Brian Coleman MP

...is a c*nt.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do

You are right, he should be able to conjure housing out of thin air or pay for the rent himself or put her up in his house and move out or....

He could of course been a little more sympathetic, but exactly what would have changed. She would still be unable to affordthe rent, he would still be earning £120k and there would still be no more housing.

Compassion is everything. If someone asks you for help, you should offer what you can. He could've directed her to various places, charities, CAB or other options who can discuss it with her, help her analyse her income and expenses, etc, etc. What he effectively did was say 'I can't be bothered'.

This has nothing to do with his salary, the press love that angle but it helps no one and just widens the issues. It has everything to do with him doing nothing to actually help. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are right, he should be able to conjure housing out of thin air or pay for the rent himself or put her up in his house and move out or....

 

He could of course been a little more sympathetic, but exactly what would have changed. She would still be unable to affordthe rent, he would still be earning £120k and there would still be no more housing.

Just reread - sound as bad as he is - bad day at work

Compassion is everything. If someone asks you for help, you should offer what you can. He could've directed her to various places, charities, CAB or other options who can discuss it with her, help her analyse her income and expenses, etc, etc. What he effectively did was say 'I can't be bothered'.

 

This has nothing to do with his salary, the press love that angle but it helps no one and just widens the issues. It has everything to do with him doing nothing to actually help. Nothing more, nothing less.

This

Compassion is everything. If someone asks you for help, you should offer what you can. He could've directed her to various places, charities, CAB or other options who can discuss it with her, help her analyse her income and expenses, etc, etc. What he effectively did was say 'I can't be bothered'.

 

This has nothing to do with his salary, the press love that angle but it helps no one and just widens the issues. It has everything to do with him doing nothing to actually help. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have to admit I hate it when the press focus on the yearly wage of a person as a negative, he does a job just like anyone else and that's what he gets paid. I suppose they put it in for contrast.

...is a c*nt.

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do

He's also not an MP.

He's also not an MP.

Realised that after I posted, can't edit thread titles though...

C*ntcillor Brian Coleman has a nice ring to it.

He is not an MP.

Why do people always look to the state or local officals to sort out their problems. If my mortgage goes up to a level that I cant afford, should I write to a councillor for "advise"?

Why do people always look to the state or local officals to sort out their problems. If my mortgage goes up to a level that I cant afford, should I write to a councillor for "advise"?

If the bank I run ****s up and goes insolvent should I look to the state to help?

If the bank I run ****s up and goes insolvent should I look to the state to help?

The Labour Govt had 2 choices, let the banks fold or bail them out. Just because they decided to bail them out, does not give every Tom, **** and Harry the right to call on the state to help with all their problems. I've started to ride my bike to work to save on petrol, perhaps I should have written to the PM demanding petrol money instead, after all "they bailed the banks out", and "I didn't cause the ecomonic crash".

Help comes in many forms - on the face of it, she simply wrote asking for advice. I see nothing wrong with that, and as I illustrated above, there are plenty of helpful places she could've been directed to. But she wasn't. And it wasn't just the lack of information, but the way it was delivered.

I get plenty of people write to me in my job, asking for help with things that aren't strictly my remit, or the remit of my employer. But we help them, because frankly, it's the right thing to do. We treat people as we would expect to be treated ourselves. If only everyone else did the same.

The Labour Govt had 2 choices, let the banks fold or bail them out. Just because they decided to bail them out, does not give every Tom, **** and Harry the right to call on the state to help with all their problems. I've started to ride my bike to work to save on petrol, perhaps I should have written to the PM demanding petrol money instead, after all "they bailed the banks out", and "I didn't cause the ecomonic crash".

I think you're deviating from the point a bit there, this lady only wrote to her councillor asking for advice on her situation - she wasn't after any cash or a council house or anything like that. All she wanted was for her elected representative to point her in the right direction in her time of need. What she got back from him was sarcasm and anger. She might have been eligible for some kind of grant, or there might have been something the local council could do to stop her landlord increasing her rent by £250 pcm.

Fact of the matter is, she only wanted innocent advice and the councillor was needlessly aggressive and incredibly unprofessional towards her. It's nothing to do about bail-outs.

That too.

"I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting 'the system' to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed."

That is exactly what I would have told her. Just because she doesn't like the answer, why does that make him a hypocrite?

At least he didn't promise to help and then let her down!

He could have sent her round a log route of others who cant actually help either.

Unless we have her actuall leter we will not know what she asked!

"I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting 'the system' to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed."

 

That is exactly what I would have told her. Just because she doesn't like the answer, why does that make him a hypocrite?

So you would have told an unemployed single mother of a child with learning difficulties to go stuff herself because her rent was going up by £250? When is your Tory leadership campaign starting, and how can I vote for you?

It makes him a hypocrite because government systems are in place to help people, but he's basically just told her "i'm not bothered, now f*ck off". I think it's disgraceful tbh, this is exactly the kind of thing that elected government and council representatives should be helping with but Mr Coleman can't even be bothered.

"I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting 'the system' to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed."

 

That is exactly what I would have told her. Just because she doesn't like the answer, why does that make him a hypocrite?

Compassion costs nothing. This kind of blunt answer simply makes him comes across as though he doesn't care. Which is is exactly what is wrong with so much of society today IMO, and a key reason WHY the country is struggling, because of the selfishness that abounds.

"I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting 'the system' to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed."

 

That is exactly what I would have told her. Just because she doesn't like the answer, why does that make him a hypocrite?

I don't think he's a hypocrite, but where does he think his 120K comes from and what does he think his duties are?

He's there to help his electorate, they pay his salary. A bit of advice wouldn't have gone amiss.

If the bank I run ****s up and goes insolvent should I look to the state to help?

Exactly.

That is what annoys me. I work as a business analyst and try to advise companies the best i can. If those guys make a decision that is wrong then they suffer because of it. When we give them advice we let them know the pros and cons. We don't force them to make a decision we just give them advice.

Banks on the other hand get the same advice but live by different rules. If they gamble and lose they get helped out = bosses get nice big bonus. If they gamble and win = bosses get a nice big bonus. They have no fear of doing the wrong thing because they know that regardless of what they do they themselves will be alright. They are pretty much in a win win situation. The bailout if anything has just increased their arrogance.

However when it is the other way around and a company makes a bad decision and thus has to close it won't get help and the people who get fired won't get help. The worker will become unemployed, have a bleak chance of finding re-employment in the current climate, be faced with no income unless they go and ask for benefits. Of which the only way they will get that is if they have used up their savings first. Then they have to sell their house if they are lucky to have one. If they don't then like with this women your forced to private rent. If you don't have that money what can you do? Rent is going up while housing benefits are going down which is obviously why this women couldn't afford it.

Her only option is to downsize the house and move elsewhere or hope the landlord has a change of heart. But with the current inflation that is unlikely.

The stress to the women will be huge. especially if she has to look after an unwell kid. She will be worrying from the momment she wakes until the momment she tries to sleep probably.

This councillor has probably never had to worry about anything in his life, at least not in the sense where he fears he will be homeless. He is one of the highest paid councillors and through his entire career has pocketed more money from the tax payers then she ever will. I imagine if he listed his expenses for the past 20+ years some of you defending him would think twice.

The fact is what he said is actually correct but it is the way he said it that is the problem. There are no councill houses. If she is paying £950 a month on a 2 bedroom house then that is a bit steep. If it has gone up to £1000+ then she should look elsewhere. That is being realistic.

But it is the emotional stress that is the issue, she asked him for advice and he basically told her to become homeless. Someone who is distressed and worried for the future should not be hearing stuff like that. Especially from a guy who pockets £120k+ a year from the tax payer and probably has countless homes paid for by us lot.

What iritates me the most is the misconception people have of people on benefits living the life of riley. I just hope they don't lose their own jobs and find out it isn't quite what the media like to portray!

So you would have told an unemployed single mother of a child with learning difficulties to go stuff herself because her rent was going up by £250? When is your Tory leadership campaign starting, and how can I vote for you?

I would ask her whether she had heard of the CAB, whether she has considered moving to a smaller place, whether she could cut down on some of her spending, or whether she could get a part time job to cover the rent rise. I would also point out to her that in a free market landlords can put the rent up.I would finish off by asking her exactly what she wanted me to do about it, did she want to use my spare room, did she want a loan off me, did she want me to build her a house? I would end by saying that if she didn't like it, she could place her X somewhere else next time, and if enough people agreed with her, then I would lose my £120,000 a year job (perhaps I could write to my reploacement asking for advise on living after losing so much money).

I still dont see how that makes me or him a hypocrite. Unless he stood for election under the banner of "Vote for me and I'll help with all your problems" and then told her to **** off. I dont want my councillors wasting time on helping people pay their rent, when the answers are bleeding obvious. If less people looked to the state to help them, then maybe we could cut down on the number of state officals, and cut down on the obscene amount of money we pay these career politicans.

I still dont see how that makes me or him a hypocrite. Unless he stood for election under the banner of "Vote for me and I'll help with all your problems" and then told her to **** off. I dont want my councillors wasting time on helping people pay their rent, when the answers are bleeding obvious. If less people looked to the state to help them, then maybe we could cut down on the number of state officals, and cut down on the obscene amount of money we pay these career politicans.

Okay i will bite.....

So let me get this straight. In your "world". Someone who loses a job can walk straight into another job pretty instantly right? Because you obviously have an issue with people on benefits. You imply that is is their own choice to be on it right?

So say you work and you have been there 20 years but in that time you don't really earn too much due to the nature of your work. Your not some high flying politician etc. The banks then feck up which the government decide has to be paid for by the people. The economy nosedives and nearly all sectors have problems. Your company loses trade because the people on the street can no longer afford luxaries. The boss of your company tells you that they have to make cuts and sadly your fired.

You join the ever increasing unemployment (over 2.5m people) line and go to the job centre. In this time your eating away at those savings you spent 20 years collecting even though they are only small. You were maybe saving for that cottage somewhere in Devon. You keep applying for jobs, especially ones your trained at but find out there are 10000 other people applying for the same job. Meaning your chances of getting that job are very low.

As time goes by you still have not got a job and have now run out of savings. You go to the benefits people and ask for a bit of help. After all you heard from the Daily Mail it is great to be on benefits right? They inform you that they won't help you until you have used up all your savings and have potentially sold your house.

You now realise you have to downgrade and sell your house. meaning you have to gather more funds to pay the estate agents while at the same time look for somewhere else yourself.

Eventually you downsize and continue to look for jobs. That 10000 who applied for the same job you wanted has now grown to 15000 people meaning your chances are even less.

You now start to get worried as your thinking how can you get one of these jobs with more and more people applying for it? At the sametime your funds at home have almost dried up. But your bills are increasing. The cost of buying fuel to go to these appointments is at an all time high and the gas and electricity companies have decided this year we want 200% profit so your prices have gone up.

You have cut back as much as you could and finally you get accepted onto ESA benefit.

With your huge amount of £8 a day you can start to live that life of riley that the mail told you about right? Your be lucky if that even covers your fuel bill to the job centre.

Point being the government uses the benefits thing to influence people such as yourself. You read all about the people who claim benefits while doing sky diving with a busted back and so on.

What you don't read is the story of above which is far more frequent then the guy out having fun with his benefits. Most people on benefits want to work. They try hard to find work. If there are no jobs what are they supposed to do? Starve to death? Round them up and put them in camps?

I would ask her whether she had heard of the CAB, whether she has considered moving to a smaller place, whether she could cut down on some of her spending, or whether she could get a part time job to cover the rent rise. I would also point out to her that in a free market landlords can put the rent up.I would finish off by asking her exactly what she wanted me to do about it, did she want to use my spare room, did she want a loan off me, did she want me to build her a house? I would end by saying that if she didn't like it, she could place her X somewhere else next time, and if enough people agreed with her, then I would lose my £120,000 a year job (perhaps I could write to my reploacement asking for advise on living after losing so much money).

I still dont see how that makes me or him a hypocrite. Unless he stood for election under the banner of "Vote for me and I'll help with all your problems" and then told her to **** off. I dont want my councillors wasting time on helping people pay their rent, when the answers are bleeding obvious. If less people looked to the state to help them, then maybe we could cut down on the number of state officals, and cut down on the obscene amount of money we pay these career politicans.

Problem is, he didn't do any of that. He bluntly told her that it wasn't his problem, and was needlessly aggressive towards her. You've illustrated on a forum post which probably took 2 minutes to write how simple it is to point those things out, but apparently doing the same for him is beyond his capabilities as an elected representative of the people in that area. As for the second part of your post, I would say that helping people with their problems is an absolute foundation of politics - what do we have politicians and governments for if not to help people? It's absurd to think that it's not his problem if somebody in his area is in trouble and needs advice.

That's the thing I hate about modern politics, politicians have a very self-inflated view of themselves and most of them don't take the time to connect with the people who vote for them. How difficult would it have been for him to write an email suggesting the things that you posted just now? Instead he thought "f*ck the proles" and told her where to stick it. I think it's disgraceful tbh.

Okay i will bite.....

 

So let me get this straight. In your "world". Someone who loses a job can walk straight into another job pretty instantly right? Because you obviously have an issue with people on benefits. You imply that is is their own choice to be on it right?

 

So say you work and you have been there 20 years but in that time you don't really earn too much due to the nature of your work. Your not some high flying politician etc. The banks then feck up which the government decide has to be paid for by the people. The economy nosedives and nearly all sectors have problems. Your company loses trade because the people on the street can no longer afford luxaries. The boss of your company tells you that they have to make cuts and sadly your fired.

You join the ever increasing unemployment (over 2.5m people) line and go to the job centre. In this time your eating away at those savings you spent 20 years collecting even though they are only small. You were maybe saving for that cottage somewhere in Devon. You keep applying for jobs, especially ones your trained at but find out there are 10000 other people applying for the same job. Meaning your chances of getting that job are very low.

As time goes by you still have not got a job and have now run out of savings. You go to the benefits people and ask for a bit of help. After all you heard from the Daily Mail it is great to be on benefits right? They inform you that they won't help you until you have used up all your savings and have potentially sold your house.

You now realise you have to downgrade and sell your house. meaning you have to gather more funds to pay the estate agents while at the same time look for somewhere else yourself.

Eventually you downsize and continue to look for jobs. That 10000 who applied for the same job you wanted has now grown to 15000 people meaning your chances are even less.

 

You now start to get worried as your thinking how can you get one of these jobs with more and more people applying for it? At the sametime your funds at home have almost dried up. But your bills are increasing. The cost of buying fuel to go to these appointments is at an all time high and the gas and electricity companies have decided this year we want 200% profit so your prices have gone up.

You have cut back as much as you could and finally you get accepted onto ESA benefit.

With your huge amount of £8 a day you can start to live that life of riley that the mail told you about right? Your be lucky if that even covers your fuel bill to the job centre.

 

Point being the government uses the benefits thing to influence people such as yourself. You read all about the people who claim benefits while doing sky diving with a busted back and so on.

 

What you don't read is the story of above which is far more frequent then the guy out having fun with his benefits. Most people on benefits want to work. They try hard to find work. If there are no jobs what are they supposed to do? Starve to death? Round them up and put them in camps?

What on earth are you on about?

I never mentioned benefits once, just said "had she considered getting a part time job". Surely that is one of her options, places like ASDA and Tesco are still expanding and taking on part timers, perhaps she could work from home. I dont know, and to be blunt I dont really care. I have enough to worry about in my own life, struggling to pay my bills. My point was and remains that in my opinion too many people look to the state to help them with their problems. Welfare is an insurance fund that everybody pays into via the tax system. It is then a safety net for people who are struggling, to ensure that people are fed and have some money to live on. Once you've received this welfare, its up to you how you spend it, you have the same issues that working people have, my Mortgage may go up, so may her rent. Deal with it, like I have to. Once the state has paid the welfare, it should get the hell out of people's lives and leave them to get on with them. You cant have councillours micro managing people's lives.

What on earth are you on about?

 

I never mentioned benefits once, just said "had she considered getting a part time job". Surely that is one of her options, places like ASDA and Tesco are still expanding and taking on part timers, perhaps she could work from home. I dont know, and to be blunt I dont really care. I have enough to worry about in my own life, struggling to pay my bills. My point was and remains that in my opinion too many people look to the state to help them with their problems. Welfare is an insurance fund that everybody pays into via the tax system. It is then a safety net for people who are struggling, to ensure that people are fed and have some money to live on. Once you've received this welfare, its up to you how you spend it, you have the same issues that working people have, my Mortgage may go up, so may her rent. Deal with it, like I have to. Once the state has paid the welfare, it should get the hell out of people's lives and leave them to get on with them. You cant have councillours micro managing people's lives.

I agree with a lot of what you say but my point is people look to the state to help them when **** hits the fan. Isn't that one of the reasons we pay such hight taxes that so when we fall on bad times we will be "ok"? The reason it has hit the fan is multiple reasons but the main one being the banks screwing up. Seeing as the state (us) helped the banks out surely it is down to the state to help out the people affected from that?

Of course this women could go and work at somewhere like Asda but if you read it she clearly says she is a part time student, the other part she is a carer to her unwell kid. Meaning that it is unlikely she would be able to do full time work. That doesn't mean she doesn't want to do full time work. The guy should of read those things and dealt with it in the right manner.

Surely the point of a councillor is to counsel people? His job is to talk to his community. If he doesn't know how to speak to his community in the right way they surely he should not be doing that job?

Sorry, but I think you've all missed the point!

Why has no-one asked how it is possible that an unemployed person is able to afford £950 a month rent in the first place!

I agree we should have a system in place for providing for the poor and people who can't work etc, but does the state really need to be forking out £950 each and every month in rent?

£950 a month in Southampton would rent a 4 bed house! A four bed detached home in Bristol http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-31678618.html Another, large four bed detached house in Leeds http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-34566695.html

Perhaps the question should be asked why the rent in London is so severe - or why they are renting such a large house! - and maybe there should be a 'cap' on house prices, rents etc etc.....

Sorry, but I think you've all missed the point!

I think the point was quite clear... criticism of how the letter was dealt with and responded to.

Your points are valid, but secondary to the main issue raised in the article.