Unemployed Families Face Cap On Benefits

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Escapee

One of the landlords with multiple properties responsible for the list is a big guy, who does not hesitate to deal with offenders of this nature.

A certain Pakistani, who has a huge string of addresses rented out, is well known for not waiting for the legal system to evict non-payers, etc. They seem to vanish into the night, then turn up at the Council offices "demanding rehousing" hoping that the Council has not yet been contacted by this particular landlord. He catches them though... and has followed some as far as Hull for his money.

At least 2 of his houses that I personally know of were trashed and stripped of anything that could be sold (including water pipes, taps, radiators and light fittings).

Another house of his was rented to a young Czech Roma couple with a babe-in-arms. He was alerted to ELEVEN adults and several children sharing it a week later. He waited for them to go out, emptied all their belongings onto the pavement, then changed the locks.

That same night they broke back in and were found by the landlords "cleaning team" who "advised them to leave the property immediately".

Every property he rented to these people now receive a steady stream of Red Notices from every possible form of financial institution, plus Baliff visits which really upset the new tenants.

He now has a zero-tolerance policy against Czech Roma.

To return to the thread subject, I wonder if it will only be unemployed who will suffer this cap. Or will people on low-incomes and/or people with low incomes and large families be capped as well? I ask this as the Czech Roma family who lived very close to us brought in under £150 per week wages, but at least £500 per week in benefits (mainly due to their young children and babies).

[PeteLockwood]

certainly about time people 100% dependant on MY tax suffer, they live (in general) a better life (as far as luxuries go) than me.

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

A certain Pakistani, who has a huge string of addresses rented out, is well known for not waiting for the legal system to evict non-payers, etc. They seem to vanish into the night, then turn up at the Council offices "demanding rehousing" hoping that the Council has not yet been contacted by this particular landlord. He catches them though... and has followed some as far as Hull for his money.

At least 2 of his houses that I personally know of were trashed and stripped of anything that could be sold (including water pipes, taps, radiators and light fittings).

Another house of his was rented to a young Czech Roma couple with a babe-in-arms. He was alerted to ELEVEN adults and several children sharing it a week later. He waited for them to go out, emptied all their belongings onto the pavement, then changed the locks.

That same night they broke back in and were found by the landlords "cleaning team" who "advised them to leave the property immediately".

Every property he rented to these people now receive a steady stream of Red Notices from every possible form of financial institution, plus Baliff visits which really upset the new tenants.

He now has a zero-tolerance policy against Czech Roma.

To return to the thread subject, I wonder if it will only be unemployed who will suffer this cap. Or will people on low-incomes and/or people with low incomes and large families be capped as well? I ask this as the Czech Roma family who lived very close to us brought in under £150 per week wages, but at least £500 per week in benefits (mainly due to their young children and babies).

roma in general are a problem for everybody, france is doing the correct thing

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Gary L

How are you going to determine who is and who isn't eligible for the vouchers and free biege clothes?

if it became the rage in fashion and everyone wanted some. what colour would you change it to, to make them feel like they're outcasts and not fashion makers?

Already stated above the cradle to the grave people who have no interest or willingness to work, I stick with beige.

Originally Posted by PeteL

certainly about time people 100% dependant on MY tax suffer, they live (in general) a better life (as far as luxuries go) than me.

Does that include everyone on benefits ? and how exactly should they suffer?

I hope you only mean people with no intention of ever working apart from fiddling on the side ,as that is usually how people on benefits have more luxuries than those working ....unless of course they already had the 70"plasma ,car,and house before they lost their job

[PeteLockwood]

Originally Posted by martyh

Does that include everyone on benefits ? and how exactly should they suffer?

I hope you only mean people with no intention of ever working apart from fiddling on the side ,as that is usually how people on benefits have more luxuries than those working ....unless of course they already had the 70"plasma ,car,and house before they lost their job

100% dependant means people who are 100% dependant on benefits ?

if they have a nice car great i am happy for them, they lose there job fair enough i have been through it it isn't nice, but then why should I (as all honest workers) pay to run his car ? pay for the electricity he uses in the viewing pleasure of a stupid big tv ?

Originally Posted by PeteL

100% dependant means people who are 100% dependant on benefits ?

if they have a nice car great i am happy for them, they lose there job fair enough i have been through it it isn't nice, but then why should I (as all honest workers) pay to run his car ? pay for the electricity he uses in the viewing pleasure of a stupid big tv ?

Nothing like a sweeping generalisation to carry the debate forward....

Originally Posted by PeteL

100% dependant means people who are 100% dependant on benefits ?

if they have a nice car great i am happy for them, they lose there job fair enough i have been through it it isn't nice, but then why should I (as all honest workers) pay to run his car ? pay for the electricity he uses in the viewing pleasure of a stupid big tv ?

because it's a welfare system ,it's supposed to help people in need .There are plenty of people on that system 100% dependant 100% of the time through no fault of their own .I daresay there are also people who sell their tv's ,cars and homes when they lose their job but remain 100% dependant on the welfare system ,a system i might add that you are also 100% dependant on ...ever heard of the NHS

The problem we have nowadays is that the system originally designed when people had jobs for life and only used as a safety net has become a system out of control and relyed upon by some people as a way of life

I don't agree with the war in Afganistan so why should you be 100%dependant on my taxes when you join up ?

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nothing like a sweeping generalisation to carry the debate forward....

biggest brush in history of cf methinks

[tammac]

yeah,, and yes the 3.3 billion quid isn't enough, if they can pay that off bonuses, after what they've done to this country and others, take the lot of their (earnings?) it would probably pay the national debt, if privatisation has generally lowered the prices of everything? why are we paying through the nose, for everything, or do you live in a part of the country immune to price changes, B.T., like all the utilities, thatcher, and her crew saw what could be made from them by the captains of industry(those people who sit with the F.T. and watch their shares(really hard workers) but, to make a bit of money, the industries had to be streamlined, yes, you've guessed, pay of hundreds of thousands of workers, the usual method of making money employed by entrepreneurs,really clever, the correct name for that lot is Asset-Strippers, so give us a break with all this **** about privatisation.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Taf

A certain Pakistani, who has a huge string of addresses rented out, is well known for not waiting for the legal system to evict non-payers, etc. T

He sounds familiar, a big lump of a guy if I am thinking of the same one. I was stood on the corner of Clifton Street/Broadway with my GF a few months ago, and the guy we were talking to that she knew suddenly ran off for no reason. I then got to find out that he had spotted the big Pakistani guy pull up in a car and he owed him money. lol

Originally Posted by tammac

yeah,, and yes the 3.3 billion quid isn't enough, if they can pay that off bonuses, after what they've done to this country and others, take the lot of their (earnings?) it would probably pay the national debt, if privatisation has generally lowered the prices of everything? why are we paying through the nose, for everything, or do you live in a part of the country immune to price changes, B.T., like all the utilities, thatcher, and her crew saw what could be made from them by the captains of industry(those people who sit with the F.T. and watch their shares(really hard workers) but, to make a bit of money, the industries had to be streamlined, yes, you've guessed, pay of hundreds of thousands of workers, the usual method of making money employed by entrepreneurs,really clever, the correct name for that lot is Asset-Strippers, so give us a break with all this **** about privatisation.

I'm not sure how old you are but i remember the financial mess this country was in when all the utilities (gas ,electric,water,)not to mention car,steel, mining ,rail industries ect. were in the hands of the government they were all grossly over staffed ,had millions per year pumped into them to pay wages despite making massive losses and costing the tax payer billions at 70's monetary value ,it very nearly bankrupted the country trying to keep these state owned companies afloat that were technically bankrupt anyway

[tammac]

Originally Posted by Masque

Already stated above the cradle to the grave people who have no interest or willingness to work, I stick with beige.

Pretty simple views from masque, where's the jobs? I mean something that'll pay the groceries, a decent lifestyle, without having to apply for any benefits, the majority of the captains of industry don't pay the minimum wage, instead they, yes , they, arrange for these immigrants to come here, and you'll never get rid of them as it suits the great and the good to have them, Vince Cable was trying to get exceptions not that long ago, so get of the backs of our own people, and look more closely at your elected betters

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 20:57 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I'm not sure how old you are but i remember the financial mess this country was in when all the utilities (gas ,electric,water,)not to mention car,steel, mining ,rail industries ect. were in the hands of the government they were all grossly over staffed ,had millions per year pumped into them to pay wages despite making massive losses and costing the tax payer billions at 70's monetary value ,it very nearly bankrupted the country trying to keep these state owned companies afloat that were technically bankrupt anyway

My age doesn't matter, all the industries you mention were in the hands of Private(enterprise) before world war 2, if you know your history,you'll know the treatment workers got pre-war, that's why Mr Churchill lost the election, people did not want to go back to the days of "the masters and doffing caps", Captains of industry,entrepreneurs, don't make laugh,they are all chancers.

Are you going to actually debate, or are you just going to hark back to the 30s and be abusive continually?

[tammac]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you going to actually debate, or are you just going to hark back to the 30s and be abusive continually?

well obviously your not too clued up, we have to hark back to history, to try and learn from mistakes, and I'm sorry my point of view offends you, but I'm as entitled to my views, as you are, and I think you should think about your own position,which doesn't seem to be very moderate.

I would be grateful if you could point out my immoderate posts in this thread, unlike you, who has called others

- usual load of apologisers for the Tories
- the Real Scroungers that seem to infest these pages
- spouting Gov lit,at me, cant you think for yourself
- hopefully you'll let your friends know your an informer

Your views do not offend me - I find them amusing, lacking in fact, and, quite honestly, the ravings of bemused class-warrior who doesn't realise that the Militant Tendency is dead and buried...

[Gary L]

Come on ladies. we don't want any handbag fights in here. we just want to discuss the topic not each other.