Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pensioner arrested on suspicion of murder after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death.

happie chappie said:
Let's turn it on its head. Give me a convincing case why they should receive benefits.

In fact, they've got a fucking cheek claiming them in the first place.

Why should they have a subsidised housing association dwelling?
Click to expand...
Firstly, I don't know whether they are on benefits or not anyway. Secondly, I don't really give a fuck what happens to them regardless. But really, have we got to a point where you have to justify why someone might get benefits/social housing. They should get them depending on their circumstances, like everyone else. As to losing the housing, it's a case of what the tenancy agreement includes for ASB, it's a case of whether they have harassed their neighbours. If that process leads to them getting kicked out, I'm not particularly fussed. But I'm not joining in 'evict them, cut their benefits' calls that are pure knee jerk.
 
Wilf said:
Firstly, I don't know whether they are on benefits or not anyway. Secondly, I don't really give a fuck what happens to them regardless. But really, have we got to a point where you have to justify why someone might get benefits/social housing. They should get them depending on their circumstances, like everyone else. As to losing the housing, it's a case of what the tenancy agreement includes for ASB, it's a case of whether they have harassed their neighbours. If that process leads to them getting kicked out, I'm not particularly fussed. But I'm not joining in 'evict them, cut their benefits' calls that are pure knee jerk.
Click to expand...

Their "circumstances" are they a bunch of thieving cunts who would think nothing of robbing you and your family blind and have extorted hundreds and thousands of pounds from pensioners.

Of course anyone who's concerned about their financial and/or housing well-being is free to set up a Just Giving page.
 
They are scum, and IF they are on benefits, there's justification for an investigation into if they are entitled to them. Likewise if they are in breach of an tenancy agreement, due to anti-social behaviour, that needs dealing with.

But, that's it, you can't go beyond the rules, regulations & law.
 
happie chappie said:
So you're saying no-one should ever be evicted for anti-social behaviour in any circumstances. Ever.
Click to expand...
am I? news to me- I think thats what you wanted me to have said though.

OK here, in the style of arguing against what the other person hasn't said 'So you want all incidences of anti social behaviour to met with an immediate withdrawal of all benefits?' hows that? close or fucking miles off
 
DotCommunist said:
am I? news to me- I think thats what you wanted me to have said though.

OK here, in the style of arguing against what the other person hasn't said 'So you want all incidences of anti social behaviour to met with an immediate withdrawal of all benefits?' hows that? close or fucking miles off
Click to expand...

So let's get this straight. You accept that benefits can be withdrawn in some circumstances or not?

Or people can be evicted in some cases of ASB or not?

If yes to either or both under what circumstances?

Why isn't that a "slippery slope"?
 
Last edited:
Wilf said:
I'm actually in favour of communities themselves acting against anti-social behaviour - and in the absence of that wouldn't actually complain about some of the specific evictions local authorities have carried out due to ASB. But this knee jerk 'kick 'em out' stuff is only one step away from 'cut their benefits off'.
Click to expand...

People can and do get evicted from social housing for anti-social behaviour. What are the other options given the usual alternative is for the community having to put up with it?

Edit: actually you seem sort of in agreement with that.
 
happie chappie said:
So let's get this straight. You accept that benefits can be withdrawn in some circumstances or not?

Or people can be evicted in some cases of ASB or not?

If yes to either or both under what circumstances?

Why isn't that a "slippery slope"?
Click to expand...

its difficult- not as difficult as it should be really- to evict people. It can be done and it is done but even in the cases of hell neighbours its still not a streamlined process decided instantly. Nor should it be. I mean if you are up for further erosion of tenants rights and further capricious cost cutting from the DWP then by all means. Away you go with that, don't expect me to cheer you on. But I'm sure that once you win and tenants right for people on benefits are rendered virtually worthless it will only be very bad people who lose their houses.
 
happie chappie said:
So let's get this straight. You accept that benefits can be withdrawn in some circumstances or not?

Or people can be evicted in some cases of ASB or not?

If yes - to either or both under what circumstances?

Why isn't that a "slippery slope"?
Click to expand...
You've actually picked a good thread for doing this. Just about everybody posting on it thinks the bloke who died and many of his family were genuine cunts, parasites. There has been virtually no idealist lefty stuff about them. But still, you've somehow lost your advantage. :(

Anyway, the holy trinity: we've had take their council house away, we've had stop their benefits. Come on now, finish the job! Go for the big one------ 'hanging's too good for 'em'.
 
DotCommunist said:
its difficult- not as difficult as it should be really- to evict people. It can be done and it is done but even in the cases of hell neighbours its still not a streamlined process decided instantly. Nor should it be. I mean if you are up for further erosion of tenants rights and further capricious cost cutting from the DWP then by all means. Away you go with that, don't expect me to cheer you on. But I'm sure that once you win and tenants right for people on benefits are rendered virtually worthless it will only be very bad people who lose their houses.
Click to expand...

Tennants' rights are borderline worthless as it is tbf.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
People can and do get evicted from social housing for anti-social behaviour. What are the other options given the usual alternative is for the community having to put up with it?.
Click to expand...

There are other alternatives. Just not legal ones. They happen from time to time. Usually not in the case of families like this, though.
 
DotCommunist said:
its difficult- not as difficult as it should be really- to evict people. It can be done and it is done but even in the cases of hell neighbours its still not a streamlined process decided instantly. Nor should it be. I mean if you are up for further erosion of tenants rights and further capricious cost cutting from the DWP then by all means. Away you go with that, don't expect me to cheer you on. But I'm sure that once you win and tenants right for people on benefits are rendered virtually worthless it will only be very bad people who lose their houses.
Click to expand...

So you do accept that people can be evicted for ASB but you haven't explained why that isn't a "slippery slope".

At least be consistent with the "slippery slope" argument and say no-one should ever be evicted under any circumstances.

Otherwise all you're doing is pitching the start of the slippery slope in position that suits your outlook.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
People can and do get evicted from social housing for anti-social behaviour. What are the other options given the usual alternative is for the community having to put up with it?

Edit: actually you seem sort of in agreement with that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sort of trapped between a vaguely IWCA perspective of how to approach ASB and the bureaucratic/'asbo'/local authority version - in the absence of the former, agreeing with the occasional outcome of the latter if not the underlying politics iyswim).

Edit: that doesn't really say what I mean. I don't agree with the New Labour/asbo approach at all. However I do think it was a response to what were real problems - problems experienced by individuals and communities. The thing about the left traditionally being poor on asb and crime, as discussed a few pages back.
 
happie chappie said:
So you do accept that people can be evicted for ASB but you haven't explained why that isn't a "slippery slope".

At least be consistent with the "slippery slope" argument and say no-one should ever be evicted under any circumstances.

Otherwise all you're doing is pitching the start of the slippery slope in position that suits your outlook.
Click to expand...
you don't think making it easier to evict people based on the crimes of the very worst won't come back to bite everyone else on the arse?

landlords would welcome such moves
 
Possibly I'm still not clear about your slippery slope argument.

If you agree that there can evictions under certain circumstances then you have to explain why this isn't a slippery slope.

The alternative is to support a position of no evictions under any circumstances.

It's either one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
O'Neills central London pub adds £2 surcharge to pints ordered after 10pm
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
2K
not henry
N
editor
Police hunt for Kyle Clifford after three women murdered in Bushey, Herts
2 3
Replies
80
Views
3K
GarveyLives
G
Wilf
After the Far Right/Fash Riots?
Replies
17
Views
1K
hitmouse
hitmouse
PTK
British Army Death Squad Soldiers to be Prosecuted
Replies
4
Views
645
PTK
PTK
editor
Cyber-flasher first to be jailed for new offence after WhatsApp pic
Replies
11
Views
688
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
Back
Top Bottom