bridge too far

cell

Social housing in private areas works very, very well in my area, Wes. And, given that the guy was a bus driver, it's quite probably necessary for him to live close to his work when he gets it (i.e. the local bus garage) for early / late shifts. Perhaps you would do better to berate the opportunist landlords who are taking advantage of the fact that the Broad Market Rent for that area for a 5 bedroom house is £2K a week. See here: "Currently anyone who is eligible can claim for a private property if it is suitable for their needs regardless of the cost. The system has been criticised, with fears that landlords inflate rents for families on housing benefits because they know the cost will be covered by local authorities who do minimal checks on the market value of the rents." from: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23855146-we-cant-move-pound-2000-a-week-benefits-family-until-the-rules-change.do but no doubt you can't be bothered to read that link either. Shame really, because that's how we learn Still I'm sure you'll be comforted by the fact that, from next April, they'll have to pay the difference between the rent they're charged and £400 pw max.

n the meantime, people are having a go at this family for quite legally making the best of a poor system. A parallel with people who find ways to avoid paying tax, maybe?

vodka

boxer

Be careful you don't resort to stereotyping TDD! What does is matter if she's white / black / whatever, single (maybe because her 'man' left her or died) or married. I'm lucky enough to live on a very pleasant new private estate. Opposite me, there is social housing. The occupants cause no-one any trouble, including the large family living in a 4 bedroomed house. I'm delighted for them, and more particularly for their young children, that they are able to live in a nice area. Oh - and just for you TDD - it seems the 'free laptops' scheme you so love might well be extended with David Cameron's support! See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10575266.stm You'll need to read the whole article

You have a right to your opinion but, as you don't live here, your opinion holds no sway with me (or with many others). Apart from Family Allowance when my children were little, I have never claimed any state benefit because I've never needed to, thankfully. However, I have absolutely no problem with people legitimately claiming what is due to them. No doubt you applaud hard-up pensioners and the like who don't claim what is rightfully theirs because they don't know about it or consider it to be charity, even though they've paid into the system all their lives?

Indeed many council estates became ghettos. Where was I suggesting councils build estates? I said councils should be able to build more council housing. Housing associations build small developements. You haven't answered the salient point. Are we to compartmentalise towns? In the case of London and other major conurbations, some people on benefits (but not unemployed) need to live near to their work. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to because the area near to their employment has been 'gentrified'? I'm old enough to remember when Notting Hill was a sh*t hole - look at it now! The local council is at fault in this case. Kensington Borough covers a very large area and, although most of it is expensive to live in, there are some cheaper pockets. The council is at liberty to say no to this family if it is so minded. Here's the real information on Housing Benefit http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926 and this on how the benefit is worked out http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018928 and here is information on how much Kensington is mandated to pay as a maximum https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Secure/LHARateSearch.aspx?SearchType=LA

q e d

Well no doubt the press has been selective in its reporting of the facts. I don't know why they were in Brent in the first place. Such families have to start somewhere. What if they'd been housed in Kensington in the first place? Or are you suggesting that no-one on benefits should be housed in Kensington? Which brings me back to the 'ghetoo' scenario and reminds me a bit of Dame Shirley Porter trying to tinker with the demographics in Westminster.

beamer

It does seem extreme but it begs the question - are no families on benefits to be allowed to live in certain areas because of the high rental costs? Are we to have ghettos instead (with all the problems that could bring). Surely local councils should be allowed to build council housing again.

Nice to see pics of REAL men

In the same way as he attributes absolutely everything wrong in this country to a Labour government, I think we can equally attribute his distortion of facts to his poor education that was surely undertaken when the Tories were in power (unless he's under 18 - hmmmm could be).

You go

Absolutely right. As well as being granted asylum, he'd been working as a bus driver before being made redundant. So he'd been paying taxes and NI. Possibly the Wayne and Waynettas referred to earlier hadn't worked and paid taxes. He has as much right to housing benefit etc as any other working person who has been made redundant. His ethnicity is totally irrelevant.

Maybe because it wasn't available in their time? You really are a Luddite - I'm surprised you manage to use this forum I come back to my basic tenet. Children can't help the families they're born in to. Any help given them to get out of the desperate situations they are raised in has to be welcomed, surely? Society moves on and the internet is as big a part of everyday life as electricity, water, etc. etc. is. Once upon a time we didn't have free education and health treatment. Huge numbers of poor people suffered as a result. Today society is better for having these things. It's called progress. Do keep up with the times.

Oh well - if the forces don't get internet access then why should the rest of us eh? Sour grapes? Here's the official version of the PILOT scheme that has now finished: http://news.idealo.co.uk/news/6198/free-laptop-scheme-for-low-income-uk-families-officially-unveiled.html It explains who was eligible and that it was a limited scheme. It also talks about the benefits the scheme could provide in terms of improvement in education. But I guess TDD you want everyone to know their place and not move upwards. I guess you're against aspiration.

Stupid is suggesting that children do their homework using the internet during lesson time. Also stupid is suggesting that access to the internet isn't a basic requirement of the 21st century. Unless you're a Luddite. You know what - I don't give a monkey's toss about scroungers. They're a horrible drain on society. What I do care about is hoping that ways can be found to lift scroungers' children out of the mire so that they have a chance to make something of their lives. It's not the child's fault that the parent is a waster.

I think this is a discussion that's been had before. I don't think many children have access in the evening to the internet in a library that's probably some way from where they live. I don't think libraries open 24/7.

I don't support the idea of scroungers getting things not due to them - where have I ever said that?. The last government came up with the idea of all families having access to the internet. This was so that children from all backgrounds had a fair chance of getting help with their education. And I believe the current government also supports the idea of every house in the land having web access. Depends on how you regard the web I suppose. I support the idea of everyone having access to air, water, electricity and gas. Of course, they have to pay for that access and I think you'll find too that people being given laptops still have to pay for the access. I can't be arsed to check, but I'm pretty sure that the 'free' laptops are configured so that certain sites can't be accessed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10590725.stm Living upto his name and, to remain unbiased, a Labour MP too drunk to drive http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10591877.stm

And, as sure as night follows day, TDD harps on about free laptops yet again

How can this man have been classed by the Daily Heil as an 'asylum seeker'. He was obviously granted asylum as he had been working (i.e. paying taxes etc) as a bus driver. Fancy the Daily Heil having a sensationalist headline - whatever next!

checkmate