Nazi comparisons - please read

[Annie71]

I would agree with SP about the reassesment of social housing although I think that it should not be retrospective for people of maybe 50+. It is wrong that single pensioners live in 3 bed properties but it would be unfair to force them to move now.

I have family and yes in a crisis they would help me out but these are parents and siblings so why should they pay for my mistakes or life choices.

 

I also believe that the state should support those that can not work with enough money to live. But for those who make it a lifestyle choice then subsistance only. Hard I know but I am meeting people that quite frankly need a slap, One guy actually said to me, well if they sop my money I will go labouring with my mate. WTF. However there is another guy who clearly isnt fit to work due to age health and cognitive abilities yet he has been sanctioned for not applying fir enough jobs. He cant read or write. He should be on ESA but I can not get him to apply. Madness

 

The welfare state really must be fixed, money to live on for those

[worried33]

Wrong.

 

 

 

I think you may be confused; my suggestion that people should take responsibility for themselves does not mean that there should not be state provision for those in genuine need. A safety net, as you say, to provide for basic needs in a crisis. In terms of housing, I think that private rentals should be regulated in the same way as they are in Germany (where many more people rent than own); as well as ensuring rents are not excessive, it also places much stronger legal obligations on landlords to maintain property than here. This would also address the situation you describe with private landlords exploiting HB, which I agree is absurd. Social housing, in my view, should be for those in real need; the ridiculous situation we have now in which families who were provided with social housing remain in it at subsidised rents irrespective of their financial position - Bob Crow is an example, though maybe an extreme one. I'd like to see people's needs assessed, say every three years, and if the household income is above a certain level, they then start paying market rent. That way more money is returned to help those in genuine need.

 

Taking responsibility means, for example, families helping their elderly relatives - as an example, collecting them from hospital rather than expecting the NHS to arrange an ambulance. Or couples thinking about what's involved in bringing up a child, rather than whinging about childcare costs. Today I saw a patient who was admitted to hospital after going on a 3 day bender; she knew that she would end up in hospital, but still chose to drink (not an alcoholic, either, so can choose); that means someone else cannot be treated. I think that's selfish and shows a failure to take responsibility for her own actions.

 

We can't always have just what we want; sometimes we have to make choices and compromises.

 

 

 

Wrong again.

 

I think that the most vulnerable in our society should be helped as much as possible, for as long as necessary, but I do not think that the taxpayer should be subsidising cigarettes, drugs, alcohol and gambling, or providing long term income to those who are able but choose not to work. As well as the state providing help, I think that philanthropy should be encouraged; tax breaks may be unpopular, but if they were linked to philanthropic works they could be a powerful incentive.

 

I would not want to see a situation where the state provides everything for everyone - look at North Korea or any failed communist state (and there aren't any that haven't failed) for why, but nor would I want to see no state provision at all.

 

Ok.

 

I do agree with a few of your points.

 

I agree that a much better regulated private market that increases standards of private properties and provides proper security to tenants is also an acceptable solution (with rents regulated of course), however I dont consider this viable, our country is more right wing than germany, I expect if a government rolled out such changes most BTL landlords would simply issue S21's and sell up, they only interested in easy money with low risk. This is the reason the only solution I see viable is increased supply of social housing. Also I dont understand why you have a problem with social housing, the tenant isnt getting somewhere to live for free, they have the same responsibilities as if they rent privately, the only difference been they get long term security and more affordable rent, housing costs are a huge barrier to working so you should respect this. It isnt just rent the issue either, on the private market there is additional barriers such as fees for credit checks, admin fees, garantor requirements and more. Also to make this clear I dont think social housing should be limited, my vision is there is enough for demand so even someone earning 50k a year could rent social owned properties if they chose to.

 

The other issue I agree with you on is our society would be a hell of a lot better if families did help each other, sadly tho since the thatcher years our society has been trained to look after one self only, only look after #1 yourself. It is a dangerous thing to do to make state policies based on the assumption someone always has family to help them. It simply wouldnt work. 95% of the time I have noone to take me to hospital or GP visits, only one of my family who lives near me drives, she is almost always at work when I have to goto appointments, and when she is off work she isnt motivated to take me places. Likewise my family would likely only take me in as a last resort, basically if I was thrown out on the street, and I expect many are like that.

 

It is pretty clear to me in the long term social housing would save taxpayers money. The problem is in the short term it would cost as buying/building houses isnt free. Plus it would almost certianly hurt the housing market which much of the wealthy population doesnt want. I consider the current system as subsidising the BTL market.

 

You call it subsidised rents, I call it normal rents. Something is seriously broken when rent costs more than buying, and even if subsidised so what? whats the problem of the able helping the poor?

 

Sorry but you do come across as someone who is taking mainstream media and minister's words as gospel, seemingly thinking much of benefit money is spent on booze, fags and gambling.

[pitcher]

no state = that every day, people robbing to survive.

I have never seen a more ill informed statement in my life, my best, pitcher

[Annie71]

If all the btl landlords left and sold up then social housing could buy them.

 

It may not happen as much now but no social housing should be subsidised. It should be market rent and then HB kicks in for low incomes and it must be household incomes.

[pitcher]

If all the btl landlords left and sold up then social housing could buy them.

 

It may not happen as much now but no social housing should be subsidised. It should be market rent and then HB kicks in for low incomes and it must be household incomes.

 

Hi Annie71,

I don't think I understand your point. Why should the btl give up what they have? They have done their biz for money.

Your point on social housing-????.I'm Not having a go but what!?

Happy to talk.

my best,

pitcher

p.s. Don't Mention the .......

[antone]

Sorry but you do come across as someone who is taking mainstream media and minister's words as gospel, seemingly thinking much of benefit money is spent on booze, fags and gambling.

 

You forgot drugs. And gratuitous pregnancies.

 

But I do think I know what SP is getting at - people should indeed take responsibility for their own lives, and it would certainly be best if we could rely on family and friends to support those in bad circumstances.

 

The thing is - we tried that. It didn't work. So now, while huge amounts of our tax pounds are spent on nuclear missiles that we'll never use, fighting foreign wars that we never should have fought, and bailing out banks that should have known better, the people we choose to target are the sick and unemployed?

 

No. Get rid of that crap and then come back and tell me that we can't afford to help the poor.

[pitcher]

In the last few days my colleagues and I have had to remove a few references from posts. Specifically, we've had to remove references to Nazis, concentration camps and so on.

 

Now, we really don't like editing posts, but, well, it does no good for the quality of discourse on this forum when folks compare welfare reform to systematic genocide. Really, it doesn't, take my word for it.

 

By all means disagree with our politicians - I do it all the time, and I'm on the Site Team and should know better. But please, can we avoid comparing the government to the most evil mass-murderers in human history? It poisons the discussion here and insults the memories of the victims of that atrocity.

 

We'll keep editing out such remarks, of course: I'm just asking you to spare us the trouble. It's not like we don't have anything else to do.

 

Hi Antone, It's very simple, don't edit posts.

 

I think IDS has a stark resemblance to ............ I do, so can I say this on cag?

 

I ask you, can I say what I think or is this just another site that's in the hands of the mods?

 

If it is ,you have no site at all.

 

I think this site is one of the best but if you wish to edit out real feelings by way of removing posts then, hail newspeak.

 

my best, pitcher MY post has been edited to remove the IDS bit,

 

I Think this is not right, cag.

 

Why can I not say this?????

 

p.s. who is the mod that cut me?

 

name yourself or go away.

I speak for myself not cag so why edit me?

 

I ask again, who is the mod that is editing me, if you have a problem then say it to my face.

Edited March 8, 2014 by stu007

[antone]

Hi Antone, It's very simple, don't edit posts.

 

I think IDS has a stark resemblance to ........ I do, so can I say this on cag?

 

I ask you, can I say what I think or is this just another site that's in the hands of the mods?

 

If it is ,you have no site at all.

 

I think this site is one of the best but if you wish to edit out real feelings by way of removing posts then, hail newspeak.

 

my best, pitcher MY post has been edited to remove the IDS bit,

 

I Think this is not right, cag.

 

Why can I not say this?????

 

p.s. who is the mod that cut me?

 

name yourself or go away.

 

Hi Pitcher, it's very simple: don't be a jerk. I mean, I don't consider that to be a particularly onerous rule, myself, but to each their own.

 

As to free speech, well, what that means is that you won't be arrested and thrown in jail for crapping on your own rug. It doesn't mean you get to crap on our rug whenever you feel like it.

[stu007]

@ pitcher

 

Your post has been edited and I suggest that you refresh yourself with our Forum Rules.

 

If you continue to re-edit your posts then this facility will be removed

[pitcher]

Hi Antone,

No ,that is a poor response to a valid question.

I do not agree with you but I will not go so low as to call you a jerk.

Goodby.

pitcher

[antone]

Hi Antone,

No ,that is a poor response to a valid question.

I do not agree with you but I will not go so low as to call you a jerk.

Goodby.

pitcher

 

You won't call me a jerk?

 

You just did. Anyhow, I have no problem with using that word where it's appropriate. So, what do you want? The right to violate site rules at will? If so, sorry. Not happening.

[pitcher]

You won't call me a jerk?

 

You just did. Anyhow, I have no problem with using that word where it's appropriate. So, what do you want? The right to violate site rules at will? If so, sorry. Not happening.

 

No Antone, I did not call you a jerk, you are far from it . I have read your advice and you have helped many cagers, including me.I do not agree with you over something that I think a lot of. So it's goodbye and keep up the good work. My very best to you, pitcher sorry, I forgot to thank you for the good advice you gave when I asked. Thank you antone

[antone]

No Antone, I did not call you a jerk, you are far from it . I have read your advice and you have helped many cagers, including me.I do not agree with you over something that I think a lot of. So it's goodbye and keep up the good work. My very best to you, pitcher sorry, I forgot to thank you for the good advice you gave when I asked. Thank you antone

 

I appreciate that, I really do. I try to help, though I don't always succeed. But I will be clear about some things, and one of them is not making gratuitous Nazi references. I mean, call me old-fashioned, but it doesn't advance the discourse.

 

In case anyone is curious -this is not up for debate. We can have a friendly chat, but pointless Nazi references will be deleted.

[pitcher]

I appreciate that, I really do. I try to help, though I don't always succeed. But I will be clear about some things, and one of them is not making gratuitous Nazi references. I mean, call me old-fashioned, but it doesn't advance the discourse.

 

In case anyone is curious -this is not up for debate. We can have a friendly chat, but pointless Nazi references will be deleted.

 

Cheers Antone, it's good part on a good note. More power to your good works. My very best to you and all at cag. Bye, pitcher

[antone]

Cheers Antone, it's good part on a good note. More power to your good works. My very best to you and all at cag. Bye, pitcher

 

And the best of luck to you in all your endeavours.

[caro]

This govt is picking which elements of society it likes and which it doesn't which is having catastrophic consequences for the most vulnerable and people are dying as a result.

 

Of course the govt aren't invading other countries to round people up and killing them in their millions, and I can see why it's emotive and may be offensive.

 

Cag is a private site and we don't like offending people or see them leave, either because we allow a term that offends them, or don't allow one that they find acceptable.

 

Let's not fall out over this as we need to stand together to fight for what's right.

[sadone]

Exactly. Well said.

[unclebulgaria67]

This govt is picking which elements of society it likes and which it doesn't which is having catastrophic consequences for the most vulnerable and people are dying as a result.

 

Of course the govt aren't invading other countries to round people up and killing them in their millions, and I can see why it's emotive and may be offensive.

 

Cag is a private site and we don't like offending people or see them leave, either because we allow a term that offends them, or don't allow one that they find acceptable.

 

Let's not fall out over this as we need to stand together to fight for what's right.

 

Have you seen the Daily Telegraph comments pages recently ? Every time there is an article/blog about immigration, people with view similar to BNP/EDL, start to post some really offensive comments. The DT don't remove these comments, unless they are very extreme and choose to allow free speech.

 

As for the general issue of government welfare policy, they believe that they are doing the right thing, which is to move people towards employment which pays more than benefits. However, the system being used to achieve this is not fit for purpose and will mean that some vulnerable people will lose their lifes. The government will have been told this in the impact assessment they obtained before making changes to the benefits system. Government ministers are choosing to overlook the problems, as they could never admit that the changes they had made, had led to serious consequences. The impact assessment for the welfare changes will never be released, on the basis that the advice given by independent experts was confidential.

 

At some stage, the government will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and they will lose. There has already been a report from the EU, that the benefits the UK pays are not adequate to cover basic living costs. The government rejected the EU report, saying that the benefit system in each country was very different and could not be compared purely on the benefit rates paid. This is partly the reason why the Tories are mad keen to withdraw from the ECHR, as they are worried by the potential decisions they could make. They would prefer the UK Supreme court in London to be the highest court in all regards, because obviously they feel that UK Judges would be more likely to be favourable to government positions.

[caro]

Have you seen the Daily Telegraph comments pages recently ? Every time there is an article/blog about immigration, people with view similar to BNP/EDL, start to post some really offensive comments. The DT don't remove these comments, unless they are very extreme and choose to allow free speech.

 

As for the general issue of government welfare policy, they believe that they are doing the right thing, which is to move people towards employment which pays more than benefits. However, the system being used to achieve this is not fit for purpose and will mean that some vulnerable people will lose their lifes. The government will have been told this in the impact assessment they obtained before making changes to the benefits system. Government ministers are choosing to overlook the problems, as they could never admit that the changes they had made, had led to serious consequences. The impact assessment for the welfare changes will never be released, on the basis that the advice given by independent experts was confidential.

 

At some stage, the government will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and they will lose. There has already been a report from the EU, that the benefits the UK pays are not adequate to cover basic living costs. The government rejected the EU report, saying that the benefit system in each country was very different and could not be compared purely on the benefit rates paid. This is partly the reason why the Tories are mad keen to withdraw from the ECHR, as they are worried by the potential decisions they could make. They would prefer the UK Supreme court in London to be the highest court in all regards, because obviously they feel that UK Judges would be more likely to be favourable to government positions.

 

I don't disagree with you uncleb but the DT is not CAG, and there is meant to be freedom of the press.

 

Personally I find the 'welfare' reforms offensive and disgusting, not to mention divisive. It's a much more important battle to fight than what words are used. Out of respect for those who suffered at the hands of the nazis during WWII I am willing to use different words.

[Annie71]

Pitcher

my reference to btl landlords selling up was in reply to worried33 who seemed to suggest that any rent control by the state would lead to an exodus.

 

As forcmy comments on welfare I am not sure what you mean..

They are comments on my experience in my life and trying to get a balance between what is affordable and what will cause unnecessary hardship such as asking an 80 year old widow to move from her council house of 40 years because it has 3 bedrooms.

[Lilly_Monroe]

We have one of the higher rates of cost of living within the EU and yet one of the lowest welfare rates, we even pay one of the highest payments into the EU but hardly get anything back.

 

We are screwed from our own Government and screwed from overseas.

Time they did look at our Humane Rights and act in our favour.

[antone]

We have one of the higher rates of cost of living within the EU and yet one of the lowest welfare rates, we even pay one of the highest payments into the EU but hardly get anything back.

 

We are screwed from our own Government and screwed from overseas.

Time they did look at our Humane Rights and act in our favour.

 

Although to be fair, the Human Rights Act is a direct consequence of our involvement in the EU. One of the main reasons folks on the right are agitating to leave the EU is so they can abolish it.

[Lilly_Monroe]

Although to be fair, the Human Rights Act is a direct consequence of our involvement in the EU. One of the main reasons folks on the right are agitating to leave the EU is so they can abolish it.

 

Bit of a catch 22 situation really.

Stay and prop up the EU with our money and have the EU dictate on all and sundry to us - or leave and face the consequences on HR issues.

Purely from the seat I occupy at the moment I would have to vote for a staying in the EU.

[worried33]

dont be too quick to trash the EU.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/07/britain-european-austerity-cuts-councils-local-authorities

 

As estellyn has said, if we ever do free from the EU watch what remaining human rights we have quickly fall down.

 

and people will rob, commit crime to survive if they have to. I would try to do it myself for sure if I had to. If I fail I get a roof over my head in prison, the question is does been in prison beat been on the street?

[obiter dictum]

The Human Rights Act 1998 has nothing to do with the EU Parliament. It is a seperate entity from the provisions of the European Convention On Human Rights 1950. It was Winston Churchil who was the founding member of the ECHR,. long before the Common Market (EU)

 

The Human Rights Act 1998 was the persausive force introduced into the UK Legislature through the European Communities Act of 1972. The only link is that all statutory legislation within the 28 member states has to be compatible with the Convention Rights.

 

The ECHR is in Strasbourg, the European Parliament is in Brussels.