New houses/Apartments for free...!

[Vlad_Dracul]

You know its too good to be true dont you? Well not quite.

Some may have read my recent posting,somewhere down the list in current affairs,in which i asserted that the growth of Buy to let housing was a blight on the UK populace and further,that it brought about grave injustices for the ordinary,hard working people of Britain.

In my posting i highlighted the system whereby local authorities bought up land and houses which had been decimated by BTL blight,for much less than original value. Then they do deals with major builders for the land and in return,the major builder builds a percentage of "social" housing. BB.King, was kind enough to elaborate and educate us on the dabblings of Mr Prescott and others in bringing about this situation.

Here are some pictures of some nice free homes. Would you like one?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dooper786/free1.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dooper786/free2.jpg

These supurb new homes are currently being built in Manchester.

Its a mixed new development of private homes and some social housing thrown in under one of these deals.

I wonder if those who are working and swaeting to pay the mortgage on one of these are told when they buy that there will be a mix of social housing? I wonder if the even know when they move in? I'm guessing that it won't take long to notice!

Anyway,to get one for free,get yourself on the housing association list, make sure your not working for some reason or other and thats it,jobs a good 'un as we say up here in Manchestoh.

Perhaps some would say that we shouldnt have social apartheid anyway but then doesnt that go hand in hand with the capitalist system? We cant have it both ways can we?

Originally Posted by dooper786

...snip....

I wonder if those who are working and swaeting to pay the mortgage on one of these are told when they buy that there will be a mix of social housing? I wonder if the even know when they move in? I'm guessing that it won't take long to notice!

Anyway,to get one for free,get yourself on the housing association list, make sure your not working for some reason or other and thats it,jobs a good 'un as we say up here in Manchestoh.

Perhaps some would say that we shouldnt have social apartheid anyway but then doesnt that go hand in hand with the capitalist system? We cant have it both ways can we?

Erm, having more money than other people doesn't make you better, just better off, so I don't understand your statement about "social apartheid".

Also, your comments about "free housing" are at best, misleading, and at worst, pure rabble-rousing provocation. You have supplied no facts, in any way, shape, or form, that the "social housing" will be given to people who will get their rent paid for by the local council, just made unwarranted assumptions about how the housing will be allocated, and assumed the worst about any possible "social housing" tenants. We have social housing around here, and most of the tenants are, to use your phaseology, "working and swaeting" to pay the rent.

[Vlad_Dracul]

Lets not be too pedantic about spelling (swaeting) or i may pick you up on your mis-spelling of "phaseology" ! I have a sticking keyboard and i type too fast for my own good.

Of course i am generalizing a little but i think it is a valid generalization in this case. It is a valid assertion that the residents of most social housing are unemployed,on benefits or a low income or are single parents. Of course there are plenty who are not but the fact that they are in social housing goes hand in hand with these different socio-economic groups. If they were all bog standard nuclear families and all fully employed as civil servants then they wouldn't be in social housing would they ?

Now then, the next issue is, do people in social housing generally have less respect for their environment and their neighbours?

There is a linkage between being unemployed,unemployable being a single parent and your life experiences,your own upbringing and your own values and morality.

It is not difficult to find crime,filth ,vandalism and disregard for others in a social housing environment. You wouldn't have to look too hard or too far.

So then,given that anyone in social housing and anyone who gets themselves on such housing lists could presumably be allocated a nice new "partnership" home,and given that the social housing landlord would not be able to discriminate as to whether the social tenant was unemployed or employed, it is quite possible for anyone in any of the social housing socio-economic groupings to obtain the tenancy of such a home.

So then,get on list,get new home,kick back and relax,claim your benefits and watch your hard working neighbours go out to work,that is of course if you are up in time to catch them.

I fully agree with your statement that having more doesnt make you better,it just makes you better off. The famous case of the "chav" criminal lottery millionaire certainly proved that!

My statement about social aparthied was meant to mean that in the old world, people worked hard,were able to live in better homes in better areas whereas "the poor" had to be,and for the most part where,content with social housing. Now though, the hard workers still sweat to live in better homes in better areas but many of "the poor" are no longer content with social housing,often do not feel that they have to earn their way out of it and ,indeed, dont need to for it is given to them anyway!!

My apologies if I appeared pedantic over your spelling - I just cut/pasted your comment without checking it.

Getting back to my point, do you have any proof that these houses/apartments will be "free", or is it an assumption? I only ask, because that is the thread header........

btw, if your keyboard is sticking/sticky, you probably need to sit further back when you are "browsing"

[Angua]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Erm, having more money than other people doesn't make you better, just better off, so I don't understand your statement about "social apartheid".

Also, your comments about "free housing" are at best, misleading, and at worst, pure rabble-rousing provocation. You have supplied no facts, in any way, shape, or form, that the "social housing" will be given to people who will get their rent paid for by the local council, just made unwarranted assumptions about how the housing will be allocated, and assumed the worst about any possible "social housing" tenants. We have social housing around here, and most of the tenants are, to use your phaseology, "working and swaeting" to pay the rent.

As are the majority of people round here & we deliberately bought an ex council place (with socially housed people on either side) as the build quality is normally better than straight build for sale.

In addition the term "Social housing" also refers to part buy/part rent schemes and other forms of shared ownership for which you would need to be employed.

Straight rented social housing is allocated on a priority need basis (you should be able to find out your local councils points system) with those who are behind on rent payments normally going to the back of the queue.

Social housing needs to be built and the most cost effective way is to do so is as part of new build schemes via section 106 agreements, in addition the system of integrating socially housed people with those who can afford to buy prevents the ghettos and no go areas many former council estates and tower blocks have become.

[Vlad_Dracul]

Social housing needs to be built and the most cost effective way is to do so is as part of new build schemes via section 106 agreements, in addition the system of integrating socially housed people with those who can afford to buy prevents the ghettos and no go areas many former council estates and tower blocks have become.

I wonder why former council estates and tower blocks become ghettos and would transplanting those people into a more mixed environment make much difference?

Originally Posted by dooper786

I wonder why former council estates and tower blocks become ghettos and would transplanting those people into a more mixed environment make much difference?

Ontogeny versus philogeny.

You tell people they are ****, treat them like ****, and fairly soon they will believe they are ****, and act accordingly.

Treat them like civilised people, and they (mostly) act like civilised people.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Ontogeny versus philogeny.

You tell people they are ****, treat them like ****, and fairly soon they will believe they are ****, and act accordingly.

Treat them like civilised people, and they (mostly) act like civilised people.

Wasn't there an upgraded estate in Scotland (somewhere up north anyway) where people were given lovely houses, and within a few months it was turned to poo?

I am on benefit dooper i live in social housing and i have a great deal of respect for both my immediate neighbours and my community. I am a member on the anti social behaviour panel for my local housing association. I have bought my kids up to respect others and to know right from wrong. They have also been bought up to strive to better themselves and achieve goals in their lives.

Yes there are some lousy tenants hey here is a shocker they are not all in social housing they inhabit private dwellings as well. The level of ignorance dsiplayed when some people talk about social groups is simply staggering and hard to believe exists in this country in this day and age.

This is the second of your posts i have replied to dooper because i have felt that given the content of your threads you should change your name to pooper it would be more representative of the content.

[Womble]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Wasn't there an upgraded estate in Scotland (somewhere up north anyway) where people were given lovely houses, and within a few months it was turned to poo?

O my god, I think I may think something the same as Xaccers *Faints*

They tried the mixed social/private in Epsom. I feel for the privately owned people.
My friend payed £275,000 for his house, to his left he has gypsies and to his right he has Portuguese. Its a nightmare for him, he now cant sell so is stuck there. This scenario has been repeated all over the "estate".

---------- Post added at 09:10 ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I am a member on the anti social behaviour panel for my local housing association. I have bought my kids up to respect others and to know right from wrong. They have also been bought up to strive to better themselves and achieve goals in their lives. .

Good for you, but you have to admit, the vast majority take the p**s

---------- Post added at 09:10 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by dooper786

I wonder why former council estates and tower blocks become ghettos and would transplanting those people into a more mixed environment make much difference?

One in every hundred maybe

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

btw, if your keyboard is sticking/sticky, you probably need to sit further back when you are "browsing"

Thats plain nasty

[Xaccers]

The thing which improved council estates the most around Waterlooville was the right to buy scheme.
People bought their homes and became responsible for them, you can often see a marked difference between an owned house on a council estate and the others, if only because the owner is able to go ahead and make repairs rather than having to wait and wait and wait for the council to do it.
Actually, that might be where the rot started.
Think about it. You're in a house owned by the council, something breaks, the paint peels off the outside wall, you report it to the council and they don't come round and fix it waiting for the problems with the houses in your area to build up so they can blitz in one go and "save money"
If you were in a house owned by someone else, and they didn't seem to care about the state of it, eventually, you're not going to care. It's human nature.
Very difficult to be house proud if your house is rotting around you.
So many people give up bothering, and adopt the attitude of "so what?" and treat the place like dirt, and it spreads.
That attitude gets learnt by the next generation, "don't respect property" meaning crime is much easier, and if moved to a nice estate, they don't know how to be house proud so the cycle repeats and the nice estate becomes run down.

Rizzy, I lived on a council estate, owned my home, and I was so lucky to have a neighbour like you. He'd had a hard life growing up, but thanks to good parenting had the attitude that only you were responsible for making life better for yourself, so worked his backside off.
Had a lovely wife, a bright kid with a real spark in his eyes.
If all my neighbours were like him and you, I'd still be living there.
Unfortunately, they weren't, the other neighbours were **** (I can't think of another word to describe them which wouldn't be censored) and made my life hell until I managed to get out.

Yes there are bad tenants no denying that and that is why i joined the panel so that they could be confronted and as has happened in many cases where i live help them to be better neighbours. People are people where they live may contribute to behaviour but basically if someone is a selfish disruptive git they will be that wherever we put them.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by dooper786

You know its too good to be true dont you? Well not quite.

Some may have read my recent posting,somewhere down the list in current affairs,in which i asserted that the growth of Buy to let housing was a blight on the UK populace and further,that it brought about grave injustices for the ordinary,hard working people of Britain.

In my posting i highlighted the system whereby local authorities bought up land and houses which had been decimated by BTL blight,for much less than original value. Then they do deals with major builders for the land and in return,the major builder builds a percentage of "social" housing. BB.King, was kind enough to elaborate and educate us on the dabblings of Mr Prescott and others in bringing about this situation.

Here are some pictures of some nice free homes. Would you like one?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dooper786/free1.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dooper786/free2.jpg

These supurb new homes are currently being built in Manchester.

Its a mixed new development of private homes and some social housing thrown in under one of these deals.

I wonder if those who are working and swaeting to pay the mortgage on one of these are told when they buy that there will be a mix of social housing? I wonder if the even know when they move in? I'm guessing that it won't take long to notice!

Anyway,to get one for free,get yourself on the housing association list, make sure your not working for some reason or other and thats it,jobs a good 'un as we say up here in Manchestoh.

Perhaps some would say that we shouldnt have social apartheid anyway but then doesnt that go hand in hand with the capitalist system? We cant have it both ways can we?

Your assumptions assume the following.

1 - anyone unemployed can easily get a housing association property. There is no waiting lists?

2 - Their rent is fully paid.

3 - They can live there indefenitly.

4 - They are better off then everyone who works.

5 - They are ****, social misfits?

6 - They have the freedom to do what they want with the property like a house owner would.

You need to get to grips with reality.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Womble

O my god, I think I may think something the same as Xaccers *Faints*

They tried the mixed social/private in Epsom. I feel for the privately owned people.
My friend payed £275,000 for his house, to his left he has gypsies and to his right he has Portuguese. Its a nightmare for him, he now cant sell so is stuck there. This scenario has been repeated all over the "estate".

Same story down the road from me in Woolwich.......the developers were forced to build social housing across the road from 300k-750k apartments. The people in the private apartments had to then very quickly install cctv, automatic gates and security patrols because they were being stolen from on a daily basis.
Still, hardly surprising if they live in Woolwich......

[Xaccers]

The thing is, it shouldn't happen.
If a bad tenant is moved into accomodation, and they cause trouble, then they should be moved out if they refuse to act civilised.
With rights come responsibilities, and if you're not responsible enough to live like a civilised person, not damaging, leaching or abusing your neighbours then you shouldn't have the right to social housing.
I don't feel it's too wrong to ask for simple rules to be followed in return for it, does anyone?
If someone with kids loses their council house because they're obnoxious and cause genuine problems in the area, then they're obviously not responsible enough to look after children, let alone get social housing.
They knew what was required, they chose to break the rules of a civilised society, they should pay the price rather than the rest of us who want to live in peace.
If it means they're out on the street, then so be it. No one "accidently" abuses their neighbourhood on a continual basis.