Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
You would be .
Your description has nothing in common with what I'm describing in Woolwich. 
My god, you really are that obtuse, I'll spell it out for you:
In Woolwich, developers were forced to build social housing next door to the luxury flats and houses that they wanted to build as a condition of getting planning approval. Woolwich is a toilet, with a 'challenging' mix of people living there. The more 'challenging' ones were obviously housed in the social housing new builds and since they were confronted with 'wealth inequality' decided to 'redistribute' some of that unequal wealth that they could see across the road.(and still are/do). This obviously doesn't apply to your, seemingly comfortable, social housing area but it is of real concern to (off the top of my head, I'll recount a story) a female who moved from Devon, to teach in a school in SE London, rent a flat in Woolwich online and then was confronted with the reality of living across the road from certain sub sections of society (who would look at your 25k van with interest as well).
|
You've taken one issue in a small part of the country and applied it to the rest of the country .Before house builders where forced to build social and private housing together there was that problem and there will continue to be that problem ,I live on what used to be the roughest estate in Newcastle ,it still has it's problem tenants as every area has, who no doubt would walk the 1/4 mile across the fields to the new mixed estate being built by the river to rob people they perceive as being rich,in short segregating social classes will not stop burglaries and problem tenants ,all it does is perpetuate an outdated class system
Quote:
and I'd question why you are in a council house if you're in that comfortable financial situation  )
|
Why,
I rather think you are making a very large assumption and it's betraying your rather pompous attitude towards social housing tenants