Entitled to a five bedroom house in England

2010-02-16 08:13:33

#26

jmsprovan: Member; +18|5803|Alba

ghettoperson wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
jmsprovan wrote:
With Daily Mail stories you have to take it with a pinch of salt.

Often they will print/post a story riddled with inaccuracies to grab the attention of their Middle England readership, then when the story has been buried after about a week, will then go back and correct all the inaccuracies and essentially finish the article properly. But by then the damage has been done and their readership will have gotten the desired effect about the blacks/immigrants/gypsies/scots/irish/welsh/northern-english/muslims/americans ect ect that the editor has picked to ridicule that week.

There is probably a lot more than meets the eye to this story, which the mail has "chosen" to ignore for the reasons above.
So what are the innaccuracies?
How the hell should we know? The Daily Mail has been known to print outright lies on a regular basis, without someone else covering the story it's hard to know what's right and wrong.

And ofcourse, no decent source will cover the story because its Trash intended to still up hatred at immigrants coming to the UK and moving into council houses.

I was in Asda at lunch and this story is on the front page of today's Mail.

Last edited by jmsprovan (2010-02-16 08:14:02)

2010-02-16 08:26:37

#27

13rin: Member; +977|6471

Wait... G@lt... You got a golf cart? how?

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-02-16 08:40:00

#28

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6214|teh FIN-land

Dilbert_X wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert - not unusual for the UK??? prove it.
Its not typical but not unusual, this is at the extreme end of the scale but does happen.

There are worse example of polygamous foreigners turning up and getting free housing for multiple wives and kids, although polygamy is illegal in the UK.

Not so long ago it was not uncommon for 16yr olds to get pregnant just to get a free flat.

baseless statments tbh.

2010-02-16 08:52:30

#29

jmsprovan: Member; +18|5803|Alba

Actually the part about 16year olds getting pregnant to get a council house is correct, depending on your age and situation you are bumped up the waiting list considerably, which leads to obvious abuses.

Its been in the news quite a bit here after the Government announced plans to try and tackle the issue.

Last edited by jmsprovan (2010-02-16 08:52:52)

2010-02-16 09:06:41

#30

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

What I find odd is that there are no limits imposed on those receiving government assistance. For instance, if you are receiving assistance for housing, food, etc, there are not limitations on you having cable TV out the ass, multiple cell phones, high-end cars, etc.

There should be a "lifestyle" motivation to getting people off of the government dole. It shouldn't be a lifestyle augmentation. If they need the assistance, then every other penny they make should be going to getting them out of the predicament they are in, not to unnecessary luxury expenses (like cable TV, more than one phone, high-end cars, etc). There should be a financial coach/plan that they MUST follow to maintain eligibility for benefits...which would also have an end goal of the recipient no longer being on government assistance.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-16 09:10:38

#31

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Wait... G@lt... You got a golf cart? how?

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20 … -carts-ii/

He's talking about the Hoveround. I'm sure you've seen the commercials saying how it's covered by Medicaid/Medicare and they'll do the paperwork for you

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-16 09:13:02

#32

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

FEOS wrote:
What I find odd is that there are no limits imposed on those receiving government assistance. For instance, if you are receiving assistance for housing, food, etc, there are not limitations on you having cable TV out the ass, multiple cell phones, high-end cars, etc.

There should be a "lifestyle" motivation to getting people off of the government dole. It shouldn't be a lifestyle augmentation. If they need the assistance, then every other penny they make should be going to getting them out of the predicament they are in, not to unnecessary luxury expenses (like cable TV, more than one phone, high-end cars, etc). There should be a financial coach/plan that they MUST follow to maintain eligibility for benefits...which would also have an end goal of the recipient no longer being on government assistance.

In my experience, most of the social workers who would act as 'coaches' are on the side of the people trying to defraud the government rather than working as actual agents of the government (taxpayers).

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-16 10:06:12

#33

jord: Member; +2,382|6669|The North, beyond the wall.

I'll chip in. I've been on Government benefits when I came out of the Army for a few months (benefit cheating chav bastard bla bla). I got about £101 every 2 weeks. So £202 a month. To put that into some sort of perspective my car insurance is £207 a month, plus £20 for petrol, plus food money, board money and money for interview clothes it really wasn't enough.

I'll carry this on after I've eaten, actually I'll probably go to the toilet afterwards and wipe my ass with the utter shit that is the Daily mail.

2010-02-16 10:26:53

#34

jord: Member; +2,382|6669|The North, beyond the wall.

Yeah so as I was saying, Daily mail writers are cretinous, oxygen thieving, ink wasting beasts and for the vast majority benefits are shit money compared to working money. Then again I've never been on any of the more juicy benefits like child support/housing benefit or if you're a true pro all of the above and a few hardship allowances for "interview clothes" and "work stuff".

To conclude, people slip through the gaps and abuse the system legally via loopholes and other stupid shit, where does this not happen?

PPS the daily mail really is so utterly laughable I'm surprised it has any subscribers other than comedians who use it for comedy material.

2010-02-16 10:50:08

#35

13rin: Member; +977|6471

Ok, well you've all bashed the source well. Now can someone tell me if this person is living there an collecting that kinda of assistance...

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-02-16 10:57:24

#36

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6573|SE London

Reeks more of incompetence at a local level than policy failure.

To give you an idea of how stupid and incompetent they are, I am currently having arguments with the benefits people since they want me to pay back £250 of £1100 of benefits (working tax credits) that I supposedly received. I was never paid this money, have never been eligible to be paid this money and was not actually in employment paying tax (or claiming benefits - was living off redundancy payment till I got a new job) at the time they claim I received this.

It has taken me a month to get this simple issue, which is just a complete screw up by some incompetent morons, sorted out. They still haven't explained why, since they only asked for £250 back, I am not entitled to the other £850.

It's not the system that's broken - it's the idiots who maintain it. A higher calibre of employee in these jobs would cost the taxpayer more, but I suspect would help ease the taxpayers burden in the long term.

2010-02-16 10:58:35

#37

jord: Member; +2,382|6669|The North, beyond the wall.

You can never quite achieve a good enough bashing on that piece of shit, I could sit here for the 14 minutes of internet time left that I'm allowing myself and write a really good bash. It just wouldn't be enough though.

I can't find anything from any sort of real source, however I found that when googling "5 bedroom house benefit" bf2s forums was the 4th link down on UK google, so that was interesting. That a 5 year old dying gaming forum thread came up before any credible sources. Then again I probably coulda worded my search better.

If she is then that will be because all the circumstances pointed to that being the only temporary solution because of some loophole. Maybe the area was fully booked up for accomodation and her being a mother made her high on some computer generated "important" list. Keyword being temporary. I'm king of apathetic either way as like I said, for me, and the majority Government assitance is piss poor. That and we pay £40 million a day to be part of an organisation that does nothing but take from us and the only thing we get back are under qualified and unskilled immigrants. EU, ha.

2010-02-16 10:59:49

#38

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6573|SE London

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ok, well you've all bashed the source well. Now can someone tell me if this person is living there an collecting that kinda of assistance...

You should understand that "Daily Mail Reader" is used as a derogatory term quite widely in the UK.

2010-02-16 15:31:27

#39

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6282|Éire

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ok, well you've all bashed the source well. Now can someone tell me if this person is living there an collecting that kinda of assistance...

The fact that no one has found any alternative sources for this particular story does not bode well for its validity. I haven't looked myself so maybe there are alternative sources, but so far all we have is a FOX blog piece basing opinion on a Daily Mail article... about as flimsy a position as it gets.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-02-16 15:33:49)

2010-02-16 17:25:17

#40

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|6708

"Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house. "
It's all fine if the citizens are willing to share some of their hard earned salaries with this fine young baby machine.
I heard that at 10 kids she gets a vacation home at the beach.

Love is the answer

2010-02-16 21:16:46

#41

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

JohnG@lt wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What I find odd is that there are no limits imposed on those receiving government assistance. For instance, if you are receiving assistance for housing, food, etc, there are not limitations on you having cable TV out the ass, multiple cell phones, high-end cars, etc.

There should be a "lifestyle" motivation to getting people off of the government dole. It shouldn't be a lifestyle augmentation. If they need the assistance, then every other penny they make should be going to getting them out of the predicament they are in, not to unnecessary luxury expenses (like cable TV, more than one phone, high-end cars, etc). There should be a financial coach/plan that they MUST follow to maintain eligibility for benefits...which would also have an end goal of the recipient no longer being on government assistance.
In my experience, most of the social workers who would act as 'coaches' are on the side of the people trying to defraud the government rather than working as actual agents of the government (taxpayers).

No doubt. It would require some level of competence and integrity on the part of the social worker involved.

Yes, I know. Idealism.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-16 21:18:31

#42

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6214|teh FIN-land

so galt how do you feel about posting blatant propaganda after all? Any comment on the original saractsic 'exception rather than the rule right ' you posted, or an acceptance you got this one wrong, or are you just talking about golf carts?

2010-02-17 04:42:50

#43

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6097|eXtreme to the maX

ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert - not unusual for the UK??? prove it.
Its not typical but not unusual, this is at the extreme end of the scale but does happen.

There are worse example of polygamous foreigners turning up and getting free housing for multiple wives and kids, although polygamy is illegal in the UK.

Not so long ago it was not uncommon for 16yr olds to get pregnant just to get a free flat.
baseless statments tbh.

Bollocks, I did live in the UK for a while, some of it sober, and did know many people on various forms of assistance.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-02-17 04:46:11

#44

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6097|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
What I find odd is that there are no limits imposed on those receiving government assistance. For instance, if you are receiving assistance for housing, food, etc, there are not limitations on you having cable TV out the ass, multiple cell phones, high-end cars, etc.

There should be a "lifestyle" motivation to getting people off of the government dole. It shouldn't be a lifestyle augmentation. If they need the assistance, then every other penny they make should be going to getting them out of the predicament they are in, not to unnecessary luxury expenses (like cable TV, more than one phone, high-end cars, etc). There should be a financial coach/plan that they MUST follow to maintain eligibility for benefits...which would also have an end goal of the recipient no longer being on government assistance.

In theory there are limits, but the people doling out the cash and those imposing the limits aren't necessarily connected or similarly resourced.

There should be motivation, and it should be shame and honesty, bu then a lot of people see Nigerians coming in and raping the system and think 'fuck it, I'm on permanent holiday now'.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-02-17 06:19:44

#45

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6214|teh FIN-land

Dilbert_X wrote:
ruisleipa wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not typical but not unusual, this is at the extreme end of the scale but does happen.

There are worse example of polygamous foreigners turning up and getting free housing for multiple wives and kids, although polygamy is illegal in the UK.

Not so long ago it was not uncommon for 16yr olds to get pregnant just to get a free flat.
baseless statments tbh.
Bollocks, I did live in the UK for a while, some of it sober, and did know many people on various forms of assistance.

some of it sober lol

many people? how many? ten? twenty? out of how many millions? doesn't make it common. far from it.

various kinds of assistance? like what, disability, family credit, unemployment, what? Much (most?) of it deserved I guess? Or were they all skiving bastards too?

you said it was 'not uncommon' for 16 year olds to get pregnant to get a flat. If it's not uncommon, it's common yeah? Like, a lot of 16 year olds getting pregnant to get housing. That IS bollocks. A Daily Mail headline to be sure. Unless you can prove it somehow, which I doubt, sorry

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-17 06:22:08)

2010-02-17 06:22:38

#46

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6641

What annoys me is that people on the dole who aren't trying to get work still get 50 pounds per week, yet students have to make do with loans. How is that fair?

2010-02-17 18:10:53

#47

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What I find odd is that there are no limits imposed on those receiving government assistance. For instance, if you are receiving assistance for housing, food, etc, there are not limitations on you having cable TV out the ass, multiple cell phones, high-end cars, etc.

There should be a "lifestyle" motivation to getting people off of the government dole. It shouldn't be a lifestyle augmentation. If they need the assistance, then every other penny they make should be going to getting them out of the predicament they are in, not to unnecessary luxury expenses (like cable TV, more than one phone, high-end cars, etc). There should be a financial coach/plan that they MUST follow to maintain eligibility for benefits...which would also have an end goal of the recipient no longer being on government assistance.
In my experience, most of the social workers who would act as 'coaches' are on the side of the people trying to defraud the government rather than working as actual agents of the government (taxpayers).

And what experience would that be?

2010-02-17 18:37:55

#48

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6658

Catbox wrote:
"Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house. "
It's all fine if the citizens are willing to share some of their hard earned salaries with this fine young baby machine.
I heard that at 10 kids she gets a vacation home at the beach.

Same BS here. Tuition assistance at my kids private school. Table goes up to max salary for 8 in household, followed by a dollar amount for each additional child.

2010-02-17 18:59:33

#49

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
And what experience would that be?

I grew up working class in a town where 1/4+ of the population was on Welfare/food stamps and living in government projects or subsidized housing. I sat and watched as my friends mom's taught their kids how to school the system and who was a cousin of whom and would hook them up etc. It's rampant.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-02-17 19:04:29

#50

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
And what experience would that be?
I grew up working class in a town where 1/4+ of the population was on Welfare/food stamps and living in government projects or subsidized housing. I sat and watched as my friends mom's taught their kids how to school the system and who was a cousin of whom and would hook them up etc. It's rampant.

How many of those people were actual social workers?

BF2S Forums Entitled to a five bedroom house in England

ghettoperson wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

jmsprovan wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Catbox wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer