Warm welcome for IDS in Peckham

[Kizzy]

j7HmxFmlijg

[MB.]

I'd rather have IBS

[bots]

I don't like IDS, but i don't agree with mob rule either.

[joeysteele]

Just what he deserves, I wouldn't want to be within sight of him.
It is a disgrace this heartless vile failure that the Conservatives dumped as leader even before he could lead them into a election, has ever been given power over the lives, livelihoods and incomes of the most vulnerable in UK society.

[Crimson Dynamo]

If it can help couples have a baby I cant see why oiks would try and shout at it?


bloody lefties

[Crimson Dynamo]

If it can help couples have a baby I cant see why oiks would try and shout at it?


bloody lefties

[King Gizzard]

Usually I'm not down with this sort of thing but he's a massive **** so meh

[MTVN]

IDS just chilling in the back seat reading the paper

[Vicky.]

Usually I'm not down with this sort of thing but he's a massive **** so meh

Pretty much this

[Kizzy]

I don't like IDS, but i don't agree with mob rule either.

Good job it's not anything like that then, just a handful of people expressing how they feel about IDS, mind you that is how it would be reported in some rags, well done for preempting that.

[Johnnyuk123]

The Tories are still in charge so all is well for the UK recovery from the mess that the labour party left us in.:thumbs:

[Vicky.]

Yup. I'm alright jack. Whats the deaths of a few disabled to anyone eh.

[joeysteele]

Yup. I'm alright jack. Whats the deaths of a few disabled to anyone eh.

They mean nothing at all to IDS or this PM either.

[bots]

Good job it's not anything like that then, just a handful of people expressing how they feel about IDS, mind you that is how it would be reported in some rags, well done for preempting that.

it was an undemocratic mob

[Kizzy]

it was an undemocratic mob

Is is undemocratic to voice your opinion to an elected official?
*clue- It isn't*

[joeysteele]

Is is undemocratic to voice your opinion to an elected official?
*clue- It isn't*

:wavey:It seems it appears to be if they are demonstrating or shouting anything against a Conservative politician Kizzy.

My guess,only a guess mind you, is that if these had maybe been moaning at Corbyn as to say as an example Trident, they would be classed as being intelligent and right.

A good thing I wasn't anywhere near him, I would possibly even have got arrested for what I would say to him for his disgraceful and obscene policies against the sick and disabled which actually are getting worse.

[bots]

Is is undemocratic to voice your opinion to an elected official?
*clue- It isn't*

It is not right. I remember people on here saying it was fine to hound Nigel Farage and his daughters, something I also did not support

Its not that I am protecting the Tories - again a usual, predictable put down. I just have principles on the correct way to voice discontent - through the ballot box

Its distasteful the way posters behave on here

[kirklancaster]

It is not right. I remember people on here saying it was fine to hound Nigel Farage and his daughters, something I also did not support

Its not that I am protecting the Tories - again a usual, predictable put down. I just have principles on the correct way to voice discontent - through the ballot box

Its distasteful the way posters behave on here

:clap1::clap1::clap1: It's only SOME posters BOTS. I will not risk a ban by expounding, but the irrefutable truth which illustrates the sheer hypocrisy of SOME posts is in black and white on various past threads - the Farage one which you mention being one.

The heckling by disgruntled members of the public of politicians who they disagree with, is traditional and historically accepted, but here - as in the Farage incident - these lowbrows were breaking a number of laws by physically attempting to block in IDS's car and prevent it from leaving among other things.

Let's be honest here; from spraying grafitti on war memorials to threatening Nigel Farage and his children and damaging his property, to this incident, it does not matter to some people just as long as the targets under attack are deemed by them to be 'Right Wing' targets.

In these types of ugly, anti-Democratic incidents, blind hatred of the Tories or other parties not 'Left Wing', overides logic, common decency, and honesty, and the most absurdly flawed and skewed reasoning is used to try to directly and openly justify such or acts, or mitigate them by indirect means.

I do not like IDS and I did not vote Tory, and my stance on these type of incidents would be exactly the same had it been Jeremy Corbyn who was the victim.

Has there been similar attacks by 'Right Wing' factions on Corbyn which are similar to this? Or attacks by 'Right Wing' factions on his family members such as in the Farage incident?

No?

This in itself speaks volumes about the abhorrent extremist 'Left wing' in this country.

If it is deemed all right by some on here that yet another mob of anti-Democratic lefties can break the law, then let's take that inane logic a step or two further when British Law is so readily discarded:

If it is perfectly acceptable for Marxist 'Rag, Tag, and Bobtails' to try to unlawfully detain IDS against his will by preventing his car from leaving, then it would be just as perfectly acceptable for IDS's bodyguards - or members of the public for that matter - to, violently if need be, remove the mob to allow IDS the right to leave.

If a few of these undemocratic loonies receive a cracked skull or two or a broken nose in the process, then so what - all Law has been discarded.

And THIS is the problem when our Law is so readily brushed aside by these idiots and their supporters - WHERE does it end?

If one law can be ignored, then why not others? Is one law more valid than another? Should the interpretation of our Laws ever be at the mercy of anti-Democratic mobs?

As you so RIGHTLY say BOTS, we have a democratic process for expressing discontent with a political party, but more than that, we have a time-honoured tradition outside of that process for peaceful protest including heckling and jeering, and this being the GREAT DEMOCRACY it is, such peaceful protesters can exercise that tradition safe from being murdered or brutalised by the state - as in other countries.

These mobs are NOT peaceful protesters though - are they. Well, at least some of us honestly recognise that.

[kirklancaster]

Is is undemocratic to voice your opinion to an elected official?
*clue- It isn't*

If I was on the Headrow in Leeds and you were walking towards me, and I decided that I did not like your hair colour or the way you dress, have I a right to convert my dislike into hatred and scream obscenities at you?

More than that, having screamed obscenities at you, have I then a right to try to physically prevent you from going about your LAWFUL business by blocking your path and unlawfully detaining you?

Do not confuse anarchy - in any of its ugly forms - with peaceful protest.

[Kizzy]

It is not right. I remember people on here saying it was fine to hound Nigel Farage and his daughters, something I also did not support

Its not that I am protecting the Tories - again a usual, predictable put down. I just have principles on the correct way to voice discontent - through the ballot box

Its distasteful the way posters behave on here

Can you just clarify that you are not accusing me of putting you down here....because I haven't.
It is a different topic, of course the situation with Farage was wrong as he was with his family I wouldn't condone that.
I feel in this instance the public were justified in voicing their feelings.

If that is your personal stance then fair play, however I still can't accept that to criticise a minister in a govt you may, or may not have voted in could be described as undemocratic.

[Kizzy]

If I was on the Headrow in Leeds and you were walking towards me, and I decided that I did not like your hair colour or the way you dress, have I a right to convert my dislike into hatred and scream obscenities at you?

More than that, having screamed obscenities at you, have I then a right to try to physically prevent you from going about your LAWFUL business by blocking your path and unlawfully detaining you?

Do not confuse anarchy - in any of its ugly forms - with peaceful protest.

That analogy is in no way representative of what is happening here.

[Kizzy]

:wavey:It seems it appears to be if they are demonstrating or shouting anything against a Conservative politician Kizzy.

My guess,only a guess mind you, is that if these had maybe been moaning at Corbyn as to say as an example Trident, they would be classed as being intelligent and right.

A good thing I wasn't anywhere near him, I would possibly even have got arrested for what I would say to him for his disgraceful and obscene policies against the sick and disabled which actually are getting worse.

Well that goes without saying, I feel that even though Corbyn was democratically elected he has had more flack in the last few weeks than the conservatives have in 10yrs!
We (for now) have a right to voice our individual opinions, those who oppose that right may rue the day.

[arista]

IDS just chilling in the back seat reading the paper



Yes he must get the Work done


I will have to have another word with Dave
a Terrorist can mingle in that group.

In the future
The Road will be cleared fist


One Crazy Lady called IDS a Nazi
she must get back to finish her Education

[kirklancaster]

That analogy is in no way representative of what is happening here.

No? Well why don't you try explaining to me why it isn't?

[Kizzy]

No? Well why don't you try explaining to me why it isn't?

I'm not a govt minister and my hair is not party policy.

[kirklancaster]

Well that goes without saying, I feel that even though Corbyn was democratically elected he has had more flack in the last few weeks than the conservatives have in 10yrs!
We (for now) have a right to voice our individual opinions, those who oppose that right may rue the day.

Wasn't IDS 'democratically elected'? And any flack Comrade Corbyn might have taken is not on the same level as being intimidated by baying idiots who are attempting to physically stop you from going about your lawful business.

Finally, who is trying to stop you voicing your individual opinions?

[joeysteele]

Well that goes without saying, I feel that even though Corbyn was democratically elected he has had more flack in the last few weeks than the conservatives have in 10yrs!
We (for now) have a right to voice our individual opinions, those who oppose that right may rue the day.

The point is IDS is very unaccessible too, when he does interviews on TV he rarely gets much in depth criticism,I still remain astounded the night he was on Question Time and there were no questions as to benefit cuts through the whole programme.

He hides behind his Parliamentary privilege and loves lecturing but not being cross examined.
he throws out any information he is informed of by Charities, welfare groups the CAB, and all others who look into what is happening to those affected by his heartless cuts to benefits,he dismisses and generally just says that should not be happening, wile not lifting a finger to stop it happening.

Rarely has any Minister warranted such rotten criticism of him and anger being directed at him than he does.
I think he is the worst politician around at present and for me he wouldn't be an MP let alone a Minister.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a Christian,well if I walked into a Catholic Church and he was in it, I would be straight out the door not wanting to breathe the same air let alone be anywhere near him.

If they were not already in place, heartless arrogance and total ignorance could have been his inventions.

[kirklancaster]

I'm not a govt minister and my hair is not party policy.

I'm talking about brainless wonders being intimidating and committing threatening behaviour and attempting to unlawfully detain someone against their will.

[Kizzy]

Wasn't IDS 'democratically elected'? And any flack Comrade Corbyn might have taken is not on the same level as being intimidated by baying idiots who are attempting to physically stop you from going about your lawful business.

Finally, who is trying to stop you voicing your individual opinions?

Corbyn is bayed at by supporters of Herr Smith ...So what? it happens.
All ministers and leaders have their supporters and their detractors, they didn't stop him doing what he was doing so no harm done, it's still not undemocratic.

[Kizzy]

I'm talking about brainless wonders being intimidating and committing threatening behaviour and attempting to unlawfully detain someone against their will.


They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away and while he was in a vehicle, I'd say he was pretty safe.

[kirklancaster]

They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away and while he was in a vehicle, I'd say he was pretty safe.

They can CLEARLY be heard to be screaming in their mangled English not to let the car leave, and they were mere yards away. If the police were not present who knows what would have transpired.

[Kizzy]

They can CLEARLY be heard to be screaming in their mangled English not to let the car leave, and they were mere yards away. If the police were not present who knows what would have transpired.

They are shouting yes, the rest is pure conjecture.

[Kizzy]

The point is IDS is very unaccessible too, when he does interviews on TV he rarely gets much in depth criticism,I still remain astounded the night he was on Question Time and there were no questions as to benefit cuts through the whole programme.

He hides behind his Parliamentary privilege and loves lecturing but not being cross examined.
he throws out any information he is informed of by Charities, welfare groups the CAB, and all others who look into what is happening to those affected by his heartless cuts to benefits,he dismisses and generally just says that should not be happening, wile not lifting a finger to stop it happening.

Rarely has any Minister warranted such rotten criticism of him and anger being directed at him than he does.
I think he is the worst politician around at present and for me he wouldn't be an MP let alone a Minister.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a Christian,well if I walked into a Catholic Church and he was in it, I would be straight out the door not wanting to breathe the same air let alone be anywhere near him.

If they were not already in place, heartless arrogance and total ignorance could have been his inventions.

He is being investigated for human rights abuses ( I think) thought I saw that somewhere, may be wrong though. My guess is he would go up in flames if he stepped in a church Joey.

Ah, here it is...

The UN is to visit the UK to investigate whether Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms have caused “grave or systematic violations” of disabled peoples’ human rights, it has been reported.

A leading disability charity says that they have been contacted by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as part of an investigation into human rights abuses against disabled people in the UK.

Inclusion Scotland, a consortium of disability organisations in Scotland, says the UN committee has advised them that they will be sending a Special Rapporteur to the UK in the “near future” as part of their probe.

Director of Policy Bill Scott told The Sunday Herald: “The UN have notified us they will be visiting Britain to investigate… and want to meet with us when they come, sometime in the next few months.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-to-investigate-uk-over-human-rights-abuses-against-disabled-people-caused-by-welfare-reform-10478536.html

[kirklancaster]

They are shouting yes, the rest is pure conjecture.

For God's sake:

8 seconds into the video - despite the male inbreed's incessant strangled cries of 'Murderer' - is the female cry "We don't want them getting out".

And while we are at it, look at the truth behind your other delusional claim:

"They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away and while he was in a vehicle, I'd say he was pretty safe."

They were AT THE CAR WINDOWS and surrounding the bloody car!

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

For God's sake:

8 seconds into the video - despite the male inbreed's incessant strangled cries of 'Murderer' - is the female cry "We don't want them getting out".

And while we are at it, look at the truth behind your other delusional claim:

"They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away and while he was in a vehicle, I'd say he was pretty safe."

They were AT THE CAR WINDOWS and surrounding the bloody car!

:facepalm:

These people have a genuine grievance, your mocking use of language to describe them does not detract from that.

Yes he was in a vehicle, How could they manhandle him from there are you going to presume they use some kind of force? Again that would be pure fantasy.

[Kizzy]

This was proven again this week, when it emerged that the Department for Work and Pensions’ fit-to-work assessments actually cost more money than they save. An official report by the government’s own financial watchdog revealed the damning fact that while the DWP is paying £1.6 billion for the tests between now and 2020, the system is expected to save the government less than £1bn during the same period.'

Just because we have had six years of austerity rhetoric doesn’t mean that we should ever accept the government’s campaign of cuts is about being financially sensible rather than right-wing ideology. Prejudice against the working class is something the Conservatives have long-held; ‘austerity’ is merely being co-opted as the current convenient and socially acceptable veneer through which to administer it.

The government can try as much as it likes to frame the austerity debate as one of prudence, paternalism or public interest but the reality is that the numbers simply do not add up. Austerity in 2015 is not about economics but ideology, and the most vulnerable people in our society will suffer under it for as long as the Conservatives continue to convince us otherwise

'The country is paying £600 million to actively hound vulnerable benefits claimants, with no benefit to taxpayers at all.

A critical glance elsewhere within the government’s austerity programme shows similar cracks through which their ideological motivations of rolling back the state and advancing middle class interests burst through, groaning under the strain of feigned sincerity about economic prudence.

It is not about financial prudence following the recession but strategic rolling back of the state and removal of support for vulnerable people, in line with the Conservatives’ ideology.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/osborne-isn-t-even-saving-money-while-he-penalises-the-poor-this-is-about-ideology-not-economics-a6807741.html

[kirklancaster]

These people have a genuine grievance, your mocking use of language to describe them does not detract from that.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Your confused and conradictory posts kill me Kizzy, honestly: -

What You Wrote:

"They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away..":

What You Criticise Me For: .

"... your mocking use of language to describe them"

[Kizzy]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Your confused and conradictory posts kill me Kizzy, honestly: -

What You Wrote:

"They shouted at the brainless wonder from 100 ft away..":

What You Criticise Me For: .

"... your mocking use of language to describe them"

Yes I did, I used the same terminology you did in the post previous to describe the protesters if you noticed.
I was just mirroring you to show you how it looks.

[kirklancaster]

Yes I did, I used the same terminology you did in the post previous to describe the protesters if you noticed.
I was just mirroring you to show you how it looks.

:laugh: Yeah, of course you were, but there was no need - IDS is a brainless wonder and these 'protesters' are inbred morons.

[joeysteele]

These people have a genuine grievance, your mocking use of language to describe them does not detract from that.

Yes he was in a vehicle, How could they manhandle him from there are you going to presume they use some kind of force? Again that would be pure fantasy.

I am keeping off this thread now,before I get really angry.
I just learned,surprisingly,one of my Cousins were one of those as described on here as 'inbred morons',(absolutely disgusting terminology), taking part in this.

As you say most with likely genuine grievances,they would have been hailed on here were it against a Labour politician.

That's it I am done on this thread,you have made really good points all through Kizzy and no way would I give an ounce of credit or support to IDS.
In my view he himself invites all the negativity against him.

[Kizzy]

Wonder if the protesters in Cannock and Staffordshire were inbred too?... Seems inbreds follow IDS everywhere :/

[kirklancaster]

I am keeping off this thread now,before I get really angry.
I just learned,surprisingly,one of my Cousins were one of those as described on here as 'inbred morons',(absolutely disgusting terminology), taking part in this.

As you say most with likely genuine grievances,they would have been hailed on here were it against a Labour politician.

That's it I am done on this thread,you have made really good points all through Kizzy and no way would I give an ounce of credit or support to IDS.
In my view he himself invites all the negativity against him.

First of all; I apologise for my terminology if your cousin was one of those taking part in this, but I hope that he was not one of the principals seen and heard in the video because:

This was NOT some 'peaceful protest' and the sheep-like bleating of 'Murderer' and the other cries WERE moronic.

These 'protesters' WERE right up against the car NOT '100 feet away'.

These 'protesters WERE intent in unlawfully preventing the car from leaving.

These 'protesters' WERE being threatening.

These 'protesters' were becoming increasing more volatile and if it were not for the police presence, this situation COULD and probably WOULD have escalated into some form of violence.

And NO - these 'protesters' would NOT have been 'hailed' by me had they been acting in the same undemocratic, intimidating manner against some 'Labour' politician.

And NO, Kizzy views have NOT made really good points all the way through - they have been countered and exposed and done more 'U turns' than Jeremy Corbyn.

This is supposed to be Serious Debates, but it is neither 'Serious' - when mere Left wing propaganda is not only trotted out without substantiation, but continues to be trotted out in the face of factual response to the contrary - nor is it 'Debate', when NOTHING is debated because the truth is ignored whenever that truth does not agree with wild Left Wing claims.

I did not vote Tory. I do not like IDS or agree with his policies, but neither do I agree with 'Mob Rule' or the attempt by ANY group to impose their will by threat and intimidation - against the laws of this country.

IDS has as much rights as anyone else to go about his lawful business without being accosted by ugly mobs - as did Farage when he was out with his family for a quiet lunch when another violent moronic mob invaded his privacy and jumped on his car - and I will reiterate just WHY I vehemently oppose these types of 'protests':

"We have a democratic process for expressing discontent with a political party, but more than that, we have a time-honoured tradition outside of that process for peaceful protest including heckling and jeering, and this being the GREAT DEMOCRACY it is, such peaceful protesters can exercise that tradition safe from being murdered or brutalised by the state - as in other countries.

These mobs are NOT peaceful protesters though - are they?"

Not everything bad in this country is the fault of the Tories, and the Labour Party and Left Wing are not some blameless paragons of virtue, but the ballot box and PEACEFUL orderly protest are the ways forward for anyone who disagrees with Government policy - NOT trying to impose their way by threat and intimidation.

[Kizzy]

First of all; I apologise for my terminology if your cousin was one of those taking part in this, but I hope that he was not one of the principals seen and heard in the video because:

This was NOT some 'peaceful protest' and the sheep-like bleating of 'Murderer' and the other cries WERE moronic.

These 'protesters' WERE right up against the car NOT '100 feet away'.

These 'protesters WERE intent in unlawfully preventing the car from leaving.

These 'protesters' WERE being threatening.

These 'protesters' were becoming increasing more volatile and if it were not for the police presence, this situation COULD and probably WOULD have escalated into some form of violence.

And NO - these 'protesters' would NOT have been 'hailed' by me had they been acting in the same undemocratic, intimidating manner against some 'Labour' politician.

And NO, Kizzy views have NOT made really good points all the way through - they have been countered and exposed and done more 'U turns' than Jeremy Corbyn.

This is supposed to be Serious Debates, but it is neither 'Serious' - when mere Left wing propaganda is not only trotted out without substantiation, but continues to be trotted out in the face of factual response to the contrary - nor is it 'Debate', when NOTHING is debated because the truth is ignored whenever that truth does not agree with wild Left Wing claims.

I did not vote Tory. I do not like IDS or agree with his policies, but neither do I agree with 'Mob Rule' or the attempt by ANY group to impose their will by threat and intimidation - against the laws of this country.

IDS has as much rights as anyone else to go about his lawful business without being accosted by ugly mobs - as did Farage when he was out with his family for a quiet lunch when another violent moronic mob invaded his privacy and jumped on his car - and I will reiterate just WHY I vehemently oppose these types of 'protests':

"We have a democratic process for expressing discontent with a political party, but more than that, we have a time-honoured tradition outside of that process for peaceful protest including heckling and jeering, and this being the GREAT DEMOCRACY it is, such peaceful protesters can exercise that tradition safe from being murdered or brutalised by the state - as in other countries.

These mobs are NOT peaceful protesters though - are they?"

Not everything bad in this country is the fault of the Tories, and the Labour Party and Left Wing are not some blameless paragons of virtue, but the ballot box and PEACEFUL orderly protest are the ways forward for anyone who disagrees with Government policy - NOT trying to impose their way by threat and intimidation.

I respect Joey and if he feels I have made good points then that his business I guess.
Nothing I have said has been countered or exposed and I have made no U turns on any issue.
This is news, it is and was reported in the news which is why I offered it up for discussion.
Nothing is being debated, all I have taken from your posts is the protesters have questionable parentage, which has offended at least one person as they are directly related to those accused.

[Kizzy]

I am keeping off this thread now,before I get really angry.
I just learned,surprisingly,one of my Cousins were one of those as described on here as 'inbred morons',(absolutely disgusting terminology), taking part in this.

As you say most with likely genuine grievances,they would have been hailed on here were it against a Labour politician.

That's it I am done on this thread,you have made really good points all through Kizzy and no way would I give an ounce of credit or support to IDS.
In my view he himself invites all the negativity against him.

Sorry Joey didn't notice this last night, thank you for your support I say well done to your cousin for voicing his feelings directly.
Government ministers are slowly becoming the untouchables who cannot be criticised or questioned as seen recently with Hunts representative refusing to respond during a live interview.
In a democracy there still has to be accountability, I feel slowly avenues are being blocked and sections of society are being theoretically kettled. These marginalised groups are then campaigning for awareness of their plight to reach the public for support, some being more successful than others.
Over recent months there have been countless reports of reduced charity funding, welfare relating to these with disabilities, resources, services and facilities.
Not to mention pressures due to housing issues relating to bedroom tax.

Who is listening... is it any wonder their voices are getting louder and louder and more desperate?
The 'I'm alright jack' attitude pervades until there is an ounce of civil disobedience, then the onus is placed not on the provocation but those who initiate that response for criticism!
It's crazy, pitting society against one another on every aspect is the order of the day.

[Tom4784]

I'm guessing some people in this thread would be a lot more sympathetic if the IDS weren't killing people on benefits because who cares about vulnerable people on benefits amirite? They're just parasites at the end of day aren't they so who cares if they're being erroneously taken off benefits they need to live and put in harm's way? They're just dole dossers and they deserve what they get because I pay taxes and that means I can pass judgement on my 'lessers' with a clean conscience.

The protesters didn't pose any kind of physical threat to the officials, the only threat they posed was that they wanted to delay them from their next appointment. These officials deserve to know the negative impact their murderous decisions are having, being called a murderer is a lot more civil than some of the more 'civilised and obviously better people' would have if they lost a loved one to the IDS' awful decisions.

[Kizzy]

Exactly at any moment any one of us are a fateful moment away from where these people are. The more I read back on certain regimes and attitudes to the mentally and physically incapacitated the more reminiscent it appears over recent times.

[bots]

Irrespective of peoples feelings about IDS and I am among those who can't stand him. You cannot personally attack someone and try and stop him going about his business. He performed the same function in the last government, and people voted for that government to continue their work, which they are doing. Try and win the next election

[Kizzy]

Irrespective of peoples feelings about IDS and I am among those who can't stand him. You cannot personally attack someone and try and stop him going about his business. He performed the same function in the last government, and people voted for that government to continue their work, which they are doing. Try and win the next election

37% of the electorate voted Conservative, who try win the next election, disabled people?
If they being personally affected feel justified due to the accusations of human rights violations to voice that to IDS then fair play. He's not the first politician to be harassed for his part in legislative changes and he won't be the last.
Some are slated more regularly for less

[bots]

37% of the electorate voted Conservative, who try win the next election, disabled people?
If they being personally affected feel justified due to the accusations of human rights violations to voice that to IDS then fair play. He's not the first politician to be harassed for his part in legislative changes and he won't be the last.
Some are slated more regularly for less

Keep quoting percentages all you like. That is the method of democracy that we have in this country. Sour grapes is all i see in this thread, no hint of respecting democracy that is LAW within our country.

[Kizzy]

Keep quoting percentages all you like. That is the method of democracy that we have in this country. Sour grapes is all i see in this thread, no hint of respecting democracy that is LAW within our country.

Yes it is, nobody is suggesting that democratic proceedure be changed, the only issue is that of restrictions due to policy changes, legislative amendments and funding restrictions... 'sour grapes' mean nothing to me, what are these grapes in reference to?
Opinions have been voiced, no respect is given to policies which effectively kill people nor should they, which is why IDS has questions to answer in relation to human rights violations.

[joeysteele]

I'm guessing some people in this thread would be a lot more sympathetic if the IDS weren't killing people on benefits because who cares about vulnerable people on benefits amirite? They're just parasites at the end of day aren't they so who cares if they're being erroneously taken off benefits they need to live and put in harm's way? They're just dole dossers and they deserve what they get because I pay taxes and that means I can pass judgement on my 'lessers' with a clean conscience.

The protesters didn't pose any kind of physical threat to the officials, the only threat they posed was that they wanted to delay them from their next appointment. These officials deserve to know the negative impact their murderous decisions are having, being called a murderer is a lot more civil than some of the more 'civilised and obviously better people' would have if they lost a loved one to the IDS' awful decisions.

Excellent points all through,sadly lost on this thread.
I agree with every word you say.
I wasn't going to comment again but you are right as to how some see those on benefits and who also ignore the fact that IDS rarely if ever allows himself to be challenged or really take part in an in depth interview.

When people are dismissed and treated as if they are absolutely nothing by anyone so called democratically elected whose real purpose should be to serve, not dictate to an electorate,then frustration and anger will become evident towards such a 100% undeserving individual such as IDS.

I am proud my Cousin took part although it surprised me, however tramping people into the ground they walk on as IDS has done to the sick and disabled,then ignoring even those who work in the care and support of the most vulnerable will inevitably in the end, bring out the worst in people.
Even more sadly and wrong,is the way having power just barely,has brought out the extreme worst of not only IDS but a good number in this rotten govt.

[Kizzy]

Excellent points all through,sadly lost on this thread.
I agree with every word you say.
I wasn't going to comment again but you are right as to how some see those on benefits and who also ignore the fact that IDS rarely if ever allows himself to be challenged or really take part in an in depth interview.

When people are dismissed and treated as if they are absolutely nothing by anyone so called democratically elected whose real purpose should be to serve, not dictate to an electorate,then frustration and anger will become evident towards such a 100% undeserving individual such as IDS.

I am proud my Cousin took part although it surprised me, however tramping people into the ground they walk on as IDS has done to the sick and disabled,then ignoring even those who work in the care and support of the most vulnerable will inevitably in the end, bring out the worst in people.
Even more sadly and wrong,is the way having power just barely,has brought out the extreme worst of not only IDS but a good number in this rotten govt.

Thanks for staying Joey, you know I'd go crazy without you :)
I'm proud of your cousin too it's an integral part of living in a democracy for public to voice their feelings, be heard and be responded to.
There seems to be a distinct lack of responses lately to anyone relating to anything. You'll see more than most things snuck in, passed without debate and rushed through.
Hunt threatened yesterday to go 'atomic' on jr doctors, so basically he's suggesting they agree or it's happening regardless... Is this in your opinion democratic or autocratic?

[kirklancaster]

Keep quoting percentages all you like. That is the method of democracy that we have in this country. Sour grapes is all i see in this thread, no hint of respecting democracy that is LAW within our country.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

I am afraid that the message from certain posts on here is perfectly clear; that that NO yob behaviour or name calling or violence is wrong if it is carried out by Left Wingers and other subversives, against people they deem to be Right Wing.

[Kizzy]

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

I am afraid that the message from certain posts on here is perfectly clear; that that NO yob behaviour or name calling or violence is wrong if it is carried out by Left Wingers and other subversives, against people they deem to be Right Wing.

I haven't seen anyone advocating violence, there wasn't a survey of the protesters to garner how they voted in the last election either so it can't be presumed they are right or left leaning.
Their grievance is with this policy and the minister currently under investigation only.

[joeysteele]

I haven't seen anyone advocating violence, there wasn't a survey of the protesters to garner how they voted in the last election either so it can't be presumed they are right or left leaning.
Their grievance is with this policy and the minister currently under investigation only.

My cousin actually voted UKIP, only because of the belief that was the best assured way to get an EU referendum.
However the intense dislike for IDS and the policies of this govt towards the sick,disabled and most vulnerable provoked another strong emotion.

Hardly left wing at all but some will still generalise and indeed insult too.Without having full relevant information too Kizzy.

[kirklancaster]

I haven't seen anyone advocating violence, there wasn't a survey of the protesters to garner how they voted in the last election either so it can't be presumed they are right or left leaning.
Their grievance is with this policy and the minister currently under investigation only.

This thread was NOT about IDS's policy or any wrongdoing he may be guilty of. It was SPECIFICALLY about the 'warm reception' which he received in Peckham - to quote your own words - so all the copy-pasta in the world on anything else is irrelevant.

Violence does not have to be 'physical' - it can be implied, harrassment, vocal threat, intimidation, and a host of other forms, and my posts, AND others, dealt specifically with the those UNLAWFUL aspects of the said 'warm reception', but this is something which you and others have denied or lessened, or mitigated, or deflected. This may not strictly be DIRECTLY 'advocating' such violence, but it is condoning it nonetheless.

As for: "there wasn't a survey of the protesters to garner how they voted in the last election either so it can't be presumed they are right or left leaning."
This too is totally irrelevant, because I said - "Left Wingers and other subversives" and 'subversives' is the key word, because breaking the laws of this country to try to impose your will IN THE FACE OF DEMOCRATIC opportunity, is subversive.

As stated many times previously, any grievance which citizens of this country has with any government minister or his policies, can be addressed via the ballot box or by PEACEFUL ORDERLY time-honoured protest - NOT by UNLAWFUL mob rule and violence.

You REALLY have NO argument with which to counter the TRUTH of what I and others are stating here, but - as usual - you will all ignore that truth and argue anyway.

[smudgie]

Well, as a sick, disabled vulnerable person I would be interested in his views, he could come and have a quiet cuppa with me and explain his policies in more depth.

[Kizzy]

This thread was NOT about IDS's policy or any wrongdoing he may be guilty of. It was SPECIFICALLY about the 'warm reception' which he received in Peckham - to quote your own words - so all the copy-pasta in the world on anything else is irrelevant.

Violence does not have to be 'physical' - it can be implied, harrassment, vocal threat, intimidation, and a host of other forms, and my posts, AND others, dealt specifically with the those UNLAWFUL aspects of the said 'warm reception', but this is something which you and others have denied or lessened, or mitigated, or deflected. This may not strictly be DIRECTLY 'advocating' such violence, but it is condoning it nonetheless.

As for: "there wasn't a survey of the protesters to garner how they voted in the last election either so it can't be presumed they are right or left leaning."
This too is totally irrelevant, because I said - "Left Wingers and other subversives" and 'subversives' is the key word, because breaking the laws of this country to try to impose your will IN THE FACE OF DEMOCRATIC opportunity, is subversive.

As stated many times previously, any grievance which citizens of this country has with any government minister or his policies, can be addressed via the ballot box or by PEACEFUL ORDERLY time-honoured protest - NOT by UNLAWFUL mob rule and violence.

You REALLY have NO argument with which to counter the TRUTH of what I and others are stating here, but - as usual - you will all ignore that truth and argue anyway.

'Warm reception' is how it was reported in the news item I offered for discussion, and the 'copy pasta' appropriate and relevant recent news items associated with this particular minister.

Things have to be found to be unlawful, shouting isn't unlawful. He was able to come and go without incident.

We have freedom of speech laws, if it is undemocratic to voice your opinion to a minister why have these if to act on them renders you labelled 'subversive'?
As validated at least one protester can be shown to not be traditionally left wing, maybe then accusations of left wing bias at the protest is supposition?

The truth is there was no violence, none.

[joeysteele]

Well, as a sick, disabled vulnerable person I would be interested in his views, he could come and have a quiet cuppa with me and explain his policies in more depth.

Good luck with that,he won't talk to anyone who can challenge him and in all interviews it is like an old pals act with the interviewer.
I would not be surprised he sets the tone of what can be asked and when.

He is the work and pensions secretary, on a Question time programme he was not even asked a single question as to benefits, the sick and disabled.

Actually however, what I would like to see him do is listen to those who have to go along to the obscene disabled work assessments and see exactly how they enact the policies the has put in place, the degrading treatment those sick and disabled in the main get there and not only them but carers or family/friends who go along with them.
I'd like to see him made to fill in every stupid and pathetically planned ESA form with its ridiculous questions for those who have to claim it.

There is a question there that says can you lift the equivalent of a pint of milk from one place to another.
I filled the form in for someone who suffers dementia and put 'no because it will end up going all over the floor'

However anyone answering that gets no points towards their claim for ESA for that question.
Idiotic waste of paper and time of those having to claim or who has to fill in such a stupidly laid out form.

So although you would likely get him for a 'free' cup of tea, I wouldn't expect to anything other as to answers, than 'that shouldn't happen' and 'he has seen no basis to anything like that',whatever you may raise with him, as if anyone questioning him should be seen as stupid too.

He has plenty sent to him from welfare organisations, charities, the CAB, and also independent carers,medical or otherwise and also family, friends and neighbours of people sick and disabled.
All of which just gets a curt dismissal usually on his behalf and rarely from him himself.
All he can do is hide behind his Parliamentary position, facing no one face to face unless he wants to and likely on his terms only too.

[joeysteele]

'Warm reception' is how it was reported in the news item I offered for discussion, and the 'copy pasta' appropriate and relevant recent news items associated with this particular minister.

Things have to be found to be unlawful, shouting isn't unlawful. He was able to come and go without incident.

We have freedom of speech laws, if it is undemocratic to voice your opinion to a minister why have these if to act on them renders you labelled 'subversive'?
As validated at least one protester can be shown to not be traditionally left wing, maybe then accusations of left wing bias at the protest is supposition?

The truth is there was no violence, none.

Kizzy, it is because of his policies he is so hated by people who cannot get fairness and compassion from him.
This thread is and should be about everything as to his policies, it is his policies that make him the individual he is as to Politics.
As in the post that Dezzy made earlier.
It is also why he gets the attacks he does too.

There was no violence,they were not inbred morons and you are right 100% in my view.

[smudgie]

Good luck with that,he won't talk to anyone who can challenge him and in all interviews it is like an old pals act with the interviewer.
I would not be surprised he sets the tone of what can be asked and when.

He is the work and pensions secretary, on a Question time programme he was not even asked a single question as to benefits, the sick and disabled.

Actually however, what I would like to see him do is listen to those who have to go along to the obscene disabled work assessments and see exactly how they enact the policies the has put in place, the degrading treatment those sick and disabled in the main get there and not only them but carers or family/friends who go along with them.
I'd like to see him made to fill in every stupid and pathetically planned ESA form with its ridiculous questions for those who have to claim it.

There is a question there that says can you lift the equivalent of a pint of milk from one place to another.
I filled the form in for someone who suffers dementia and put 'no because it will end up going all over the floor'

However anyone answering that gets no points towards their claim for ESA for that question.
Idiotic waste of paper and time of those having to claim or who has to fill in such a stupidly laid out form.

So although you would likely get him for a 'free' cup of tea, I wouldn't expect to anything other as to answers, than 'that shouldn't happen' and 'he has seen no basis to anything like that',whatever you may raise with him, as if anyone questioning him should be seen as stupid too.

He has plenty sent to him from welfare organisations, charities, the CAB, and also independent carers,medical or otherwise and also family, friends and neighbours of people sick and disabled.
All of which just gets a curt dismissal usually on his behalf and rarely from him himself.
All he can do is hide behind his Parliamentary position, facing no one face to face unless he wants to and likely on his terms only too.

Seems a bit silly having to answer a question that does not go towards the point system, unless it gives them a better overall picture.
I have to say I have no complaints, from the day my daughter rang up to enquire, everybody has been very kind and helpful. The lady explained in detail what would happen and what I needed to do so I found it quite simple.
The nurse that came out to see me was lovely. She told me I would hear from them in approx 8 weeks. They contacted my doctor for a report and we're happy to go along with what she told them.
I received a letter in just over three weeks telling me that money had been put in the bank and what my 4 weekly payment would be.
I didn't have to move from my chair.
Mine wasn't ESA it was PIP. I do realise that a lot of people are having bother with it all, but only fair to show the other side of the coin.

[Kizzy]

Kizzy, it is because of his policies he is so hated by people who cannot get fairness and compassion from him.
This thread is and should be about everything as to his policies, it is his policies that make him the individual he is as to Politics.
As in the post that Dezzy made earlier.
It is also why he gets the attacks he does too.

There was no violence,they were not inbred morons and you are right 100% in my view.

Thanks for that Joey I of course agree, his policies are some of the most dangerous in modern politics. Nobody who has had direct or indirect experience via family and friend could justify what they have done to the most vulnerable in our society.

[joeysteele]

Thanks for that Joey I of course agree, his policies are some of the most dangerous in modern politics. Nobody who has had direct or indirect experience via family and friend could justify what they have done to the most vulnerable in our society.

I think off the top of my head I have assisted,either in going along to an assessment for ESA or helping fill in the form for it for somewhere around 90+ people now.
At the assessments,I witnessed only 15 where things went smoothly and where the person was treated with respect.

In my job in Law, I have assisted with cases for appeals of loss of benefits or benefits being cut,too many times to mention now, each one I have heard of and actually seen go to Court in the end as the last resort,( after the DWP waste time supposedly looking at it again but not even getting in touch with Doctors, Consultants or carers), I have yet to come across a single one where the appeal was not upheld either in full or in part.

Of course some run smoothly,and all goes well but I have found that to be the minority more likely than the norm.
Such as today,Frank Field who this govt and IDS like to commend for his welfare plans and work in the past and his ideas too for the future at times.
He has pointed out that sanctions are being made on a scale never before seen and there are people dropping out the welfare system with no record of what is happening to them no protection and probably falling into destitution.

What is IDS and the DWP response to that, 'there is no basis to the claims'.
Dismissed instantly without even looking at it.

Well done for anyone who gets their ESA sorted quickly and without hassle, the last one I just helped with for someone they were left waiting 13 weeks to get the decision.
The sad thing is for those who it all goes smoothly for,that should be the norm for everyone across all justified benefit claims and sadly its not the case at all, and its getting worse.
Even now moreso with the planned stopping of financial assistance by this govt. for those who are left at the end with no choice but to fight their case in Court.
Thereby removing under the greedy guise of austerity,rights to justice for benefit claimants.

[Kizzy]

Crikey! thanks for sharing that Joey, you must have seen countless tomes the frustration and hopelessness of those fighting tooth and nail against the system just to be heard :( I've been on ESA following an illness luckily for me by the time I was sent a letter to attend a WCA I was 99% recovered, had I not been I would be in the boat of having to prove myself as doctors opinions appear to count for nothing do they?
People like yourself will be a godsend for those who don't have the strength or knowledge to fight this and get the support they need, well done Joey you are one great guy! Anyone with you on their side is extremely lucky :D

There has got to be a point in this country where we say enough, you can't shrink our services any longer everything is being scaled back to bare essentials, how can we function as an efficient civilised society on a shoestring? Something has to give, communities are being broken down, families scattered. A decent standard of living is unobtainable for a growing number of families leading to record numbers of children growing up in poverty. I've never thought that there could be a breaking point.. But it's feeling ever closer :/.

[joeysteele]

I'm not disputing ANYTHING you've said about IDS or his policies Joey because I totally agree that he is abhorrent and his policies are unfair.

I have not said otherwise.

As for applauding Joey, I applaud anyone who I feel deserves applause, whether they are my pals or not, or whether they like me or not.

But the truth still remains that only one or two non-Labourites dare to post on here anymore - and I'm one of them.

Look back on most of these threads and you will see a very clear pattern of ping-pong.

I will say no more because I do not want banning.

I post my views whether anyone agrees or not, I avoid things like inbred moron generalisation andinsults and also personal attacks to other members however.
I have reached a point at times it is pointless I feel to even try to alter someones thinking as I don't believe some even listen to what I am saying.

That does not bother me in the slightest but I am member too and if I find anyone that agrees with my stance and opinion, then naturally I will support that view and even expand on what I have said to them with further debate with thembecause they are at least listening and will not come back with any uncalled for or unnecessary insults.

No one can dictate or should dictate where a thread goes as long as it stays on topic,you said IDS policies should 'not' be an issue on this thread.
I disagree absolutely with that, his policies are the full reason people get aggressive towards him and he invites that.
It doesn't make them 'inbred morons' and it also does not in my view make them wrong to get at him whenever the opportunity, rare opportunity too that is, even arises.

Also no one ever needs to worry about being banned if they stay within the rules and show a little respect even while disagreeing with other members.
With full respect.no need for terminologies that may not be acceptable to the person being termed or called something at all.

[JoshBB]

it was an undemocratic mob

Non-violent protest is a key aspect of democracy.

[Kizzy]

I post my views whether anyone agrees or not, I avoid things like in bred moron insults and also personal attacks to other members however.
I have reached a point at times it is pointless I feel to even try to alter someones thinking as I don't believe some even listen to what I am saying.

That does not bother me in the slightest but I am member too and if I find anyone that agrees with my stance and opinion, then naturally I will support that view and even expand on what I have said to them with further debate with thembecause they are at least listening and will not come back with any uncalled for or unnecessary insults.

No one can dictate or should dictate where a thread goes as long as it stays on topic,you said IDS policies should 'not' be an issue on this thread.
I disagree absolutely with that, his policies are the full reason people get aggressive towards him and he invites that.
It doesn't make them 'inbred morons' and it also does not in my view make them wrong to get at him whenever the opportunity, rare opportunity too that is, even arises.

Also no one ever needs to worry about being banned if they stay within the rules and show a little respect even while disagreeing with other members.
With full respect.no need for terminologies that may not be acceptable to the person being termed or called something at all.

:clap1: :clap1: Thank you Joey I agree 100%

[Cherie]

Seems a bit silly having to answer a question that does not go towards the point system, unless it gives them a better overall picture.
I have to say I have no complaints, from the day my daughter rang up to enquire, everybody has been very kind and helpful. The lady explained in detail what would happen and what I needed to do so I found it quite simple.
The nurse that came out to see me was lovely. She told me I would hear from them in approx 8 weeks. They contacted my doctor for a report and we're happy to go along with what she told them.
I received a letter in just over three weeks telling me that money had been put in the bank and what my 4 weekly payment would be.
I didn't have to move from my chair.
Mine wasn't ESA it was PIP. I do realise that a lot of people are having bother with it all, but only fair to show the other side of the coin.



I work in a school for special needs and was asked to help families with English as a second language with their claim forms after all the negativity I have I read was pleasantly surprised at how organised it was, some families claims increased as well so it's not as bad as portrayed

[Ammi]

I work in a school for special needs and was asked to help families with English as a second language with their claim forms after all the negativity I have I read was pleasantly surprised at how organised it was, some families claims increased as well so it's not as bad as portrayed

...it's nice to hear that your experience has been more positive, Cherie...but just touching on that point of schools, this is something that we've/our school has been discussing a lot recently...we're having pupil referral unit after pupil referral unit closing down in our area, leaving nowhere for children who just can't fit into a main school environment to go...no school wants to not be able to take these children but sometimes just can't facilitate them, either in space they have or in finance because there's pretty much no help given/either financial or in the way of outside support/support they and their families so desperately need...also, so many referrals we're making being turned down/so those children and their families who are struggling so much and to the point of breaking in many cases...they're pretty much stuffed ..if any politician, not just IDS, but any politician had a child themselves who couldn't cope with main school environments ...would they ever think for one split second that some of the cutbacks made were ever acceptable...I doubt it...I can't imagine how it must feel to have a child who needs a more one to one type education because of their problems, to have places who could give them that being removed and to be told time and time again...no sorry, we would love to but just can't, it just isn't possible/no room at the inn I'm afraid because some children need their own classroom to themselves/a teacher to themselves etc or at least be in a very tiny group...

..there are still positive experiences, I agree..there are still some with us as well but sadly over the last few years, they've become fewer and fewer and are starting to become completely overshadowed by the more negative ones...for us it's just sad and frustrating but for those children and their families, it's so much more..they are not being given any, any chance in life...

[arista]

The only reason I don't post in here anymore to be honest is that it is far too intense and hostile at times.It's not that I don't have opinions I do,lots of them,but there really seems no point anymore.



KAZ
do not let the Left Wingers
scare you away


I want Everyones view


TIBB is a Demo- cracy

Thats a great mini song for a Robot

[Ammi]

...as for the OP and that specific incident...I think most of us know that 'there is a right way and wrong way' to address things but there are also decisions made that are so completely detached from the reality of lives/the impacts of lives that sometimes that has to be actually seen by the decision makers..that people feel that they have to actually 'go up and say in someone's face'...look, we are real people here, can you see us...(not that I think sadly that it would make any difference at all..)...but I do understand those whose lives are so impacted or know people who have been... that they have to 'show themselves' ...

[Kizzy]

Thanks Ammi, yes that's the crux of it, there just doesn't seem to be a way out for many. It's not simply form filling that's the issue it's the restrictions in social care, childrens services, mobility, the cuts to adult mental health, transitions from DLA to PIP, WCA.. endless.
For months and months there have been reports of cuts and spokespersons crying out for support, peaceful protests in London and locally. It's only now that it has reached breaking point and that it's even noticed but to criticise, it's just really sad to see so little empathy shown to those who need a hand up not a boot in the face.

[Cherie]

Thanks Ammi, yes that's the crux of it, there just doesn't seem to be a way out for many. It's not simply form filling that's the issue it's the restrictions in social care, childrens services, mobility, the cuts to adult mental health, transitions from DLA to PIP, WCA.. endless.
For months and months there have been reports of cuts and spokespersons crying out for support, peaceful protests in London and locally. It's only now that it has reached breaking point and that it's even noticed but to criticise, it's just really sad to see so little empathy shown to those who need a hand up not a boot in the face.

I don't think there is a lack of empathy, yes cuts are happening , but this demonstration was about form filling and being labelled "fit for work" and the change of system from DLA to PIP, this change has caused alot of needless stress for families as we only hear the negative stories in the media, families are frightened by what they hear, so as Smudgie said it's just showing the other side, that the system is not broken for everyone and in some case claimants are better off, no one is denying there haven't been shameful faults with the system but equally there have been success stories.

[kirklancaster]

I don't think there is a lack of empathy, yes cuts are happening , but this demonstration was about form filling and being labelled "fit for work" and the change of system from DLA to PIP, this change has caused alot of needless stress for families as we only hear the negative stories in the media, families are frightened by what they hear, so as Smudgie said it's just showing the other side, that the system is not broken for everyone and in some case claimants are better off, no one is denying there haven't been shameful faults with the system but equally there have been success stories.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Balance and truth.

[Kizzy]

I don't think there is a lack of empathy, yes cuts are happening , but this demonstration was about form filling and being labelled "fit for work" and the change of system from DLA to PIP, this change has caused alot of needless stress for families as we only hear the negative stories in the media, families are frightened by what they hear, so as Smudgie said it's just showing the other side, that the system is not broken for everyone and in some case claimants are better off, no one is denying there haven't been shameful faults with the system but equally there have been success stories.

Filling the fit for work form in is the easy part, the work capability assessment is the issue.
There is a lack of empathy in general imo, mention the word welfare and the word that springs to mind as the most prevalent descriptor in the media is 'scrounger'.
I agree there will be those who have had a seemless transition I'm glad of course Smudgie did, yet is this representative?
It's not just welfare affected, it's swathes of cuts to vital services and resources leaving mentally and physically incapacitated stranded, on a national level how many people is it feasible to suggest have benefited form the cuts?

[Cherie]

Filling the fit for work form in is the easy part, the work capability assessment is the issue.
There is a lack of empathy in general imo, mention the word welfare and the word that springs to mind as the most prevalent descriptor in the media is 'scrounger'.
I agree there will be those who have had a seemless transition I'm glad of course Smudgie did, yet is this representative?
It's not just welfare affected, it's swathes of cuts to vital services and resources leaving mentally and physically incapacitated stranded, on a national level how many people is it feasible to suggest have benefited form the cuts?

I'm only speaking from my own experience with families and yes in all cases it has been seemless and two families were moved up while the other 3 remained on the same level, I repeat I am well aware that people are falling through the cracks, and that services are being reduced, all I am saying is not everyone has been treated badly and I think this message is just as important for stressed claimants to hear as the negative stories.

[Kizzy]

I'm only speaking from my own experience with families and yes in all cases it has been seemless and two families were moved up while the other 3 remained on the same level, I repeat I am well aware that people are falling through the cracks, and that services are being reduced, all I am saying is not everyone has been treated badly and I think this message is just as important for stressed claimants to hear as the negative stories.

And again that's great, yet again nationally cases of individual cases or cracks and claimants pale into insignificance when weighted against the cuts to services, facilities closed and resources stripped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11707492/Camerons-stealth-cut-to-disability-benefits-is-obscene.html

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/02/government-to-cut-funding-disabled-university-students-jo-johnson

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-it-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brutal-government-cuts-forcing-disabled-6802010

The first few hits to 'disability cuts' on google ( don't you just love google?)

Doesn't even scratch the surface...

[joeysteele]

There should not be any faults at all in making sure people have their rights to what should be available for them and what they are genuinely entitled to.

The fact there are so many faults shows the policy has not been planned properly or that it is being enacted properly.

Great for the ones where all goes well but for those who it goes wrong for, it is massively stressful time to people who are already under great stress anyway,being vulnerable and stress too is of no assistance to people genuinely ill and disabled.

I love it when I come across a claim that gets done quickly,however, I find more and more having massive problems and lengthy delays too
Just because things maybe goes right for ,does not mean it is in any way right, and nor should it be, that for many, things go wrong and take far too much time to sort out.
To try to justify something being good when so much is going wrong, and people are being left with fewer and fewer outlets to get assistance with the problems too,is equally wrong in my view too.

The man responsible for it all is IDS and no wonder he gets jeers and shouts wherever he goes.
I rarely raise my voice to anyone, I doubt I could control that if I ever had the misfortune to come across him, from what I have seen as to the devastating effect of his heartless polices.

[Kizzy]

Britain's previously good record on housing was being eroded by a failure to provide sufficient quantities of affordable and social housing, the report said, with the result that "the structural shape of the housing sector has changed to the detriment of the most vulnerable". It called on the UK government to invest more in social housing.

The report did not hold back from documenting the combined impact of welfare reform and the housing crisis on vulnerable people, which Rolnik found on her visit had left many low income, disabled and homeless people in "tremendous despair".

And the heartless twonks dismiss this as diatribe :bored:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/03/ministers-savage-un-report-abolition-bedroom-tax

[kirklancaster]

Britain's previously good record on housing was being eroded by a failure to provide sufficient quantities of affordable and social housing, the report said, with the result that "the structural shape of the housing sector has changed to the detriment of the most vulnerable". It called on the UK government to invest more in social housing.

The report did not hold back from documenting the combined impact of welfare reform and the housing crisis on vulnerable people, which Rolnik found on her visit had left many low income, disabled and homeless people in "tremendous despair".

And the heartless twonks dismiss this as diatribe :bored:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/03/ministers-savage-un-report-abolition-bedroom-tax

And just WHERE pray tell, is all the billions needed to build ENOUGH housing going to come from? ESPECIALLY if we continue to SWELL the population by OPEN DOOR FREE FOR ALL IMIGRATION policies?

[Kizzy]

I know, don't build nuclear subs, build houses.

[Kizzy]

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article :clap1:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2015/09/art-cruelty-why-conservative-attack-disabled-people-harms-us-all

[joeysteele]

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article :clap1:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2015/09/art-cruelty-why-conservative-attack-disabled-people-harms-us-all

This was largely ignored by the media.

Now okay while it wouldn't be fair to say the deaths were caused only by being made to work in some way.
The one running element and therefore 'a' contributing factor to all the deaths was apparently that all had over the last year or so been declared fit for work and got work from the re-assessments done by the DWP.

Whatever else it is, it shows the cruel re-assessments are wrong because clearly these people ought not have been declared fully fit for work.
From whoever declared them to be so.

[kirklancaster]

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article :clap1:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2015/09/art-cruelty-why-conservative-attack-disabled-people-harms-us-all

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

[DemolitionRed]

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

That's because there was a very fine line between the politics of our old Labour party and the present Conservative party.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm baffled as to why this debate has become just another hate campaign towards left wing politics. Are we suggesting that all of those in the protests had to be left wing? if so, how bizarrely ridiculous! Where the protesters not there because they feel they are being treated unfairly by PIP?. If so, they could be left right or middle, its irrelevant.

PIP is run on a for profits basis by shareholders and stakeholders in the Maximus empire. It was privatized by Neo-liberalist thinkers, which means it could of been privatized by the old Labour or the conservatives. Same meat different gravy.

Sad is the day when vocal protests are condemned in this country. When people can no longer voice their frustrations (loudly and stubbornly), then democracy has reached its end.

[DemolitionRed]

Maximus, part of the G1 multi billion dollar fortress are an American for-profit corporation that receives government contracts to provide "business process services" to government health and human services agencies.

Why was our welfare system sold down the river to this huge corporate giant? A company that don't have a good track record when it comes to delivering services efficiently and appropriately and who are known to of hurt many vulnerable families across America.

If we have to out-source then why not out-source to the Brits?
It would be interesting to research what ministers have shares in this company.

[joeysteele]

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

Where are the reports to back that up, I think you will find not as many in any way were reported in such a short period as this period,were declared fit for work.

However Labour were wrong to bring in ATOS testing of the sick and disabled but the way that was extended,made more degrading and then targeted by the coalition Govt and still now this one, is a disgrace.

I don't think you will find from sources like welfare groups and the CAB anything like deaths on the scale in tis reporting of the issue.

Also just because it maybe happened too under Labour,that in no way exonerates the heartlessness and increased severity of the re-assessments brought in by this lot over the last 5+ years.

This is one thing I have to say I admired about UKIP in the election last year as they called for this extreme ATOS re-assessing of the sick and disabled to be scrapped altogether.
It should be in my view.

[bots]

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

[Cherie]

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

Good post

[joeysteele]

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections


I agree to use the democratic process should be first and foremost,however results of by elections are dismissed usually because of low turnouts, the same with Council elections,a small turnout is considered unrepresentative of the voters at times too.
IDS is the most inaccessible of Ministers,I have seen lists of grievances and problems with facts,sent to him personally, which never get a response from him and usually have the conveying of something like,'those things shouldn't happen',
However they do happen and he lifts not a finger to stop them happening either and is always dismissive of the issues when raised.

I said after May's result last year, when Cameron was talking about being fair ad even compassion, the one sign of if he was serious about that, was if he moved or sacked IDS,I agree with you totally on that.
Once he left him in place I knew for the vast majority of genuine sick and disabled, more really bad times were coming.
Which they have.

So for someone like IDS who treats all with contempt he sees as beneath him, I can well understand the fury and anger directed at this truly awful politician, who for me should not be an MP at all, never mind a Minister with power over the most vulnerable in society.

[DemolitionRed]

Civil liberties include ‘freedom of expression’ but the rights to freedom of expression have been quietly eroded into something unrecognizable compared to what it was in the late 90’s.
.

In May 2015 Cameron told us all, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society” and he’s right, we have been passively tolerant as our governments have eroded more and more of our rights to freedom of expression. The new gagging bills implemented by the coalition government took away our privilege to group and form peaceful protest, without jumping through various hoops of fire first and even then they may turn us down and tell us we simply can’t protest. If we go ahead regardless and take to the street in peaceful protest we can be assaulted by police water cannons, and Cameron will give his blessing.

I can come on here and moan all I like but if me and a couple of friends made placards about our civil rights being infringed and walked together through the streets of Surrey, we are breaking the law and will likely be arrested.

Our right to protest is vital if we want our democracy to function properly. The more we behave and accept these rapid moving new polices that take away our civil liberties, the more sheep like we become.

[Kizzy]

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

How does any of the reforms facilitate this?

[Kizzy]

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence to back up this claim.

[Kizzy]

Civil liberties include ‘freedom of expression’ but the rights to freedom of expression have been quietly eroded into something unrecognizable compared to what it was in the late 90’s.
.

In May 2015 Cameron told us all, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society” and he’s right, we have been passively tolerant as our governments have eroded more and more of our rights to freedom of expression. The new gagging bills implemented by the coalition government took away our privilege to group and form peaceful protest, without jumping through various hoops of fire first and even then they may turn us down and tell us we simply can’t protest. If we go ahead regardless and take to the street in peaceful protest we can be assaulted by police water cannons, and Cameron will give his blessing.

I can come on here and moan all I like but if me and a couple of friends made placards about our civil rights being infringed and walked together through the streets of Surrey, we are breaking the law and will likely be arrested.

Our right to protest is vital if we want our democracy to function properly. The more we behave and accept these rapid moving new polices that take away our civil liberties, the more sheep like we become.

Well said I 100% agree!

[kirklancaster]

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence to back up this claim.

Well feel free to Google then, you're good at that. The Truth Is Out There.

[Vicky.]

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

I'm not sure it was quite as bad under Labour actually, but I am happy to be proven wrong with figures and such? It is true though that Labour brought in the dreadful ATOS in the first place. However over the past few years it has gotten harsher and harsher...the stupid tickbox sheets and such that they work from have been endlessly tweaked in an effort to get people not to bother claiming what they are entitled to. Its just sick really. And what? For 1% of fraud? Pull the other one. The few that do manage to claim when they are not ill must have figured out how to get round the current system, while the genuinely deserving are crapped on from a great height.

Even so, it doesn't exclude the current government from blame when people are still dying days after their fit for work assessments today. Labour cannot do anything about it right now..I don't know if they would if they could...but Labour is rather irrelevant to what is going on TODAY, if the people in power had a conscience, they wouldn't be blaming the sick and disabled for the economical mess. Hell, they were even on about chopping carers allowance. What could be the possible need for that besides just wanting to be ****ing cruel? Carers save our country a hell of a lot of money and work much harder and a lot more hours than some people in paid employment.

That's because there was a very fine line between the politics of our old Labour party and the present Conservative party.

Sadly true...

[Kizzy]

Well feel free to Google then, you're good at that. The Truth Is Out There.

I am and it is, what you suggest isn't however as I highly doubt it is the truth in all fairness, not worth wasting my time.

[joeysteele]

I'm not sure it was quite as bad under Labour actually, but I am happy to be proven wrong with figures and such? It is true though that Labour brought in the dreadful ATOS in the first place. However over the past few years it has gotten harsher and harsher...the stupid tickbox sheets and such that they work from have been endlessly tweaked in an effort to get people not to bother claiming what they are entitled to. Its just sick really. And what? For 1% of fraud? Pull the other one. The few that do manage to claim when they are not ill must have figured out how to get round the current system, while the genuinely deserving are crapped on from a great height.

Even so, it doesn't exclude the current government from blame when people are still dying days after their fit for work assessments today. Labour cannot do anything about it right now..I don't know if they would if they could...but Labour is rather irrelevant to what is going on TODAY, if the people in power had a conscience, they wouldn't be blaming the sick and disabled for the economical mess. Hell, they were even on about chopping carers allowance. What could be the possible need for that besides just wanting to be ****ing cruel? Carers save our country a hell of a lot of money and work much harder and a lot more hours than some people in paid employment.



Sadly true...


Fantastic post Vicky, fair and balanced and also in my view spot on too.

I would also question the deaths element under Labour too,I cannot find any detailed reliable info as to that at all other than criticisms for Labour bringing in the ATOS company.

[Kizzy]

:cheer2:

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB

[Cherie]

:cheer2:

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB

Yes I heard the interview about it this morning, the government are apoealing the decision :umm2:

[smudgie]

:cheer2:

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB

I am surprised that the grandparents managed to make a case.
The fact that it is based on their fear that they may have to pay the bedroom tax in future IF the council start actually charging them instead of it coming out of the extra funding they get for cases like this.
Good luck to them though.

[Cherie]

I am surprised that the grandparents managed to make a case.
The fact that it is based on their fear that they may have to pay the bedroom tax in future IF the council start actually charging them instead of it coming out of the extra funding they get for cases like this.
Good luck to them though.

The problem is the payments are "discretionary' so could be discontinued at any time

[smudgie]

The problem is the payments are "discretionary' so could be discontinued at any time

Yes, I understand their fear, I am just surprised that a case could be made on the basis though.
Not too sure about a panic room either, some nutter could set the house on fire or knock the doors down if they were serious about causing harm.


I have no problem with bedroom tax, just as long as every single tenant is offered a smaller property, until then it is totally unfair.

[joeysteele]

:cheer2:

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB

It is their right to do so as to appealing this 'judgement' from the Court today.
However how disgraceful it looks after seeing the interview with the Grandfather as to the child with very special needs,that a powerful govt is taking on such people in the Courts.
Over what, this financial penalty that no other Party in Parliament supports and all the warnings and criticisms of it from all quarters as to those having to deal with the stress and devastation brought to many of those affected by it.

The govt should do what is the only honourable thing to with this bedroom charge,scrap it.
I really hope the Court upholds this judgement again and says so in the strongest terms too.

To put that particular family and many others, numbered in the thousands like them, as was said on the Daily Politics, today, is absolutely beyond any decent defending of this shameful govt.

It should not however be also ever forgotten that the way this policy was formed and presented, that it was then only able to be enacted with the full support and votes of the vast majority of Liberal Democrats too.

[Cherie]

Yes, I understand their fear, I am just surprised that a case could be made on the basis though.
Not too sure about a panic room either, some nutter could set the house on fire or knock the doors down if they were serious about causing harm.


I have no problem with bedroom tax, just as long as every single tenant is offered a smaller property, until then it is totally unfair.

Yeah I didn't really get the panic room either, what a way to live

[joeysteele]

Personally,I see absolutely no point a all in building houses/flats with only one bedroom, it leaves no room for growth of a family at all.
There are now very few dwellings for those affected by the bedroom tax to move to,yet they still have to pay the thing, even if they are willing to move but the local Authority has no smaller dwelling to move to.

It should have only ever applied, had I ever thought it something that needed doing, to only 3 bedroomed houses,with the 3rd bedroom if not used paid for but it should never have applied to only 2 bedroomed houses/flats.


However it must be costing loads to implement it, for the local authorities to have to keep chasing rent arrears,for the cases taken to court to get eviction orders, which are then suspended by the Court and small repayments ordered off the arrears on arrears.
Then having to put in the discretionary payments too to subsidise some people affected by the tax.

What an administrative nightmare it must have turned out to be and it cannot be saving much, if anything at all.
Far better to cut the losses now and get rid of it, just get more dwellings built and get on with that quicker too.
A bonkers policy,badly planned and badly implemented.

[Johnnyuk123]

Personally,I see absolutely no point a all in building houses/flats with only one bedroom, it leaves no room for growth of a family at all.
There are now very few dwellings for those affected by the bedroom tax to move to,yet they still have to pay the thing, even if they are willing to move but the local Authority has no smaller dwelling to move to.

It should have only ever applied, had I ever thought it something that needed doing, to only 3 bedroomed houses,with the 3rd bedroom if not used paid for but it should never have applied to only 2 bedroomed houses/flats.


However it must be costing loads to implement it, for the local authorities to have to keep chasing rent arrears,for the cases taken to court to get eviction orders, which are then suspended by the Court and small repayments ordered off the arrears on arrears.
Then having to put in the discretionary payments too to subsidise some people affected by the tax.

What an administrative nightmare it must have turned out to be and it cannot be saving much, if anything at all.
Far better to cut the losses now and get rid of it, just get more dwellings built and get on with that quicker too.
A bonkers policy,badly planned and badly implemented.

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

[kirklancaster]

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

:laugh: Naughty Johnny.

[DemolitionRed]

Personally,I see absolutely no point a all in building houses/flats with only one bedroom, it leaves no room for growth of a family at all.
There are now very few dwellings for those affected by the bedroom tax to move to,yet they still have to pay the thing, even if they are willing to move but the local Authority has no smaller dwelling to move to.

It should have only ever applied, had I ever thought it something that needed doing, to only 3 bedroomed houses,with the 3rd bedroom if not used paid for but it should never have applied to only 2 bedroomed houses/flats.


However it must be costing loads to implement it, for the local authorities to have to keep chasing rent arrears,for the cases taken to court to get eviction orders, which are then suspended by the Court and small repayments ordered off the arrears on arrears.
Then having to put in the discretionary payments too to subsidise some people affected by the tax.

What an administrative nightmare it must have turned out to be and it cannot be saving much, if anything at all.
Far better to cut the losses now and get rid of it, just get more dwellings built and get on with that quicker too.
A bonkers policy,badly planned and badly implemented.

Totally agree with this.

Downsizing affects people who regularly have a grandchild over for the night and what happens if a late teenager leaves home for a year but then finds they can't manage and want to move back in with their parents?

I agree that not enough were built, especially if we now penalize people who have a second bedroom they don't use. I also think, so long as someone with a spare room has applied to downsize, the bedroom tax for them should be stopped.

I know someone who has been waiting for over a year to downsize but there's nothing available. When some friends on the same estate who are on the waiting list for a bigger flat suggested they swap, the council wouldn't allow it. :shrug: The one with the two bed flat has got into rent arrears and threatened with eviction even though she's trying her best to downsize.

I'm not sure why you believe it was brought in by the Labour party Johnny. It was brought in by David Cameron and Nick Clegg's. Labour wants to ban it.

[Northern Monkey]

The bedroom tax and policies like it are the reason i would never in my life vote Tory.It's a pity the Labour party are so far out of touch with reality aswell and the Lib Dems don't know what they stand for.

[DemolitionRed]

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

[joeysteele]

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

You can harp on about that till the cows come home if you want and we have discussed this at length before but since you ignore all my points as to it I see no point in humouring you any more as to it.
It was a Labour plan that is 'fact',, and in no way planned to be in any way,(even had they decided to go along with it), to the severity and extent the policy became and was only then implemented by the Conservative led coalition govt,that is fact too.

Continually ignore those facts if you must.

[Kizzy]

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

They want all social housing sold off and families in the ones they have, shunting those over housed and on benefits into private rented accommodation. They don't have the right to dictate how many private landlords have in their property, as long as the rent is less than the benefit cap then it's fine, the council don't have to fund repairs for private rented accommodation either so won't give a rats ass.

[DemolitionRed]

They want all social housing sold off and families in the ones they have, shunting those over housed and on benefits into private rented accommodation. They don't have the right to dictate how many private landlords have in their property, as long as the rent is less than the benefit cap then it's fine, the council don't have to fund repairs for private rented accommodation either so won't give a rats ass.

Yep, that explains things.

[Kizzy]

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

It was brought in to reduce the housing benefit bill and only applied to those over housed in private rented accomodation.

Which makes sense, place them in a smaller private rented home or social housing within the cap...sorted.

As it stands the reverse is happening, people are being turfed out of social housing into more expensive private rented accommodation, with as many if not more bedrooms than they had previously!

How does that make sense?

[Kizzy]

To those who have campaigned against the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ from the beginning, Wednesday’s decision by the appeal court to rule the policy discriminatory and unlawful will come as no surprise. To those who continue to defend the policy, this ruling should act as a stark reminder of its remarkable failure.

When it was first introduced by the coalition government in 2013, the bedroom tax aimed to cut the welfare bill and free up in-demand housing. The policy works by cutting the benefits tenants receive by 14% if they have one spare bedroom and a staggering 25 per cent if they have two or more.

At first, it may seem reasonable to some to cut people’s benefits if they are living in a house with one or more spare bedrooms. The idea is that this significant reduction in income will encourage the occupant to move to a house where all the rooms are used, therefore freeing up the larger property for those who require more than one room.

However, when you begin to look at the implications of the policy, as well as the failure to achieve one of its main goals, it becomes clear that the bedroom tax has been a disaster from the off.

According to the government’s own research published in 2014, almost 60 per cent of those affected by the bedroom tax were in rent arrears as a result of the policy. Furthermore, according to a survey carried out by the National Housing Federation in the same year, around one in seven families had received eviction letters and faced the prospect of losing their homes.

Even more worryingly, research carried out by the government’s Department for Work & Pensions found that three-quarters of those affected by the policy have had to cut back on food, while 46% had to cut back on heating and 33 per cent on travel. Clearly, the bedroom tax is having an extreme impact on those who are already struggling, forcing them to scale back on the essentials. Such a situation is simply unacceptable and confirms the fears many raised when the policy was first introduced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-look-back-at-the-startling-failure-of-the-bedroom-tax-a6838596.html

[Johnnyuk123]

:laugh: Naughty Johnny.

Everyone knows that the Labour party introduced the bedroom tax way back in 2008. Facts are simply that Kirk...Facts!

[Kizzy]

Everyone knows that the Labour party introduced the bedroom tax way back in 2008. Facts are simply that Kirk...Facts!

Nobody is disputing that fact :/

[DemolitionRed]

Watch Parliament TV: Urgent Question on under-occupancy. It’s a very heated debate and worth watching or listening to.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/bc5d98fd-ccbf-4569-91fe-3bfa058d8065?in=10:35:34

[Kizzy]

Brilliant! thanks red :)

[DemolitionRed]

Everyone knows that the Labour party introduced the bedroom tax way back in 2008. Facts are simply that Kirk...Facts!

Labour don't get off scot free but lets at least get the facts right.

The Labour government started a pilot scheme in 2001 in the private sector. This came to an end in 2003.

The Labour government introduced a similar restriction on Housing Benefit for tenants of private landlords in 2008 called 'The Local Housing Allowance'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Housing_Allowance

Clearly this was not a bedroom tax and still isn't (christ knows why they call it a tax)

[user104658]

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.

[Kizzy]

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.

That is separate to the spare room subsidy.

'This change affects council tenants, and those who rent from housing associations, who are housing benefit claimants. It does not affect private sector tenants who are already subject to certain rules.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

[user104658]

That is separate to the spare room subsidy.

'This change affects council tenants, and those who rent from housing associations, who are housing benefit claimants. It does not affect private sector tenants who are already subject to certain rules.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

It is, but I was pointing out that it isn't true to say that "those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room". They are. The amount they are paid towards their rent is subject to the same "bedroom number" restrictions as council tenants. So, they don't get penalised IF they can find a property with more rooms, but for the same rent as the average property with fewer rooms. Thats not very often the case, though... more rooms in a house = higher rental prices.

[Kizzy]

It is, but I was pointing out that it isn't true to say that "those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room". They are. The amount they are paid towards their rent is subject to the same "bedroom number" restrictions as council tenants. So, they don't get penalised IF they can find a property with more rooms, but for the same rent as the average property with fewer rooms. Thats not very often the case, though... more rooms in a house = higher rental prices.

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

[user104658]

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

[kirklancaster]

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

Affordability of Rent in 'The Capital' is not just a problem for those on 'Welfare' - those in work are being priced out of housing too. In fact, there ARE examples where those in work are WORSE off than those on benefits.

[kirklancaster]

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

A brilliantly honest and informative post T.S - it is a thoroughly disgusting and unfair system which renders a hardworking, decent and honest man unable to afford his own property, and this needs addressing with the utmost urgency too.

[DemolitionRed]

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.

Thanks TS
I was aware of the cap on private rentals and that, that cap varies depending on where you live. It used to be (I used to work for an estate agent that also did rentals) that someone who was working full time could be subsidised for rental payments if they earned under a certain amount but it was rarely enough to pay the full amount in rent.

I worked in Surrey where lots of smaller property was available but prices were high and so even the top capped rentals were beyond most people who had to claim entire rents.

Yes, private tenants don't have to have an extra room to not afford rent which of course is unfair but its not a penalty on the number of bedrooms, its just a housing benefit that's far too low to pay the rent in full with.

The other thing about renting privately is, you are expected to fork out a hefty deposit, pay a month or two rent in advance; get a short term contract where the tenant is expected to pay every time its renewed. You often have to pay for the closure of that contract and many people have a fight to get their full deposits back, regardless of how clean and tidy they've been. On top of that rents can suddenly go up on contract renewal and like you say, landlords/agents can give you notice after a mere six months.

People who privately rent don't have the security of knowing they can live in a place for long. They also know that if they don't have a good agent, that agent will try and screw them for more money at every given opportunity. If they have children or pets finding property is more problematic. If they smoke they have to lie and say they don't and if they are on benefits they will be turned away by most landlords. Private rentals is the biggest scam on the property market and although I'd recommend renting to anyone in this present unpredictable crisis, if its security of a long term home they are looking for, I'd warn them off.

More social housing is needed because more and more people are renting their homes. Landlords and agents have got greedier and greedier over this past decade and its time they were stopped. But the present social housing system doesn't work and they have no intentions of making it work.

I would love to see a government that will bring back affordable social housing for anyone who needs it.

[Kizzy]

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

I don't understand this part, are you on the waiting list for social housing? You don't have to be on a low income or on welfare to qualify it's not means tested.
Out of interest why don't you buy? If you have a decent income it's dead money renting.

[user104658]

I don't understand this part, are you on the waiting list for social housing? You don't have to be on a low income or on welfare to qualify it's not means tested.
Out of interest why don't you buy? If you have a decent income it's dead money renting.

No, not on a waiting list, there is effectively zero social housing where I live. A few grubby one and two bed flats / bedsits, nothing suitable for families. What there are thousands of, funnily enough, are ex-council homes that we're bought on the cheap years ago and are now in the private rental market for almost double what the mortgage on the same house would be.

Anyway, yes, I'm aware that it's dead money... However... Like I said, stuck in the middle. Too much money to get any sort of help, and whilst we could more than afford a mortgage (mortgage on a BIGGER house is less than we pay in extortionate private rent), we can't buy. We would need at least a £20,000 deposit and I personally wouldn't buy without a "safety net" of at least 5k for potential early problems. Realistically I'm not going to have that for at least another 5+ years, probably longer.

Basically, being a first time buyer, if you need a family home, is very difficult these days without some other help e.g. a loan from family. Or someone handily dying and leaving some cash.

Again, we could technically buy "a property" but it would be a smaller flat, fine for singles or couples, not suitable for a family of 4. It's something I did look into in terms of an investment, buying to rent out, but unfortunately it seems more complicated than it would first appear.

[DemolitionRed]

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

[Kizzy]

Do you have 'handy' friends, people who would help you with a fixer upper?.. I'd consider again TS if you found a smaller place you over time could extend up (loft conversion) or out on, you could do that over time and let the girls share a room for now.

[user104658]

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

[Kizzy]

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

It does, hey move in with them while you save up :laugh:

[user104658]

It does, hey move in with them while you save up [emoji23]
Reckon everyone from Tibb should just chip in and pay my deposit tbh...

In all seriousness though; every one of my friends my age who now owns property has had help to do so. Money left by grandparents, or have been able to stay with family while they save, etc.

For us on the other hand... My parents sold the family home when they divorced 12 years ago, my mum drank her half of the money and then died leaving nothing (well no, that's not fair there was some money and I paid off student debts, so it's now gone) and my dad moved into a one bed flat so that he could, as far as I can tell, spend the majority of his half on guitars and gadgets.

My wife's family... Well... We lived 15 minutes walk from them for a year and a half and then literally moved countries to be away from it :joker:.

Not that I'm even saying everyone is entitled to family help. Just that most young families who want to buy, these days, need at least a little.

Maybe I could adopt a grannie or something. A really old and rich one and then I could inherit her cash. If she was super old I'd probably only need to have sex with her two, maybe three times...

[DemolitionRed]

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

Unfortunately most people don't buy as a necessity any more, they buy what they believe to be an investment. Back in the day, people bought houses to make into permanent cosy homes. A two or three bed terrace was a place they could start and raise a family and grow old together (its still like that in France thank goodness). Now most home buyers in the UK expect to be moving onwards and upwards after a few years because its all about investment, moving up the property ladder and making profit and because banks are willing to lend such huge amounts, the aspiring middle classes are more than willing to move on to yet another crushing mortgage.

Lets hope your friends have a fixed rate mortgage and not a standard variable rate. You should ask them and warn them because if they are on an SVRM, when the bubble bursts they will inevitably will be faced with unsustainable mortgage re-payments for a house with negative equity. Show them this http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-signs-that-point-to-a-new-uk-recession-in-201617/

[DemolitionRed]

Reckon everyone from Tibb should just chip in and pay my deposit tbh...



Do a 'crowd funding' :joker: I'll chip in.

[DemolitionRed]

Not that I'm even saying everyone is entitled to family help. Just that most young families who want to buy, these days, need at least a little.



Absolutely.

I recently tried to explain to a friend why some people end up being homeless. If they don't have that back up system of a generous family and they fall on hard times (most people are only two pay checks away from becoming bankrupt) then its easy to become homeless.

When our children buy we totally expect to help them out and we will do that because we can but we can only do that because we have inheritance savings ourselves.

[Northern Monkey]

Do you have 'handy' friends, people who would help you with a fixer upper?.. I'd consider again TS if you found a smaller place you over time could extend up (loft conversion) or out on, you could do that over time and let the girls share a room for now.

That's what we did.Cheap 2 bed bungalow in an ok area and 5 years later got a loft conversion to make it a 4 bed.It worked out cheaper than a 4 bedroom house would have cost.Probably around the same price a 3 bed house would have cost in a bad area.

[Kizzy]

That's what we did.Cheap 2 bed bungalow in an ok area and 5 years later got a loft conversion to make it a 4 bed.It worked out cheaper than a 4 bedroom house would have cost.Probably around the same price a 3 bed house would have cost in a bad area.

There you go TS, talk to the monkey :)

[joeysteele]

Unfortunately most people don't buy as a necessity any more, they buy what they believe to be an investment. Back in the day, people bought houses to make into permanent cosy homes. A two or three bed terrace was a place they could start and raise a family and grow old together (its still like that in France thank goodness). Now most home buyers in the UK expect to be moving onwards and upwards after a few years because its all about investment, moving up the property ladder and making profit and because banks are willing to lend such huge amounts, the aspiring middle classes are more than willing to move on to yet another crushing mortgage.

Lets hope your friends have a fixed rate mortgage and not a standard variable rate. You should ask them and warn them because if they are on an SVRM, when the bubble bursts they will inevitably will be faced with unsustainable mortgage re-payments for a house with negative equity. Show them this http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-signs-that-point-to-a-new-uk-recession-in-201617/

Fantastic posts from both you and TS, DemolitionRed,sadly as you both really point out the housing situation is a mess and over the last 5+ years has not improved at all.

Your opening line to this particular post is absolutely spot on too.

[smudgie]

Back in the day, we realised we couldn't have it all, bought a cheap house and then worked our way up.
We bought ex council as our first home, loved it, then when second baby came along we moved to a bit bigger house, bit extra mortgage but we were earning a bit more.
Eventually we moved to this house, mainly to get the best education in the area, stretched us a bit but well worth it, now lived here for coming up to 23 years.
Love it here and never felt the urge to move, mind you a lottery win would see us in a nice bungalow:laugh:
But I can assure you, back in the day people were moving up the ladder all the time, wanting to do a bit better for themselves or to give themselves a little nest egg for their later years.
Nothing wrong with it either, if people didn't move up the ladder then there would never be the opportunity for others to geT on that first rung.

[user104658]

Back in the day, we realised we couldn't have it all, bought a cheap house and then worked our way up.
We bought ex council as our first home, loved it, then when second baby came along we moved to a bit bigger house, bit extra mortgage but we were earning a bit more.
Eventually we moved to this house, mainly to get the best education in the area, stretched us a bit but well worth it, now lived here for coming up to 23 years.
Love it here and never felt the urge to move, mind you a lottery win would see us in a nice bungalow[emoji23]
But I can assure you, back in the day people were moving up the ladder all the time, wanting to do a bit better for themselves or to give themselves a little nest egg for their later years.
Nothing wrong with it either, if people didn't move up the ladder then there would never be the opportunity for others to geT on that first rung.
Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids :joker:.

[Cherie]

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

Why not? if you are buying a home rather than an investment it's a great time as buyers can take advantage of locking down a fixed rate for the next ten years, yes the value might fall but it will rise again down the road, equity in a property either positive or negative is just a figure in a home that you plan to live in for along time.

[kirklancaster]

Why not? if you are buying a home rather than an investment it's a great time as buyers can take advantage of locking down a fixed rate for the next ten years, yes the value might fall but it will rise again down the road, equity in a property either positive or negative is just a figure in a home that you plan to live in for along time.

So true Cherie. There is ALWAYS cyclic 'peaking' and 'troughing' in any market - not just the property market - but historically, property prices have only increased, and the price of the average property DOUBLES every 10 years or so.

True again, is the fact that Fixing at a relatively low rate now for as long as possible is a very smart move.

[Kizzy]

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids :joker:.

What do you think they were on the 80s, free?
Property has always been an investment and although yes houses were cheaper wages were less weren't they...
A mortgage on £120,000 would be less than you pay monthly, rent a 2 bed flat instead of a house next and get your deposit together.

[smudgie]

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids :joker:.

Hell no, I know it's a world of difference now TS.
We don't kid ourselves, if we were starting out now there is no way on earth we would end up where we are now in our lifetime.
Not just the ridiculous house prices but also the total lack of job security for so many people.
We had a few blips and worries on the way with the firm hubby works for being taken over three times since if was British Steel but he was fortunate enôugh to keep his job.
I really do worry for the future of our kids generation, something needs to be done re the hosing situation, and I mean a bit more thán whichever government that is in just wringing their hands and sayîng what they intend to do.

[Cherie]

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids :joker:.

Its not the 90s either, interest on our first mortgage was 15 per cent :idc:

[smudgie]

Its not the 90s either, interest on our first mortgage was 15 per cent :idc:

Aye, interest rates were really high years ago.
Thinking about it, we took out mortgage protection as well, in case anything happened, it would give us a bit of breathing space.

[user104658]

Hell no, I know it's a world of difference now TS.
We don't kid ourselves, if we were starting out now there is no way on earth we would end up where we are now in our lifetime.
Not just the ridiculous house prices but also the total lack of job security for so many people.
We had a few blips and worries on the way with the firm hubby works for being taken over three times since if was British Steel but he was fortunate enôugh to keep his job.
I really do worry for the future of our kids generation, something needs to be done re the hosing situation, and I mean a bit more thán whichever government that is in just wringing their hands and sayîng what they intend to do.
Yeah, a big part of my dilemma with work is security. I hate my job - actively despise it at times, it makes me miserable for weeks on end. The rest of the time it's just straight up mind-numbingly boring. Either way it's unchallenging and there's no scope for progression.

However, it's rock solid for decades to come (... Shudder...) unless I actively make some sort of mistake to mess it up. If I leave to pursue anything else, that might pay better or have better prospects going forward, then it adds a huge element of job insecurity. Meh. If I didn't have kids it would be a no-brainer, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat and take my chances, but with other people to consider and the potential consequences of unemployment it just becomes impossible.

[Cherie]

Aye, interest rates were really high years ago.
Thinking about it, we took out mortgage protection as well, in case anything happened, it would give us a bit of breathing space.

Sounds like you have a PPI claim Smudgie if you can lay your hands on the paperwork

[smudgie]

Sounds like you have a PPI claim Smudgie if you can lay your hands on the paperwork

:laugh: I wouldn't think so, I mean, putting our hands on the paperwork.
We paid it for quite a few years until a financial advisor told us to stop.

[Cherie]

Yeah, a big part of my dilemma with work is security. I hate my job - actively despise it at times, it makes me miserable for weeks on end. The rest of the time it's just straight up mind-numbingly boring. Either way it's unchallenging and there's no scope for progression.

However, it's rock solid for decades to come (... Shudder...) unless I actively make some sort of mistake to mess it up. If I leave to pursue anything else, that might pay better or have better prospects going forward, then it adds a huge element of job insecurity. Meh. If I didn't have kids it would be a no-brainer, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat and take my chances, but with other people to consider and the potential consequences of unemployment it just becomes impossible.

I know we are all different but if it were me I would want the security of my own home above all else, you could apply the same logic about moving jobs to providing food and warmth

[Cherie]

:laugh: I wouldn't think so, I mean, putting our hands on the paperwork.
We paid it for quite a few years until a financial advisor told us to stop.

Damn they are only going back 6 years now without paperwork

[DemolitionRed]

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids :joker:.

2 bed ex council houses go for a minimum of £half a million where we are. You can't get a tiny bedsit for less than £200k and the trouble with that is, for affordability reasons, when children fly the nest they have to move some distance away.

[DemolitionRed]

Why not? if you are buying a home rather than an investment it's a great time as buyers can take advantage of locking down a fixed rate for the next ten years, yes the value might fall but it will rise again down the road, equity in a property either positive or negative is just a figure in a home that you plan to live in for along time.

You're right about people who buy homes rather than investment properties to a point but I wouldn't be happy if I bought an apartment for 200k and five years later it was only worth £150. Yes, once we are in we can always sit it out and that's what people will do but if I was to hold my money back for now, I may well be in a position to buy at a much cheaper rate sometime soon.

[Cherie]

You're right about people who buy homes rather than investment properties to a point but I wouldn't be happy if I bought an apartment for 200k and five years later it was only worth £150. Yes, once we are in we can always sit it out and that's what people will do but if I was to hold my money back for now, I may well be in a position to buy at a much cheaper rate sometime soon.

If you are a cash buyer that is sensible, if someone needs a mortgage they will never get it cheaper than now