social housing in a capital city.”

“Wacker....that is a bonkers idea !”

It seems a perfectly sensible idea to me. There is a serious shortage of housing in many cities, not only London. Continued cries go out that essential workers cannot afford to live in them. People who do not work can live anywhere. There is no need for them to live in Central London. “Social” Housing in those areas should be reserved for essential but low-paid workers who cannot afford to live near to their work and need considerable assistance. The question to be answered is this: if there is a low-rent property available in, say, the London Borough of Camden and you have applicants for the tenancy from (a) a person who has never worked and is never likely to and (b) a nurse working at Great Ormond Street Hospital who works shifts seven days a week, who should have it?

[Jackdaw33]

As usual, NJ, the voice of sanity.

[mikey4444]

"It seems a perfectly sensible idea to me"

Nj...it sounds like social cleansing to me. And its a bonkers idea.

Shove all our unemployed out into the country and then expect them to find jobs ?

[Jackdaw33]

Social cleansing. We could do with a bit more of that.

[New Judge]

"Shove all our unemployed out into the country and then expect them to find jobs ?"

Well Mikey, if having lived in the City for a time they had been unable to secure gainful employment it is probably because they were either not trying hard enough or are unemployable. People come from across Europe and further afield and seem perfectly able to find work. In either event it seems work is not for them. Fortunately some people don't mind working and preference for scarce housing in the cities where they work should be afforded to them. As jackdaw says, it may be seen by some as "social cleansing". Personally I think it is plain common sense to enable those who want to work in cities doing essential work for relatively low pay to be given the chance to live near to where they work. Those who cannot or will not work for one reason or another can live somewhere else.

[Samjenko]

Most of them have moved to mikey's neighbourhood already.
Haven't they mikey.

[Baldric]

We have Rentals, and have one Tenant on benefits, but only very recently,since he lost his job. So far all ok, we shall see, he's putting a lot of effort into finding work.
Funnily enough all our tenants are Ex Service people and generally no problems.

[gulliver1]

Not too sure what WSS means, but when it comes to TTT , think I know what the
[ W ] means,!.

[Islay]

This has been going on for years, I lived in London for 13 years over a decade ago and it was a frequent occurance then.

[New Judge]

"Not too sure what WSS means..."

See at least two earlier posts giving an explanation.

[Mamyalynne]

We have already ascertained that many HB claimants are in work, should they too be cast out of the Capital?


The 'WSS' comments are low and needless in a sensible discussion.

[emmie]

Mamy
i too thought that, that the majority of claimants are in work, so according to some they should be shunted out of London, bloody hell, that is not right at all.

[Old_Geezer]

Anyone in full time work should be being paid enough not to need to claim (some disabilities excepted) or else the minimum wage is set too low and we are subsidising businesses who fail to pay a fair rate for a fair day's work.

[New Judge]

"We have already ascertained that many HB claimants are in work, should they too be cast out of the Capital?"

My two substantive posts refer only to people who do not work. And to elaborate further, I mean people who do not work from choice, i.e. those who can but won't because it suits either their finances or their lifestyle not to do so. There is no reason why the taxpayer should pay in one form or another to enable them to live in expensive inner-city areas. For those who do work the situation is somewhat different but nonetheless, before lavishing oodles of taxpayers' dosh enabling them top live in "affordable housing" in, say, Inner London the question should really be asked "do they really need to live there?"