# Axing of benefits for rioters



## 1%er (Aug 10, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429

Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in  England.

Do the facts show that most of those involved are on benefit?


----------



## embree (Aug 10, 2011)

Yes, I'd imagine tipping people even further into poverty will make em stop their criminal ways


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

I've seen this. The same little rich cunt that came up with the brilliant idea of a Rally Against Debt has been championing that cracking idea.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

What could possibly go wrong....


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

1%er said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429
> 
> Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in England.


Really?  It's become 'common sense'.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 10, 2011)

1%er said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429
> 
> Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in England.
> 
> Do the facts show that most of those involved are on benefit?



There has been a 20 year hate propaganda campaign against benefit claimants by governments and the gutter press.
This goes a very long way to explaining why only 0.31% of phone calls to the shop a  benefit cheat hotline ends in a prosecution.
The vast majority of people who reckon they know a benefit fraud are wrong.
Many of those being fast tracked through the courts today appear to be either too young to be on benefits or middle class people in reasonably well paid employment.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 10, 2011)

From what I have read here, I got the impression from the tweets that were quoted that many of the people in court today had jobs


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.

Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

1%er said:


> From what I have read here, I got the impression from the tweets that were quoted that many of the people in court today had jobs



Not for long LOL!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.


 
So you are calling for the sacking of all MPS that fiddled their expense claims, MET police that took bribes etc...Good!


----------



## Deareg (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.


I knew you would cream yourself on this one.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm just teetering on defriending one of my cousins on facebook because he's put a link to this up saying 'you should all sign' He's a tactless Tory twat at the best of times


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.



The justice system is one thing, the welfare system is another. The two should not cross. If you're guilty of a crime you should face jail, but once you serve your time that should be the end of it.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.



Have you thought about the consequences of withholding benefits to anyone convicted of the rioting?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The justice system is one thing, the welfare system is another. The two should not cross. If you're guilty of a crime you should face jail. Once you serve your time that should be the end of it.



Indeed_._

The whole idea is, how shall I put it politely, a fucking idiotic one dreamt up by a fucking stupid idiot!


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I'm just teetering on defriending one of my cousins on facebook because he's put a link to this up saying 'you should all sign' He's a tactless Tory twat at the best of times


Do it- defriend them.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 10, 2011)

Rioters in Mcr and Salford threatened with eviction...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14478498


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 10, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I'm just teetering on defriending one of my cousins on facebook because he's put a link to this up saying 'you should all sign' He's a tactless Tory twat at the best of times



Steady on now.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 10, 2011)

The whole idea is just this: 

FFS.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 10, 2011)

offenders who go to prison lose their benefit anyway - it's a total non story.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.



Torched any more boozers lately you washed up fantasist?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> offenders who go to prison lose their benefit anyway - it's a total non story.


Some won't go to prison...not enough prison space.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> Torched any more boozers lately you washed up fantasist?



No, have you?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> offenders who go to prison lose their benefit anyway - it's a total non story.



Precisely.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> Do it- defriend them.



I've just done it, I can't be arsed wasting any more energy trying to tell him and his pompous mates sitting in their nice comfy middle class houses with their nice car and their nice telly and their nice 2 week holiday to Disneyworld and their nice lifetime full of opportunities for their children why they're wrong.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> 
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way.



It's a wonder none of them have thought of doing that.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's a wonder none of them have thought of doing that.



If they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I've just done it, I can't be arsed wasting any more energy trying to tell him and his pompous mates sitting in their nice comfy middle class houses with their nice car and their nice telly and their nice 2 week holiday to Disneyworld and their nice lifetime full of opportunities for their children why they're wrong.



They can't be as bad as one of my housemates. Who has just called for sharia law and for eleven year old kids to have their hands and feet chopped off.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> If they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes.



You going to give them a job? If not you, then who?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 10, 2011)

It's a good job the e-petitions thing is irrelevant government fluff then eh.

(Well, on reflection it's certainly allowed the BBC to portray divvy right-wing nonsense as the voice of the people, I suppose.)


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's a good job the e-petitions thing is irrelevant government fluff then eh.
> 
> (Well, on reflection it's certainly allowed the BBC to portray divvy right-wing nonsense as the voice of the people, I suppose.)



Wait...the BBC are COMMNISS!


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 10, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's a good job the e-petitions thing is irrelevant government fluff then eh.



I thought it was irrelevant until I had a petition refused which also does not appear on the refused list.The only reason for which can be is an American company employed by the Department of Work and Pensions as advisors has taken out a super-injuction to prevent their name being mentioned on the epetitons website. There already are several allowed petitions with the name ATOS in them, so I will leave the experts on "welfare reform" and the "work capability assessment" on these forums to draw their own conclusions about who the company is.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

'Rioters in Mcr and Salford threatened with eviction...'

Wow, i predicted on another thread that uber neo liberal N/L Manchester Council would be one of the first to do this, and I expect Millipede to endorse it, the floodgates are open and welfare will increasingly be used neo-victorian style to change lifestyle, morality, etc..


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

@roc
Its UNUM PROVIDENT!


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> @roc
> Its UNUM PROVIDENT!



You may think that, I of course could not possible comment, as I do not wish this forum to be closed down.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

1%er said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429
> 
> Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in England.
> 
> Do the facts show that most of those involved are on benefit?



Many of the looters, being teens, don't actually qualify to claim any benefits. You can't claim anything at all between 16-18, and only an attenuated amount between 18-25, you aslo will find it very hard to get housing benefit for anything except a single room in a house-share.

Basically the "e-petitioners" are operating from a false premise, but that's never been something that's stopped right-wingers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So you are calling for the sacking of all MPS that fiddled their expense claims, MET police that took bribes etc...Good!



And himself, whenever he or his accountant finesses his tax returns.


----------



## newme (Aug 10, 2011)

Thinknig about it through, if someone has no job prospects and then no benefits, exactly how are they going to live?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> Have you thought



Now there's a redundant question.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

newme said:


> Thinknig about it through, if someone has no job prospects and then no benefits, exactly how are they going to live?



Any way they're able, one expects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> If they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes.



Mmm, because none of the looters have been shown to have jobs, have they?


----------



## newme (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any way they're able, one expects.



Which is likely to be fairly less than legally after they have had prosecutions brought against them and jobs lost if they had them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

newme said:


> Which is likely to be fairly less than legally after they have had prosecutions brought against them and jobs lost if they had them.



Quite. That's why the sort of methods that pk is proposing will only drag the people and places he claims to be defending deeper into the shit. Desperate people have fewer scruples than reasonably content people. The Roman principle of "bread and circuses" worked (generally) for a reason.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, because none of the looters have been shown to have jobs, have they?



Which part of "and many do" are you having trouble with?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite. That's why the sort of methods that pk is proposing will only drag the people and places he claims to be defending deeper into the shit. Desperate people have fewer scruples than reasonably content people. The Roman principle of "bread and circuses" worked (generally) for a reason.



The culture of scruple-less behaviour is the main factor though. Here we have gangs of kids, openly telling anyone that they are heartless, that it is all about the ends, they feel big enough and numerous enough to take on the state.

I see it like this: pick a side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> If they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes.


that makes no sense at all. people with jobs can loot and burn just as well as people without jobs.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that makes no sense at all. people with jobs can loot and burn just as well as people without jobs.



Actually you're right. It makes no fucking sense at all. Been one of those weeks I guess.

I am curious, Pickmans Oranj. What will you tell people in years to come when they ask "what did you do in the summer of 2011?"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> Actually you're right. It makes no fucking sense at all. Been one of those weeks I guess.
> 
> I am curious, Pickmans Oranj. What will you tell people in years to come when they ask "what did you do in the summer of 2011?"


i'll take a leaf out of your book and tell them a load of bullshit. i'll tell them about how you and me done the burning, you down in croydon and me up in tottenham. tell you what, i'll even big you up as the arsonist with more experience.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that makes no sense at all. people with jobs can loot and burn just as well as people without jobs.



According to BBC News at the moment many of those appearing in court have not only got jobs they have got well paid jobs.


----------



## Voley (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> I see it like this: pick a side.








"You're either with us or against us."


----------



## Sue (Aug 10, 2011)

Citizen or civilian.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> According to BBC News at the moment many of those appearing in court have not only got jobs they have got well paid jobs.


doubtless they're referring to the cps and defence counsel.


----------



## newme (Aug 10, 2011)

wow he actually looks less intelligent than the last time i saw a picture of him


----------



## Deareg (Aug 10, 2011)

Said on the BBC that one of them is a army recruit, hope they jail that cunt and kick him out before he gets any where near innocent Afghans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Said on the BBC that one of them is a army recruit, hope they jail that cunt and kick him out before he gets any where near innocent Afghans.


i think it was in today's star there was a letter saying that everyone convicted of rioting / looting should be forced to join the army.

seems to me that could only improve the army's image abroad.


----------



## grit (Aug 10, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Said on the BBC that one of them is a army recruit, hope they jail that cunt and kick him out before he gets any where near innocent Afghans.



Eh, he will essentially be doing the same thing to the afghans if he got over there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> Which part of "and many do" are you having trouble with?



None of it.

You said (post #8, in response to the OP:
This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way"

To which Steel cat's arse replied (post #26):
"It's a wonder none of them have thought of doing that"
Which we can take as referring to getting/having a job and paying their way.

You responded to that (post #27) with
"if they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes".
Well, to me that says that if they had a job or had thought about getting a job, they wouldn't be doing those terrible things. Agreed?

Which means that you're implying (strongly) that those who've been out looting and destroying homes have no jobs.
Except that the court reports today tell us otherwise.

Now, unless you attach a slightly different meaning to parts of the English language than most people, you were cunting rioters and looters off as doleys, and you've been shown to be wrong.

Convince me otherwise, please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

vp

everyone knows pk's wrong 99% of the time; and the other 1%'s down to giving the same thing about giving a monkey a typewriter and a load of time.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> The culture of scruple-less behaviour is the main factor though. Here we have gangs of kids, openly telling anyone that they are heartless, that it is all about the ends, they feel big enough and numerous enough to take on the state.
> 
> I see it like this: pick a side.


Not your side.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> The culture of scruple-less behaviour is the main factor though.



There is no "culture of scruple-less behaviour". There's a culture of ineffective discipline of adults and children, but that's what happens when you keep changing the messages you give people, if one minute it's okay to discipline a kid or tell an unruly adult to calm it down, and then chop over to telling them "don't tell the kid off, don't tell the drunk bloke who's pissing in your garden to take a hike". There's no easy-to-grasp single reason, although fuck knows the Pols (and you, seemingly) want there to be. Change takes time and effort, not bluster and aggression.

Unless you want to set up the prerequisites for this all happening again next year and the year after, world without fucking end, of course.



> Here we have gangs of kids, openly telling anyone that they are heartless...



Next you'll be trying to convince me that you didn't give it the well hard biggun when you were a youth. Have a word with yourself.



> ....that it is all about the ends, they feel big enough and numerous enough to take on the state.



You need to put down the copy of the _Standard_ that you're reading. It's not all about territoriality, in fact that's pretty much gone by-the-by in the last 4 days, neither is it about "taking on the state", it's about taking on the Old Bill. You think those people don't know that if the state deployed all the apparatus it has, they won't be crushed?
It's about loads of things, about defiance, about showing you've still got your pride and yes, about ripping shit off as well.



> I see it like this: pick a side.



You've already picked your side.

I see it like this. I've been on both sides of the lines, unlike most people here. You line up with the likes of Cameron if you want, but don't weep, wail and gnash your teeth when a few years down the line it's your kids or the children of your friends they're chewing on to make party political points.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> vp
> 
> everyone knows pk's wrong 99% of the time; and the other 1%'s down to giving the same thing about giving a monkey a typewriter and a load of time.



I have this fault though, Pickman's. However hard I try I can't get rid of the hope that I can get people to think again.


----------



## Sue (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have this fault though, Pickman's. However hard I try I can't get rid of the hope that I can get people to think again.


Born optimist


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have this fault though, Pickman's. However hard I try I can't get rid of the hope that I can get people to think again.



What you are blessed with is optimism, passion and intelligence....it's not a fault however frustrating and pointless it may feel being baited, ignored and dismissed by the likes of PK!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

NVP said:


> "You're either with us or against us."



Jesus, that's one for a caption competition, and no mistake! 

"Hi folks, I'm the mayor of Glazey Eye, Idaho!"


----------



## Flanflinger (Aug 10, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I've just done it, I can't be arsed wasting any more energy trying to tell him and his pompous mates sitting in their nice comfy middle class houses with their nice car and their nice telly and their nice 2 week holiday to Disneyworld and their nice lifetime full of opportunities for their children why they're wrong.



So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.



Nice. So by extension, everyone poor = lazy, and everyone rich = hard-working, on a sliding scale. Is that it?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.



oh fuck off, I work for a living too, so does my brother and his wife, and they are still trapped in a shitty horrible housing estate with junkies for neighbours because they have no hope of ever getting a council house, can't afford the astronomical private rents in this city and can't sell their flat for enough to cover the outstanding mortgage.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.



And of course if people deserve their poverty, then no further questions need be asked. Is that it?


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.


Fuck you fuck face


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Is it me, or are there suddenly more knobheads - either new or old - here since the big change?

Happy to have 'em, obv. Feeling quite fucking antsy right about now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> So he chose to work for a living and now enjoys the rewards of his hard work.



You're *assuming* that he works for a living.

But then most of your posts are insubstantial, constructed around your assumptions and your prejudices, rather than around anything real. That's because you're a cunt, and not just a common-or-garden cunt, but someone who's the worst sort of cunt: The sort that are bright enough that they should know better, but are too lazy too bother to educate themselves or to care about anyone but themselves.

Fuck you. I pity the poor sods who brought you into the world. What a crushing disappointment you must be, seeming like a human, but actually 100% shitcunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Is it me, or are there suddenly more knobheads - either new or old - here since the big change?
> 
> Happy to have 'em, obv. Feeling quite fucking antsy right about now.



I see them as a divinely-delivered channel for my inner sweary bastard.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I see them as a divinely-delivered channel for my inner sweary bastard.



 Me too.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> None of it.
> 
> You said (post #8, in response to the OP:
> This isn't prejudice. It's with-holding social security payments because these people have tried to destroy the security of society.
> Fuck em. If they don't like it they can find another house to live in, get a fucking job, and pay their way"



I don't see it as being too unfair, that "safe-houses" being used to store and sell looted goods be shut down and those involved be evicted. And indeed benefits stopped. Maybe I'm just mad, maybe I'm crazy!! Wooowoooo!!!!

It seems to me if you're happy to watch the homes of working class people burn and keep/handle/sell looted goods then you no longer deserve the handouts that are designed to benefit those in society most needy.

After all the same rule would definitely apply in an anarchist utopia. Wouldn't it, sweetheart?

If you're fit enough to boot the windows of Curry's and carry home a 50 inch telly, you're fit enough to get a fucking job.
Only a complete and utter thick cunt would disagree with that.



> To which Steel cat's arse replied (post #26):
> "It's a wonder none of them have thought of doing that"
> Which we can take as referring to getting/having a job and paying their way.



So there are no jobs in London? Bollocks. There are plenty.

Problem is - these kids are so fucked, they can't even hold a normal conversation. Many of them, and I mean a great many of them, they were born and bred in Hackney or Haringey or wherever - they've never even been to central London.
They live 5 miles away, they have never left their 2 mile boundaries. Can you believe that?
These same kids - and we're talking the hardcore of gang culture kids now - have never ONCE eaten at a table with a knife and fork. They can ONLY hold a conversation in txt spk innit bruv. They cannot relate to the workplace. Unemployable.



> You responded to that (post #27) with
> "if they had - and many do - they wouldn't be looting and destroying homes".
> Well, to me that says that if they had a job or had thought about getting a job, they wouldn't be doing those terrible things. Agreed?



I was trying to make a point that if any of these kids had ever worked hard enough to achieve something, they would know how precious that is. Fact is they haven't. Whether that is their fault or not is another debate.
But they are low achievers, caught up in this bling bling fantasy of instant rap fame or whatever, materialistic minds, without the means to achieve their goals.
So they steal and sell weed to get by, no big problem. And it gets more and more organised.
Then there's a good fence network.
And then you have the organised crime element, add extortion to that, add the gangsta culture to that, there you are.

Instant enemy of the working class, especially given the fact that they were prepared to kill people in order to cover their tracks.



> Which means that you're implying (strongly) that those who've been out looting and destroying homes have no jobs.
> Except that the court reports today tell us otherwise.



Which means I'm implying strongly that there were a bunch of pussies on the sidelines looking to swoop in and grab random shit once the major gangs grabbed what they came for.



> Now, unless you attach a slightly different meaning to parts of the English language than most people, you were cunting rioters and looters off as doleys, and you've been shown to be wrong.
> 
> Convince me otherwise, please.



You do have a fair point. I hope I have explained as best I can. Those caught were idiots.
The cops are too scared to go after the ringleaders, they've had years, but they are scared of being called racist or scared of fighting back.

I don't see any brave left wing shows of solidarity, and that does fuck me off. It's left to the Sikhs and the BNP.
That's the public perception.

With all the bravado and the anarchy and the smash the state bollocks - all turns out to be a bunch of white skinny dopeheads too scared to intervene or make a stand in case the nasty black boys steal their mobile phones.
I note with interest the little Socialist Workers Party mugs haven't been handing out their little placards in Hackney or Croydon or Brixton.

Maybe because they know splintered pieces of timber shoved hard into the anus will smart a bit.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What you are blessed with is optimism, passion and intelligence....it's not a fault however frustrating and pointless it may feel being baited, ignored and dismissed by the likes of PK!



Are you feeling ignored love? I think I've addressed every idiotic false claim you have served up to me so far.

Have I ignored any of your drivel yet? Please let me know if you've posted more words that I have not read and replied too.

I personally think you've drained way more than your deserved allocation of my time, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I work for a living too, so does my brother and his wife, and they are still trapped in a shitty horrible housing estate with junkies for neighbours because they have no hope of ever getting a council house



Can you explain exactly why this is, for the benefit of those who don't quite understand? Please?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Are you feeling ignored love? I think I've addressed every idiotic false claim you have served up to me so far.
> 
> Have I ignored any of your drivel yet? Please let me know if you've posted more words that I have not read and replied too.
> 
> I personally think you've drained way more than your deserved allocation of my time, but maybe that's just me.



Not ignored no, bemused and disheartened that although you _talk the talk_ you don't actually have anything substantial to add or qualify the drivel you have been posting in the last few days. You have not addressed anything...and indeed YOU have been consistently called on your own idiotic, false claims.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Can you explain exactly why this is, for the benefit of those who don't quite understand? Please?



Because they have a mortgage on a flat already. I was on the housing list for more than a year as a single mum with 3 kids under 6 at that time, and I never got a sniff of a flat despite bidding on many tens of them. What chance have they got? Because there aren't enough council houses for those who want them because Thatcher sold them all off and refused to allow the money be used for building more. Because it suits the government and their mates to have us all scrabbling for private lets. Because life's shit.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Not ignored no, bemused and disheartened that although you _talk the talk_ you don't actually have anything substantial to add or qualify the drivel you have been posting in the last few days. You have not addressed anything...and indeed YOU have been consistently called on your own idiotic, false claims.



Sorry you must be confusing me with the poster known as Past Caring.

You might wish to click on my username and have a proper read of the posts I have been making and see for yourself that although I admittedly type things in a disjointed manner - I do in fact feel very passionately about the topic and in fact have made several attempts to address or clarify every single thing I have posted, which I stand by.

Which I think is better than your own tactic of getting flustered, misunderstanding obvious attempts at diffusing your tantrum with humour, from all kinds of folk, not just me, and pulling the cheap cop out of screaming "racist!" whenever you don't get your own way.

Face it, you haven't understood a word I've said. So don't come here and say I don't have anything to add.

I really wish you were not an idiot. I'm sure we'd get on fine.
In fact I'm sure we did before, when I was doing all the parties and stuff, you were gushing with praise.
No matter. Just an observation.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Because they have a mortgage on a flat already. I was on the housing list for more than a year as a single mum with 3 kids under 6 at that time, and I never got a sniff of a flat despite bidding on many tens of them. What chance have they got? Because there aren't enough council houses for those who want them because Thatcher sold them all off and refused to allow the money be used for building more. Because it suits the government and their mates to have us all scrabbling for private lets. Because life's shit.



Sorry - they are going for a council house - yet they already pay a mortgage on another flat?

Are they Members of Parliament?

I'm still confused. Forgive me. It's late and I'm tired.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Sorry - they are going for a council house - yet they already pay a mortgage on another flat?
> 
> Are they Members of Parliament?
> 
> I'm still confused. Forgive me. It's late and I'm tired.



No. They are desperate to get out of the square they live in because it's a miserable place to live, but they can't afford to sell the flat they live in because what they would get for it wouldn't cover the outstanding mortgage/wouldn't allow them to buy another flat somewhere better, they can't afford to pay any more per month than they're paying for the mortgage, private rents are about double what they're currently paying, council rents are about the same as what they're paying on the mortgage but they can't get a council flat. The best they could hope for would be the council buying their flat back off them (it used to be a council flat years ago before they bought it) but they'd lose money on that and still have no chance of getting a council flat.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

weepiper said:


> No. They are desperate to get out of the square they live in because it's a miserable place to live, but they can't afford to sell the flat they live in because what they would get for it wouldn't cover the outstanding mortgage/wouldn't allow them to buy another flat somewhere better, they can't afford to pay any more per month than they're paying for the mortgage, private rents are about double what they're currently paying, council rents are about the same as what they're paying on the mortgage but they can't get a council flat. The best they could hope for would be the council buying their flat back off them (it used to be a council flat years ago before they bought it) but they'd lose money on that and still have no chance of getting a council flat.



I see, sorry. That took a while.

Lots of housing misery stories. Sub-primes and banking swindles have meant nobody but the rich can stump up a mortgage.

Negative equity I believe is the term for it. Do they have kids?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Something for pathetic wankers to masturbate about. No reality here ...


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Something for pathetic wankers to masturbate about. No reality here ...



Have you been surfing porn? Wrong forum? Come on Bernie, give it a tug, I'm sure you can wake it up somehow.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> I see, sorry. That took a while.
> 
> Lots of housing misery stories. Sub-primes and banking swindles have meant nobody but the rich can stump up a mortgage.
> 
> Negative equity I believe is the term for it. Do they have kids?




Yes, two, and they can't let them out to play, can't even sit out on the back green with them because the one neighbour they got on with has now managed to move a few streets over to a house with a garden and the rest of the people in the block throw their kids out all day and sit jacking up or getting pissed and shouting at each other. They're not far off that themselves at times because it's a fucking depressing place to live. When they take the kids to school in the morning there are mums there swigging from a can of Tennents Super and telling their 5 year old to 'hurry the fuck up you wee cunt'. Eldest nephew is English karate champ currently and was British champ last year, because they work their arses off to pay for him to do training twice a week and travel up and down the country in their shitty clapped-out old car taking him to competitions. They started that because they couldn't let him out to play. Anyway, my point was, you can work hard and be honest til the fucking cows come home, and still have a shitty life.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)

Tell us what the LEFT! have to say about this latest turn of events, Bernie. Please do.

It seems the right are full of retarded ideas. Hey, look at mine - doesn't get more fucking simplistic than that!

When I look LEFT! for creative ideas, to try and counteract the flow of negative information, trying so hard to overcome the sickening prejudice that I clearly have, a prejudice of WHITE over-educated, apologist, scared, desperate-to-be-loved-as-one-of-the-good-guys-over-a-nice-meal-of-Special-Brew-and-spliff-soup, reggae fans, liberals, Marxists, ravers, minstrels, mistfits and beautiful fuckwits...

I have these little conversations here and I wonder just how many can look into themselves and ask whether they have ever done a fucking thing in their busy little lives to actually interact directly with and understand these poor kids, from whatever neighbourhood, country, skin colour.

What's funny is that when I look here to this site is that one of the few people that sees this for what it is, in terms of it's political value, is ernestolynch.

In terms of what passes for actual "reality" here, dear Bernie Gunther, that soppy cunt ern was right all along.
And he was pretty funny back in the day too, an attribute few of his arselickers now can lay claim to.

Here's to ernestolynch. A month ban. God bless urban75 and all who sail in her.


----------



## pk (Aug 11, 2011)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 11, 2011)

Oh just fuck off. Really.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Go to bed pk------or away. Either's fine.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 11, 2011)

He's gone. Forever.


----------



## Giles (Aug 11, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The justice system is one thing, the welfare system is another. The two should not cross. If you're guilty of a crime you should face jail, but once you serve your time that should be the end of it.



The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.

Giles..


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers<snip>



Benefits are NOT charity!  They're paid out of a national insurance system, into which all of us pay into sooner or later, in the interests of social cohesiveness.  And seeing as all of us pay in when we can, IMHO it's only right that all of us can draw from it when we need to.

Furthermore, people on benefits pay tax too - not just VAT and council tax (if the income is high enough).  Any benefit which isn't "income related" (ie "means tested") has tax deducted at source before it's paid, and has done for well over a decade.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.
> 
> Giles..


 
those paying for you to exist might one day choose to strangle you with your own piss stained y-fronts you slumlord leech


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.
> 
> Giles..



You are an increasingly tiresome immoral voice of hatred.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He's gone. Forever.


yeah right


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2011)

If this is the way some people (and I include Nick Clegg in this after hearing the idiot speaking out) are thinking then perhaps a better solution would be:

Just send them straight to prison because if you remove housing and benefits that is almost certainly where they will end up anyway. What is the point in wasting time and money going through the process to evict and stop benefits THEN the cost of imprisoning them. Cut out the middleman.

If we are going to do this then I assume every single MP fiddling expenses will get the same sort of treatment?


----------



## Giles (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> those paying for you to exist might one day choose to strangle you with your own piss stained y-fronts you slumlord leech



Once again, losers with no argument resort to ad hominem attacks and abuse.

Why should councils give houses at a subisidised price to people who smash up their neighbourhoods and such, when they've got a great big list of nicer people wanting those houses?

I would be all in favour of not helping the antisocial elements.

Giles..


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

you're scum giles. stop thieving off of working people and get a real job that makes rather than takes. Or jump in a fucking canal


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> Once again, losers with no argument resort to ad hominem attacks and abuse.
> 
> Why should councils give houses at a subisidised price to people who smash up their neighbourhoods and such, when they've got a great big list of nicer people wanting those houses?
> 
> ...



Can you explain how council houses are subsidized, when 1/4 of my rent goes straight to the treasury?


----------



## Giles (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you're scum giles. stop thieving off of working people and get a real job that makes rather than takes. Or jump in a fucking canal



I actually have a real job, thanks.

Giles..


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I would be all in favour of not helping the antisocial elements.
> 
> Giles..



Agreed 100%.

Wouldn't piss on this cunt if he was on fire.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I actually have a real job, thanks.



Real?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you're scum giles.



Yes ^



DotCommunist said:


> Or jump in a fucking canal



No ^

Don't pollute canals


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I actually have a real job, thanks.
> 
> Giles..



You're a thief. A parasite with a superiority complex.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> doubtless they're referring to the cps and defence counsel.



Apparently there are lists of those who have appeared in court plus their occupations, in various newspapers, some of them have well paid jobs.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Apparently there are lists of those who have appeared in court plus their occupations, in various newspapers, some of them have well paid jobs.



How well paid?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 11, 2011)

He's offski?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's offski?


Yes, if you mean PK.  Banned last night.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Can you explain how council houses are subsidized, when 1/4 of my rent goes straight to the treasury?


yep, people constantly get this wrong, they are not subsidized.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How well paid?


Good point - the pay of a teaching assistant in London might look okay - but it's often listed pro rata.  So by the time you deduct income tax, NI, repayment of student loan kicking in, housing costs, and commuting costs (this is huge for anyone commuting into London), you're not left with a lot.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> Once again, losers with no argument resort to ad hominem attacks and abuse.


What, like calling people "losers"?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> yep, people constantly get this wrong, they are not subsidized.


In fact I recall a report that stated that council renters are subsidising the council, paying something like twice what they strictly need to pay to cover the cost of their provision.

I may be partially missremembering there.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In fact I recall a report that stated that council renters are subsidising the council, paying something like twice what they strictly need to pay to cover the cost of their provision.
> 
> I may be partially missremembering there.


 Got a letter explicitly stating that our rent rise was to cover the fact they weren't putting up council tax. So we subsidize council tax in Leeds AND central government.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

Beanburger said:


> What, like calling people "losers"?


 
tbf I wasn't even engaging in 'ad hominem' (look ma, latin on the internets!'. I was just mugging giles off because the sheer gall of a eugenicist rentier pontificating about who is deserving of his 'kindness' was not even worthy of a reasoned argument.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 11, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How well paid?



A lot more than I have ever been paid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Yes, if you mean PK. Banned last night.


haha


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 11, 2011)

For good?


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

Still findin getting around the boards a tad confusing - anyone know why PK was banned? And for how long?


----------



## madzone (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.
> 
> Giles..


Why are you?


----------



## madzone (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> Still findin getting around the boards a tad confusing - anyone know why PK was banned? And for how long?



I'd hazard a guess that the answer to a) is 'for being a trolling twat' and the answer to b) is 'not long enough'.


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

jesus.

i know hes 'controversial' but that's part of what makes urban fun. shall we just ban everyone who has a challenging opinion? is that really the way to bring the boards back to their heyday?


----------



## madzone (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> jesus.
> 
> i know hes 'controversial' but that's part of what makes urban fun. shall we just ban everyone who has a challenging opinion? is that really the way to bring the boards back to their heyday?


Well, I don't know the real reason why he was banned but he was just randomly trying to drag anyone into a fight last night. If you find that fun fair enough....


----------



## caroline1973 (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> Why should councils give houses at a subisidised price to people who smash up their neighbourhoods and such, when they've got a great big list of nicer people wanting those houses?
> 
> I would be all in favour of not helping the antisocial elements.
> 
> Giles..



Hi Giles, i've noticed many of the people living in big houses have got rich off the back of smashing up other peoples neighbourhoods both at home and abroad (with 'development', exported weapons systems, pollution, shock doctrine privatisation and the like).  i'm a lot nicer than these antisocial people, i can assure you.  it would be great if you could help me to get one of their houses?  or at least perhaps you could help close the tax loopholes that subsidise their ability to own many homes?  many thanks, caroline


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> Once again, losers with no argument resort to ad hominem attacks and abuse.
> 
> Why should councils give houses at a subisidised price to people who smash up their neighbourhoods and such, when they've got a great big list of nicer people wanting those houses?
> 
> ...


You utter wanker. You're a landlord yourself so you ought to understand better than most that council housing is not subsidised. Totally self-serving lying. Shame on you.


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

madzone said:


> Well, I don't know the real reason why he was banned but he was just randomly trying to drag anyone into a fight last night. If you find that fun fair enough....



right, well, have read a few of his posts from last night and they're pretty aggro but can't see anything ban-worthy, particularly not permanent ban for a long time poster and member of the community whos actually quite a good dude in person but what do i know


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> *jesus*.
> 
> i know hes 'controversial' but that's part of what makes urban fun. shall we just ban everyone who has a challenging opinion? is that really the way to bring the boards back to their heyday?



You are correct, Jesus is 'controversial' and has a challenging opinion.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2011)

Cutting benefits. Yeah, that's a great idea. Thinking clearly is beneath some people, especially right-libertarian dickheads.


----------



## madzone (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> right, well, have read a few of his posts from last night and they're pretty aggro but can't see anything ban-worthy, particularly not permanent ban for a long time poster and member of the community whos actually quite a good dude in person but what do i know



You're entitled to your opinion of course


----------



## gavman (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Have you been surfing porn? Wrong forum? Come on Bernie, give it a tug, I'm sure you can wake it up somehow.


you really do have nothing to say. please realise this


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 11, 2011)

.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> They're paid out of a national insurance system, into which all of us pay into sooner or later,



Where does this assumption come from?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 11, 2011)

if they are found guilty and imprisoned their benefits are cut anyway (and they cost the state more) if they are not found guilty , they are not rioters (in the eyes of the law)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> if they are found guilty and imprisoned their benefits are cut anyway (and they cost the state more) if they are not found guilty , they are not rioters (in the eyes of the law)


Exactly. This is just empty posturing. Expect bucketloads more of this in Parliament today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> Once again, losers with no argument resort to ad hominem attacks and abuse.
> 
> Why should councils give houses at a subisidised price to people who smash up their neighbourhoods and such, when they've got a great big list of nicer people wanting those houses?
> 
> ...



Ah, yes, Giles retreats to the final refuge of the intellectually-challenged and the philosophically bankrupt by repeating the canard that social housing is "subsidised". Bravo. <slow handclaps>

Presumably you want to push these people into committing more crime? Catch yourself on.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> Where does this assumption come from?


Who do you personally know who has never paid and NI and will never pay it (be it docked from earnings, paying the contributions as self-employed people do, or being credited by dint of fulfilling jobseeking criteria, or being credited by dint of contributing to society by being an unpaid fulltime stay at home carer or parent)?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Who do you personally know who has never paid (be than docked from earnings, paring the contributions as self-emplyed people do, or being credited by dint of fulfilling jobseeking criteria, or being credited by dint of contributing to society by being an unpaid fulltime stay at home carer or parent) any NI and will never pay it ?


Let's not even get started on who has never paid VAT etc etc.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Who do you personally know who has never paid and NI and will never pay it (be it docked from earnings, paying the contributions as self-employed people do, or being credited by dint of fulfilling jobseeking criteria, or being credited by dint of contributing to society by being an unpaid fulltime stay at home carer or parent)?



So its just your own personal assumption then, ok.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

pk said:


> I don't see it as being too unfair, that "safe-houses" being used to store and sell looted goods be shut down and those involved be evicted. And indeed benefits stopped. Maybe I'm just mad, maybe I'm crazy!! Wooowoooo!!!!



Well of course you don't see it as unfair. It's a big problem for arseholes, not being able to see that they are arseholes.



> It seems to me if you're happy to watch the homes of working class people burn and keep/handle/sell looted goods then you no longer deserve the handouts that are designed to benefit those in society most needy.



I see you're still indulging in bombast. Who was "happy"? I didn't notice people dancing with glee in the streets. Did you?



> After all the same rule would definitely apply in an anarchist utopia. Wouldn't it, sweetheart?



1) Don't call me sweetheart, or I'll have to start calling you "Walter" or "Billy", Billy.



> If you're fit enough to boot the windows of Curry's and carry home a 50 inch telly, you're fit enough to get a fucking job.
> Only a complete and utter thick cunt would disagree with that.



Oh look, Billy is trying to call me a thick cunt while avoiding calling me a thick cunt. How sweet!

Actually though, my cheese-witted friend, while people may be fit enough to get jobs, can you explain to me how someone "gets" a job when there are none?



> So there are no jobs in London? Bollocks. There are plenty.



Yes, I keep hearing this, usually from posturing moronic _faux_-iconoclasts like you. There *aren't* "jobs". There are snippets of work, a day here, a day there, but even a cunt like you should be aware of the fucked-up benefits system that, unlike in the "old days", means that if you sign off for a day, you have to re-start your JSA claim from scratch, and your Housing Benefit claim from scratch, etc etc. Fancy doing that once, twice, three times in a week when each claim will take a fortnight to process, and you'll end up in arrears because of it?

You though, you'd rather just condemn.



> Problem is - these kids are so fucked, they can't even hold a normal conversation. Many of them, and I mean a great many of them, they were born and bred in Hackney or Haringey or wherever - they've never even been to central London.
> They live 5 miles away, they have never left their 2 mile boundaries. Can you believe that?
> These same kids - and we're talking the hardcore of gang culture kids now - have never ONCE eaten at a table with a knife and fork. They can ONLY hold a conversation in txt spk innit bruv. They cannot relate to the workplace. Unemployable.



My my, that entire paragraph is lifted from a Camilla Batmangelidh article, you shameless plagiarist cunt. You're taking info about a tiny fraction of kids in London and pretending it pertains to loads more. Wanker!



> I was trying to make a point that if any of these kids had ever worked hard enough to achieve something, they would know how precious that is. Fact is they haven't. Whether that is their fault or not is another debate.
> But they are low achievers, caught up in this bling bling fantasy of instant rap fame or whatever, materialistic minds, without the means to achieve their goals.
> So they steal and sell weed to get by, no big problem. And it gets more and more organised.
> Then there's a good fence network.
> And then you have the organised crime element, add extortion to that, add the gangsta culture to that, there you are.



What a shame they didn't have a role model like you to look up to, eh?



> Instant enemy of the working class, especially given the fact that they were prepared to kill people in order to cover their tracks.



What do you know about the working class, really? You may have been w/c once, but you're not now, are you? You haven't been for a long time.



> Which means I'm implying strongly that there were a bunch of pussies on the sidelines looking to swoop in and grab random shit once the major gangs grabbed what they came for.



Which in turn means you know you're full of shit, but you're doing the patent PK bluster, because you're too intellectually-insecure to admit it.



> You do have a fair point. I hope I have explained as best I can. Those caught were idiots.
> The cops are too scared to go after the ringleaders, they've had years, but they are scared of being called racist or scared of fighting back.



Except that they're not.

They just don't care.

If it's not affecting middle-class areas and middle class people, they don't give a fuck. They're there to defend privilege, that's all.



> I don't see any brave left wing shows of solidarity, and that does fuck me off. It's left to the Sikhs and the BNP.
> That's the public perception.
> 
> With all the bravado and the anarchy and the smash the state bollocks - all turns out to be a bunch of white skinny dopeheads too scared to intervene or make a stand in case the nasty black boys steal their mobile phones.
> ...



Really, go and get yourself a rent-boy. Your suppressed urges are surfacing.


----------



## Teepee (Aug 11, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> He's gone. Forever.


Shame. I found him challenging and interesting. Who wants to read a board where everyone agrees?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> So its just your own personal assumption then, ok.


Come on, I'll make it easy for you. Name me one person living in the UK, who never has and never will pay NI (or be credited for it) if you want to prove me wrong. Just one.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Ah, yes, Giles retreats to the final refuge of the intellectually-challenged



Well in fairness it is a response to the default urban ad hominem attacks. You are all as bad as each other.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Well. I have to say his posturing was getting on my tits last night to the point where I finally snapped and said something harsh.

I then went to bed and missed all this excitement ...


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Come on, I'll make it easy for you. Name me one person, who never has and never will pay NI (or be credited for it) if you want to prove me wrong. Just one.



How the fuck would I know, I'm a relatively recent immigrant.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> How the fuck would I know, I'm a relatively recent immigrant.


So now you admit you're talking about something you know very little (if anything) about.  Well done that man.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> So now you admit you're talking about something you know very little (if anything) about. Well done that man.



Where did I claim otherwise? typical urban foaming at the mouth...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.
> 
> Giles..



Jesus, every time I'm convinced that you can't say anything more stupid, you shit another doozie out of your fingertips!

Welfare isn't charity, it's paid for by those who receive it, either through payment of NI (you do understand the concept of "pooled risk"< don't you?), or through other direct and indirect taxation.

One of the reason such a system was designed, by the way, is so that foetid cock-cheese such as yourself can't talk at and condescend to welfare recipients as though you were paying for them. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of ignorance about welfare means that scum like yourself still get the wrong end of the stick 60+ years later.

How about that, Giles? You're so fucking ignorant that you still haven't managed to cotton to an idea you've had an entire lifetime to absorb! What do you think that says about you and your ilk (besides "CUNT", that is)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> Where did I claim otherwise? typical urban foaming at the mouth...



Poor grit, getting pwned by a moth-eaten cat!


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor grit, getting pwned by a moth-eaten cat!



eh? and "pwned"..


----------



## marty21 (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> The two should cross. If you are going to live off the charity of taxpayers, then you ought to behave appropriately, otherwise those who are paying for you to exist should be able to decide you are not worthy of their kindness.
> 
> Giles..


charity of tax payers? maybe the tax relief on pension contributions for private pensions needs to be stopped then, or the tax-free Isas - we wouldn't want anyone benefitting from our tax monies would we?


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 11, 2011)

To those who wish to axe benefit from what will effectively be unemployable people because they will now have a criminal record, I suggest you think long and hard about the consequences of your proposal.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> To those who wish to axe benefit from what will effectively be unemployable people because they will now have a criminal record, I suggest you think long and hard about the consequences of your proposal.



I don't think 'axing benefit' is in any way a serious proposal. What I think it is, is a rallying cry to get Mr and Mrs Shit-Scared of Middle England, frothing with even more hatred towards claimants (and supporting further cuts in benefit) and focussed on a controvery over a stupid and impractical piece of nonsense.

A screaming row about this sort of emotive idiocy is a wonderful distraction from the many uncomfortable questions about how 30 years of neo-liberal capitalism might have contributed to the problem of feral hoodies pissing through their letterbox. It also distracts everyone nicely from the question of what *intensifying those same policies is going to bring in the future*.

If assorted contributing factors are being made worse as a matter of government policy, creating an ever-growing, irredeemably alienated and violent underclass as more and more people lose their jobs and their prospects, the very last thing that the government want is anyone pointing the likely implications of that to be heard. So instead the public debate is safely channelled into a row over sordid punitive fantasies like this one.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

I feel like I fell asleep and woke up in a world where The Day Today is factual news.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> eh? and "pwned"..



Wow, you're so condescending, and based on so little!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> Well in fairness it is a response to the default urban ad hominem attacks. You are all as bad as each other.


Point missed. Giles consistently refuses to engage. In that respect, he's a little like you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> jesus.
> 
> i know hes 'controversial' but that's part of what makes urban fun. shall we just ban everyone who has a challenging opinion? is that really the way to bring the boards back to their heyday?



He's spewed a load of racist twaddle over the last couple of days.
He may claim that he was just trying to provoke debate, but it went well beyond that.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I don't think 'axing benefit' is in any way a serious proposal



It is being taken seriously by the "usual suspects." I just hope they are the ones who get burgled by people searching for food if their proposal ever get implemented.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> Well in fairness it is a response to the default urban ad hominem attacks. You are all as bad as each other.


 
'latin! on the internet!'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> charity of tax payers? maybe the tax relief on pension contributions for private pensions needs to be stopped then, or the tax-free Isas - we wouldn't want anyone benefitting from our tax monies would we?



And all the schemes that _rentiers_ like Giles can use to subsidise the upkeep of their properties, Marty. Don't forget about that side of the UK's hidden welfare expenses. It's not just the big corporations that get to suck on the Treasury tit.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Teepee said:


> Shame. I found him challenging and interesting. Who wants to read a board where everyone agrees?



pk was highly critical of everything... but at least that included himself.

Seems like self criticism is something urban finds increasingly hard to handle.

Duly noted.

There are many sides to this issue and it's one of the biggest in recent memory... no one is 100% right and emotions are very high.

And so they should be... these issues cut to the very core of everyone.

There are no innocents. And right now dissenting voices are every bit as important as agreeing ones.

Maybe even more so.

Pk was not dragging anyone into a fight. No-one needed dragging. He was critical and folk didn't like being criticised.

So what? Me next? Eventually?

Ok.


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

perm ban does seem a little harsh considering stuff others didnt get perm banned for in the past.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

we can but hope


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

He was wishing harm upon other posters again, though.

I would think that the culture of these boards is that you call someone a cunt, but you do not wish a painful death upon anyone. pk is fully aware that this is the culture, but does it anyway.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Point missed. Giles consistently refuses to engage. In that respect, he's a little like you.



I dont necessarily consider it a bad thing if someone doesn't engage with all of the retarded bun fights that happen so regularly here tbh. If anything I think a bit better of them.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is being taken seriously by the "usual suspects." I just hope they are the ones who get burgled by people searching for food if their proposal ever get implemented.



As I say, I don't think it's serious in the sense of being considered for implementation by anyone with the ability to do so. It's obvious idiocy for exactly the reasons you point out.

The proposal's function is to channel public debate away from uncomfortable discussions about causes and into a screaming row over an impractical fantasy ...


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He was wishing harm upon other posters again, though.
> 
> I would think that the culture of these boards is that you call someone a cunt, but you do not wish a painful death upon anyone. pk is fully aware that this is the culture, but does it anyway.



Read through some of his last posts trying to work out why the ban happened but apparently missed this bit. Where we looking?

As a side note Ive seen at least one other person do exactly that today.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

He did it in one of the rioting threads. I can't remember which one, and I have no idea whether this is why he was banned, tbh.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I don't think 'axing benefit' is in any way a serious proposal. What I think it is, is a rallying cry to get Mr and Mrs Shit-Scared of Middle England, frothing with even more hatred towards claimants (and supporting further cuts in benefit) and focussed on a controvery over a stupid and impractical piece of nonsense.
> 
> A screaming row about this sort of emotive idiocy is a wonderful distraction from the many uncomfortable questions about how 30 years of neo-liberal capitalism might have contributed to the problem of feral hoodies pissing through their letterbox. It also distracts everyone nicely from the question of what *intensifying those same policies is going to bring in the future*.
> 
> If assorted contributing factors are being made worse as a matter of government policy, creating an ever-growing, irredeemably alienated and violent underclass as more and more people lose their jobs and their prospects, the very last thing that the government want is anyone pointing the likely implications of that to be heard. So instead the public debate is safely channelled into a row over sordid punitive fantasies like this one.


i'm almost sad that the epsom fantasy firebomber has been banned, it would have been interesting seeing him granting us all the benefit of his intellectual ability to engage with the very good points you make here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

Well, I wasn't seeing anything terribly constructive to engage with, but if my little pop about 'pathetic wank fantasies' last night set him on a course for a ban, I regret it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Teepee said:


> Shame. I found him challenging and interesting. Who wants to read a board where everyone agrees?



The only real challenge I found with PK was that he was utterly dishonest in the way he debated, constantly moving the goalposts, spouting offensive, polarised opinions and than denying he had actually said x or been doing that at all.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

Personally, I'd like to see them being given more benefits and pats on the head so they don't feel the need to relieve other people of their lives, livelyhoods and homes. As a realist, this is the only option.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Recipe for a ban: Take one PK, add 3 grams of coke, insert into spare room of Epsom House, mix with a few rum and cokes and a computer, await lunatic postings which eventually drive mods nuts.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Recipe for a ban: Take one PK, add 3 grams of coke, insert into spare room of Epsom House, mix with a few rum and cokes and a computer, await lunatic postings which eventually drive mods nuts.


  Is it just some alleged right leaning types that irk the mods, though?


----------



## Onket (Aug 11, 2011)

Good riddance.


----------



## gavman (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> my cheese-witted friend


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Is it just some alleged right leaning types that irk the mods, though?



Poor right-wingers, they truly are society's victims ...


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Poor right-wingers, they truly are society's victims ...



Can't stand them, meself.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

If it was because of what pk posted on this thread it's a shoddy excuse for a perm ban.  We need more diverse opinions round here, not less.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> If it was because of what pk posted on this thread it's a shoddy excuse for a perm ban. We need more diverse opinions round here, not less.


You could have a "cunts corner" all to yourselves. Go ask one of the mods nicely.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> You could have a "cunts corner" all to yourselves. Go ask one of the mods nicely.


Oh please   How old are you, 10?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Personally, I'd like to see them being given more benefits and pats on the head so they don't feel the need to relieve other people of their lives, livelyhoods and homes. As a realist, this is the only option.


What the fuck have benefits got to do with why 11 and 12 year old kids were amongst those on the streets then? In what way has any of this complete straw man on an issue got to do with what happened or in preventing it happening again?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And all the schemes that _rentiers_ like Giles can use to subsidise the upkeep of their properties, Marty. Don't forget about that side of the UK's hidden welfare expenses. It's not just the big corporations that get to suck on the Treasury tit.


shhh, we can't let all that tax evasion malarkey out of the bag - it makes the government look bad, they are way too busy to defend that when there are lynch mobs to organise


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> If it was because of what pk posted on this thread it's a shoddy excuse for a perm ban. We need more diverse opinions round here, not less.



In my experience what qualifies a perm ban here a lot of the time can boil down to the mods mood at the particular time. However that said after discussing it with them they will usually be reasonable and consider if it was done in haste.


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

im assuming he sent one of the mods a highly abusive PM or something. would be interesting to know tho if any of the mods concerned wants to let us know..?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't know why there is not a sticky with the reason for and length of any ban. it would save all these endless posts of speculation.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

Deareg said:


> I don't know why there is not a sticky with the reason for and length of any ban. it would save all these endless posts of speculation.


Yes, but for some the endless speculation is part of the fun.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Yes, but for some the endless speculation is part of the fun.


There is probably a lot of truth in what you say.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

newme said:


> perm ban does seem a little harsh considering stuff others didnt get perm banned for in the past.


people get banned for far less tbf.


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

overall the mods do a great job but yeh. this one seems ott. i assume it was discussed amongst them and agreed that PK should go though for other reasons.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> My my, that entire paragraph is lifted from a Camilla Batmangelidh article, you shameless plagiarist cunt.



She's on Question Time tonight. With Prescott & Paddick!


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> people get banned for far less tbf.



Like who? Cant say Ive been keeping up with many recent bannings, not generally a fan of it, rather see people beaten in argument. But then I'm not the one whose forced to deal with moderating it.
Idk I just remember steelgate, pbman etc going somewhat further consistently.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

newme said:


> Like who? Cant say Ive been keeping up with many recent bannings, not generally a fan of it, rather see people beaten in argument. But then I'm not the one whose forced to deal with moderating it.
> Idk I just remember steelgate, pbman etc going somewhat further consistently.


Like Swarthy for a start off. Pks had lots and lots of chances, and I bet he'll be back eventually.


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> overall the mods do a great job but yeh. this one seems ott. i assume it was discussed amongst them and agreed that PK should go though for other reasons.



I'm assuming it was something pm related. In which case well, had to be expected.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2011)

grit said:


> I dont necessarily consider it a bad thing if someone doesn't engage with all of the retarded bun fights that happen so regularly here tbh. If anything I think a bit better of them.


There's no real need for you to hang around in that case. Off you pop, then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Recipe for a ban: Take one PK, add 3 grams of coke, insert into spare room of Epsom House, mix with a few rum and cokes and a computer, await lunatic postings which eventually drive mods nuts.



I did ask him last night to put down the coke spoon, but he was obviously too far gone by then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> She's on Question Time tonight. With Prescott & Paddick!



Maybe she'll talk some sense into the cunts.

Probably not, though, they'll shout her down and ask her whether she's stopped beating her husband yet.


----------



## faux pas (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He was wishing harm upon other posters again, though.
> 
> I would think that the culture of these boards is that you call someone a cunt, but you do not wish a painful death upon anyone. pk is fully aware that this is the culture, but does it anyway.



Yeah, it REALLY does matter where you're coming from. As left as you get poster and just briefly looking at this one thread alone:



DotCommunist said:


> those paying for you to exist might one day choose to strangle you with your own piss stained y-fronts you slumlord leech





DotCommunist said:


> you're scum giles. stop thieving off of working people and get a real job that makes rather than takes. *Or jump in a fucking canal*


----------



## faux pas (Aug 11, 2011)

Teepee said:


> Shame. I found him challenging and interesting. Who wants to read a board where everyone agrees?


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> There's no real need for you to hang around in that case. Off you pop, then!



No one on urban has a need to be here.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Giles said:


> I would be all in favour of not helping the antisocial elements.
> Giles..


you mean like the bankers, tesco's, the politicians, News International executives, tax-avoiding corporations, defence conglomerates, pharma firms...?
so am I, but I do help them, through no choice of my own, and so does the government.
jesus your politics are those of the most gullible mug in town


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's spewed a load of racist twaddle over the last couple of days.
> He may claim that he was just trying to provoke debate, but it went well beyond that.


I know i'm the world's softest bugger, but I don't want him banned, simply becuase the wider variety of views on U75, the better. he's never dull....


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

Innit.. Anyway, a reason for his banning was posted on the now closed bannings thread. shame.. I doubt he'd come back now anyway if his ban was lifted.

Why can't we all just agree with each other.. how good would that be. You could make a site around that. Just talk to people you agree with. Colour it blue and white. That'd be awesome. Could be some legs in something like that.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Pks had lots and lots of chances, and I bet he'll be back eventually.


yeah, I reckon so too


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

faux pas said:


> Yeah, it REALLY does matter where you're coming from. As left as you get poster and just briefly looking at this one thread alone:





faux pas said:


> Yeah, it REALLY does matter where you're coming from. As left as you get poster and just briefly looking at this one thread alone:



in niether of those cases have I wished giles a violent death. So weep elsewhere.


----------



## caroline1973 (Aug 11, 2011)

caroline1973 said:


> Hi Giles, i've noticed many of the people living in big houses have got rich off the back of smashing up other peoples neighbourhoods both at home and abroad (with 'development', exported weapons systems, pollution, shock doctrine privatisation and the like). i'm a lot nicer than these antisocial people, i can assure you. it would be great if you could help me to get one of their houses? or at least perhaps you could help close the tax loopholes that subsidise their ability to own many homes? many thanks, caroline



Giles!  Where are you?  I do hope you've not been scared off by the rough speech of some of our comrades.  You are obviously a sensitive soul.  I gather from some subsequent posts that as a landlord, perhaps YOU have a big house yourself and may certainly have benefitted from tax breaks and policies which have impoverished or smashed up other areas.  I hope you won't take this personally,  but perhaps you would be willing to go head to head with me in a niceness test?  Winner gets your house?  I really am quite a nice person so would be happy to answer any questions you like to test my niceness ;-)


----------



## rasrave (Aug 12, 2011)

Well this takes me back a few..
I am surprised at the reactions to the PK business here in a way. Maybe (as many on Urban have done) he has changed his opinions about certains subjects and posters here are confusing the "PK bravado" with "different stance on issues".
I was taken to task by you Topcat 10 years ago on these boards concerning the Sep 2001 attacks, yet decided to hang around as I enjoyed the topics and ideas here...you were right by the way on some of those, this is the benefit of information.
The PK issue is old hat to all those having been around here for a while, you can agree or not with this but he has been a participant in the (always) ongoing discussion on these boards.
I suppose that as a "mostly lurker and not poster" around here I am not privvy to the "details" of the boards but I do remember many bannings that were so clearly deserved...I am not seeing this one.
I, for myself have moved from Politics to General and "knobbing and sobbing". Should my opinions warrant me a ban as I am not in tune with this board?
I view Urban 75 every other day as one of my barometers of sanity and expression in our daily digest...are we heading back to the "If you disagree with us enough you will be banned?"
This one will not go down well, but that is fine...I am concerned enough to post it.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 12, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Can you explain how council houses are subsidized, when 1/4 of my rent goes straight to the treasury?


Could you explain?


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

@rasrave - I think there's one thing you aren't considering - I doubt that any of us on this thread who are not mourning his passing actually hit the "report post" button or called for the mods to ban him. Not my style and I very much doubt it is TopCat's, VP's, Dotty's or Streathamite's.

He's welcome back as far as I'm concerned - I'd just continue to cunt him off and the fantasist bollocks he comes out with.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2011)

it looke to me very much like he wound Fridge Magnet up.

no doubt he'll be back, he's been and gone before


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 12, 2011)

I never reported any posts at all. Still not crying tho.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 12, 2011)

hey rasrave, you're a blast from the past! nice to see you buddy.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I never reported any posts at all.



Same here.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 12, 2011)

On another thread Mrs M said more than one mod had referred to him as a hated cunt, so there's the reason.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> @rasrave - I think there's one thing you aren't considering - I doubt that any of us on this thread who are not mourning his passing actually hit the "report post" button or called for the mods to ban him. Not my style and I very much doubt it is TopCat's, VP's, Dotty's or Streathamite's.
> 
> He's welcome back as far as I'm concerned - I'd just continue to cunt him off and the fantasist bollocks he comes out with.



I've only ever reported 2 posts. One was pbman's (to paraphrase) "the Jews are responsible for their own destruction because they created communism and socialism, and the Nazis were socialists", and the other was a no-post n0ob who'd posted what was basically an ad for their "club night".

Don't see the point in reporting shit like PK was spouting. Far more embarrassing for him to have to see the fruits of his coke-madness once he's sober than getting him banned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2011)

he does get carried away


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yeah, I reckon so too


like a bad penny


----------



## Voley (Aug 12, 2011)

Don't agree that a locked thread detailing why people were banned would 'stop speculation'. People would always use other threads to discuss it anyhow.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 12, 2011)

NVP said:


> Don't agree that a locked thread detailing why people were banned would 'stop speculation'. People would always use other threads to discuss it anyhow.


i wouldn't.

*polishes halo*


----------



## Voley (Aug 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i wouldn't.
> 
> *polishes halo*


Not even late on a Saturday?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> @rasrave - I think there's one thing you aren't considering - I doubt that any of us on this thread who are not mourning his passing actually hit the "report post" button or called for the mods to ban him. Not my style and I very much doubt it is TopCat's, VP's, Dotty's or Streathamite's.
> 
> He's welcome back as far as I'm concerned - I'd just continue to cunt him off and the fantasist bollocks he comes out with.


you're absolutely right - I CERTAINLY didn't report any post of his, and yes, I'd welcome him back.
I have known him, drunk with him, partied to his (very good) DJing IRL. IRL he's a sound bloke - he just talks a lot of reactionary bollocks, and is very easily out-debated by posters such as you, steps etc


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 12, 2011)

NVP said:


> Not even late on a Saturday?


damn, busted!?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2011)

Not sure which thread to bung this on: 'First' Battersea riot-related eviction notice served by Wandsworth Council



> A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with the Battersea riots has today been served with an eviction notice.
> 
> The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John's Road and Lavender Hill.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 12, 2011)

Blimey, this is very disturbing to read...

_A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with the Battersea riots has today been served with an eviction notice.The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John's Road and Lavender Hill. _

_ The process will see Wandsworth Council apply through the courts for the eviction to be granted - with the ultimate decision resting with a judge.Neither the tenant nor their son can be named at this stage for legal reasons. _

http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/9193647._First__riot_related_eviction_notice_served/


----------



## Voley (Aug 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Blimey, this is very disturbing to read...
> 
> _A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with the Battersea riots has today been served with an eviction notice.The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John's Road and Lavender Hill. _
> 
> ...


As marty has pointed, out, courts tend to be (thankfully) reluctant to give possession orders under normal circumstances. Whether they'll be tougher if it's a riot case is the big question.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 12, 2011)

NVP said:


> As marty has pointed, out, courts tend to be (thankfully) reluctant to give possession orders under normal circumstances. Whether they'll be as tough if it's a riot case is the big question.



I do hope you are right but I also worry that in this curent climate the demands will be for a tougher outcome . As seems to be the case with some of the custodial sentences being given out at the moment


----------



## Voley (Aug 12, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I do hope you are right but I also worry that in this curent climate the demands will be for a tougher outcome . As seems to be the case with some of the custodial sentences being given out at the moment


Yeah it's really worrying. I'd imagine a few of the people who've plead guilty already wouldn't have foreseen this as a possible outcome too.


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

Didn't the nazis and the soviets do this?*, punish whole families for the actions of one member,

very very nasty stuff, imo...

and a sign of things to come for many in the future..

*who the fuck is Godwin anyway?


----------



## faux pas (Aug 12, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I do hope you are right but I also worry that in this curent climate the demands will be for a tougher outcome . As seems to be the case with some of the custodial sentences being given out at the moment





NVP said:


> Yeah it's really worrying. I'd imagine a few of the people who've plead guilty already wouldn't have foreseen this as a possible outcome too.


Yeah, I'm really worried about the rioters too.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 12, 2011)

what you on about you nut job?


----------



## faux pas (Aug 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> what you on about you nut job?


All I said was 'I'm really worried about the rioters'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> Didn't the nazis and the soviets do this?*, punish whole families for the actions of one member,
> 
> very very nasty stuff, imo...
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 12, 2011)

Someone I know through my university course and am friends with on Facebook has come out in favour of this.

I've had to hide her posts to avoid having a massive row.


----------



## beatrix (Aug 12, 2011)

I have mainly been a lurker but am very aware of many of the posters who have been banished .. I note that as well as pk and ernestolynch, rorymac has also been banned !


----------



## Belushi (Aug 13, 2011)

That's sounds more like stalking than lurking beatrix!


----------



## beatrix (Aug 13, 2011)

lol .. whilst I have certainly disagreed with many of pk's posts I have always found him to be thoroughly entertaining and although I can't say I fancy pk or ernest I was dismayed that they were banned and felt that they were interesting posters.
It's true to say though that I fancy the pants off rorymac .. in fact I am going to be his wife if he behaves himself


----------



## marty21 (Aug 13, 2011)

NVP said:


> As marty has pointed, out, courts tend to be (thankfully) reluctant to give possession orders under normal circumstances. Whether they'll be tougher if it's a riot case is the big question.


plus - calling it an Eviction order is misleading - you need to go to court and apply for a Bailiff's Warrant, once you have a Possession Order, what the Council has probably done is serve a Notice of Seeking Possession, after that expires in 4 weeks, they can apply to court for Possession, at  that hearing the Court can grant a Possession Order, then the warrant can be applied for. A lot of ifs and buts before that - a load of legal arguments about locality - the breach of tenancy conditions would occur if an offence was committed locally, there will be a load of arguments about what is local. And as far as I can tell, this tenant's child has been charged, not found guilty yet - so they are premature even serving the notice, and a decent lawyer might even be able to get the Notice thrown out.


----------



## Voley (Aug 13, 2011)

I wonder if they might hand down Suspended Possession Orders (suspended on the grounds that the individual doesn't get into any more trouble)? Even in the current hang em and flog em climate I'd be surprised to see judges turfing out entire families because one person that lived there nicked an Ipod. Particularly as this would undoubtedly make the family 'intentionally homeless' in the eyes of another authority they approach for rehousing. I can see Shelter's lawyers tearing verdicts like that to shreds.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

As I said above, I really don't think it's meant to be a workable policy, although no doubt it will cause a great deal of distress and suffering on the part of affected families before it's quietly allowed to fade from view.

It's meant as a distraction.

Time and energy that could be more productively used will be sucked into fighting it and the media will focus on the big screaming arguments about it to the exclusion of inquiring into causes.


----------



## Voley (Aug 13, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> As I said above, I really don't think it's meant to be a workable policy, although no doubt it will cause a great deal of distress and suffering on the part of affected families before it's quietly allowed to fade from view.
> 
> It's meant as a distraction.
> 
> Time and energy that could be more productively used will be sucked into fighting it and the media will focus on the big screaming arguments about it to the exclusion of inquiring into causes.



Yeah, I think (and hope) you're right.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

NVP said:


> Yeah, I think (and hope) you're right.



Well, doesn't mean a lot of families won't get fucked over as a result. Sadly.


----------



## Voley (Aug 13, 2011)

Aye, in the meantime.


----------



## dylans (Aug 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Blimey, this is very disturbing to read...
> 
> _A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with the Battersea riots has today been served with an eviction notice.The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night’s rioting and looting in St John's Road and Lavender Hill. _
> 
> ...


Some guy on TV pointed out the obvious which is that this is class based justice aimed solely at the poorest. One of the rioters lived in a huge house in a gated community, now jail or not, she will not be evicted. She will serve her time (if indeed she goes to prison at all) and go back home to daddy and the swimming pool and landscaped garden. Eviction is a punishment reserved solely for those in council houses ie the poorest defendants. Therefore the rich will be punished once. The poor will be punished several times. Threats to take away benefits are likewise aimed solely at the poor, unless the courts intend to confiscate daddy's bank account and demolish the mansion this is disproportionate punishment aimed at the poor.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

dylans said:


> Some guy on TV pointed out the obvious which is that this is class based justice aimed solely at the poorest. One of the rioters lived in a huge house in a gated community, now jail or not, she will not be evicted. She will serve her time (if indeed she goes to prison at all) and go back home to daddy and the swimming pool and landscaped garden. Eviction is a punishment reserved solely for those in council houses ie the poorest defendants. Therefore the rich will be punished once. The poor will be punished several times.



Damn good point ...


----------



## Voley (Aug 13, 2011)

dylans said:


> Some guy on TV pointed out the obvious which is that this is class based justice aimed solely at the poorest. One of the rioters lived in a huge house in a gated community, now jail or not, she will not be evicted. She will serve her time (if indeed she goes to prison at all) and go back home to daddy and the swimming pool and landscaped garden. Eviction is a punishment reserved solely for those in council houses ie the poorest defendants. Therefore the rich will be punished once. The poor will be punished several times. Threats to take away benefits are likewise aimed solely at the poor, unless the courts intend to confiscate daddy's bank account and demolish the mansion this is disproportionate punishment aimed at the poor.


Grim stuff but spot on, sadly.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

I don't understand why community service isn't the main form of punishment.

It would solve a lot of problems.

Stupid bastards.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 13, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't understand why community service isn't the main form of punishment.
> It would solve a lot of problems.
> Stupid bastards.



I am afraid the public's perception of community service, and mine is it is not harsh enough. (In my case based on experience of watching people carrying out community service.)


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

It doesn't have to be harsh... it just has to be long and useful.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 13, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I am afraid the public's perception of community service, and mine is it is not harsh enough. (In my case based on experience of watching people carrying out community service.)



Harsh? Surely it's more important that it be of some use.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 13, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Harsh? Surely it's more important that it be of some use.



Put it this way, if anyone working with me were that bone idle I would ask the boss to give them the sack. In my experience community service is a farce, they don't even work in the rain.


----------



## Deareg (Aug 13, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Put it this way, if anyone working with me were that bone idle I would ask the boss to give them the sack. In my experience community service is a farce, they don't even work in the rain.


What would you have them do?


----------



## beatrix (Aug 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't understand why community service isn't the main form of punishment.
> 
> It would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> Stupid bastards.



This is so obviously true .. not only was it the preferred and correct use of any intelligent punishment during the 81 and Broadwater farm riots where the legal system + (those brought to justice), social workers, people with needs had to work together it created a cohesive nucleus of people with a common bond in many cases.
Unfortunately that's not deemed by the higher powers as useful anymore .. it beggars belief that the current policy will lead to a peaceful underclass who understand that cuts have to be made and that they must sacrifice yet more from their lives which already promise so little .. the result will surely be more non subservient and rebellious youngsters who spit vile at their forefathers legacies !!


----------



## beatrix (Aug 14, 2011)

Furthermore as many of this 'underclass' (which is only a word I use as a last recognisable resort) are as talented, so beautiful and naive from birth of their fate it has often made me cry I shall support them until I die.
One of my most poignant ever situations (of many) was when I visited the young children of a single mum in Enfield who suffered from depression .. her 4 year old daughter told me that when she grew up she wanted to be a vet because she loved animals and wanted to make them better.
I sat outside in my car and cried because I knew she had no chance .. that was many years ago and I may have been wrong then, owing to my own non partaking of activism .. changing this life as we know it.
How wrong would I be now and how more would I cry to see a similar child with such beautiful aspirations ?
You find beauty in people, not in systems and that's what will prevail even if our generations don't live to see it .. that is what keeps me going !


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

I agree, I just don't see how cutting off benefits will work. Surely they would turn to crime for an income more readily if they had no other source of income?

I also thimk that community service as a consequence of their actions would be better. Make them rebuild the communities they have hurt.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 14, 2011)

Deareg said:


> What would you have them do?



Work, not slob around. I bame the so called supervisors.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2011)

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7925

_Do not remove the Benefits from convicted rioters_


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 14, 2011)

Why is it just for London rioters?


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 14, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> Why is it just for London rioters?



It isn't. Other areas have stated it will be/is policy.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 14, 2011)

the petition


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

**


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I agree, I just don't see how cutting off benefits will work. Surely they would turn to crime for an income more readily if they had no other source of income?.



Obvıously they wıll.  Just as they do ın the USA, where convıcted drug dealers can be deprıved of benefıts.  So obvıous ıs thıs that one must assume that ıt ıs ın fact the government's ıntentıon.

Mass ıncarceratıon serves many purposes that our rulers regard as useful.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Obvıously they wıll. Just as they do ın the USA, where convıcted drug dealers can be deprıved of benefıts. So obvıous ıs thıs that one must assume that ıt ıs ın fact the government's ıntentıon.
> 
> Mass ıncarceratıon serves many purposes that our rulers regard as useful.



Apart from anything else it's a pretty good investment opportunity. Guaranteed state subsidy, plus whatever you can make off forced labour.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Apart from anything else it's a pretty good investment opportunity. Guaranteed state subsidy, plus whatever you can make off forced labour.



Indeed.  Other benefıts ınclude terrorızıng the proletarıat and provıdıng a ratıonale for authorıtarıanısm.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

And after these convicted drug dealers have been cut off from benefits, do they stop dealing drugs?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> And after these convicted drug dealers have been cut off from benefits, do they stop dealing drugs?



Current recidivism figures run at around 70%, so the conclusion has to be: Unlikely.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

Exactly, VP. So how can people seriously think this is a viable long term solution?


----------



## Deareg (Aug 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Exactly, VP. So how can people seriously think this is a viable long term solution?


Thats the problem, they are not thinking at all, it is all knee jerk, bloodlust and trying to look like they are doing something when in reality they are doing fuckall,


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

It's bloody ridiculous. I am not condoning for one minute what these people did, but taking away what little they have will make them riot even harder.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 14, 2011)

Is it really possible to do anyway? legally like?

Or is this all hot air?


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

I honestly don't know, not being a lawyer or up on whatever the law is that applies. But that said, discrimination laws may apply if this was tried.

Sadly benefits seem to be denied to those who are entitled to them anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Exactly, VP. So how can people seriously think this is a viable long term solution?



Frankly, I don't think most of our politicians give a fuck. How many of them actually live full time in their constituencies? Most of the fuckers don't even take their own surgeries any more, they get an underling to do it. They won't give a shit until they're made to give a shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

Deareg said:


> Thats the problem, they are not thinking at all, it is all knee jerk, bloodlust and trying to look like they are doing something when in reality they are doing fuckall,



It's all about being *seen* to be doing something, while generally doing nothing at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> Is it really possible to do anyway? legally like?
> 
> Or is this all hot air?



There are various provisions by which claimants can be denied benefits, but it'll be hard to tell what they're going to use specifically until they actually use it (or try to) IYSWIM.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I honestly don't know, not being a lawyer or up on whatever the law is that applies. But that said, discrimination laws may apply if this was tried.
> 
> Sadly benefits seem to be denied to those who are entitled to them anyway.



Denied to those who have claimed them, and denied to people who *would* claim them through the complexity of the claims process, which nets the government a multi-billion benefits underspend every bloody year.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 14, 2011)

The whole claims process needs to be overhauled. Make it easier for people to claim what they're entitled to, and not make them feel like they're doing something wrong by doing so.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 14, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> *To those who wish to axe benefit* from what will effectively be unemployable people because they will now have a criminal record, *I suggest you think long and hard about the consequences of your proposal.*


I think the first bolded part preempts the second one actually happening


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't understand why community service isn't the main form of punishment.
> 
> It would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> Stupid bastards.


Yes, that and restorative justice. I think the current punishments and threats (eviciton, no benefits etc) are all about appeasing the public's bloodlust for retribution - it's the easy way out


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yes, that and restorative justice. I think the current punishments and threats (eviciton, no benefits etc) are all about appeasing the public's bloodlust for retribution - it's the easy way out


miliband, cameron and clegg's heads on pikes would go some small way towards appeasing my own appetite for bloodlust


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> The whole claims process needs to be overhauled. Make it easier for people to claim what they're entitled to, and not make them feel like they're doing something wrong by doing so.



Tell me about it. Greebo and I did an Attendance Allowance renewal for someone recently (they ended up with an indefinite higher-rate award), and the gratitude almost made me cry, because the person was so foxed by the forms, especially because the questions seem to go in circles, that they wouldn't have otherwise originally claimed (we did that for them too) or bothered renewing the claim, and this wasn't an illiterate, it was someone who knew his way around paperwork, and worked as an engineer.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tell me about it. Greebo and I did an Attendance Allowance renewal for someone recently (they ended up with an indefinite higher-rate award), and the gratitude almost made me cry, because the person was so foxed by the forms, especially because the questions seem to go in circles, that they wouldn't have otherwise originally claimed (we did that for them too) or bothered renewing the claim, and this wasn't an illiterate, it was someone who knew his way around paperwork, and worked as an engineer.



I had this recently. A woman rang my work, (a transport charity) asking for advice on Disability Living Allowance. She had been fobbed off by the council who gave her my number. I downloaded and sent her the forms for DLA for her husband. She predictably rang me up again saying the forms are somewhat complicated. Of course like a caring (mug) i go round and fill them in ensuring that i fully emphasize her husbands issues. I was mortified when she tried to give me twenty quid for filling in the form. She rang me again recently in a proper state. DLA had been awarded, a (biG) back payment had been awarded and income support to go up as well. This time around I said Iwould accept a bunch of flowers.


----------



## Voley (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm glad I've never had to apply for this. Doing an HB form with someone who's got a partner that works part-time was difficult enough.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 15, 2011)

One thing I've noticed in the last week since it all kicked off - there has been less ASB on the estate I work on - all that publicity about eviction notices and that - may have caused this


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> miliband, cameron and clegg's heads on pikes would go some small way towards appeasing my own appetite for bloodlust


certainly an appealing thought!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

TopCat said:


> I had this recently. A woman rang my work, (a transport charity) asking for advice on Disability Living Allowance. She had been fobbed off by the council who gave her my number. I downloaded and sent her the forms for DLA for her husband. She predictably rang me up again saying the forms are somewhat complicated. Of course like a caring (mug) i go round and fill them in ensuring that i fully emphasize her husbands issues. I was mortified when she tried to give me twenty quid for filling in the form. She rang me again recently in a proper state. DLA had been awarded, a (biG) back payment had been awarded and income support to go up as well. This time around I said Iwould accept a bunch of flowers.



Good on you!

It's a nice feeling to have helped someone get what they're entitled to.

It's a fucking crying shame that just about all the other sources of help have been destroyed. I've watched the volume of various providers in Lambeth get smaller and smaller, and although there are some smashing people working to ensure people get their entitlements, there weren't enough ten years ago, let alone after some places have had their budgets slashed by half, or had them removed entirely.
*THIS* is what is the reality of Cameron's big society is - people like us giving up our time to fill the gaps that the government (via the local authority) actually has a *duty* to provide. Orwell may have been wrong about some things, but I reckon he got "new-speak" right: The powers-that-be have increasingly appropriated words and phrases and made them mean something subtly different from the meaning they project.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Good on you!
> 
> It's a nice feeling to have helped someone get what they're entitled to.
> 
> ...


Not just subtly different - completely opposite in many cases!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Not just subtly different - completely opposite in many cases!



Fair point.


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> The whole claims process needs to be overhauled. Make it easier for people to claim what they're entitled to, and not make them feel like they're doing something wrong by doing so.


i personally think it's DELIBERATELY long winded, to put people off. If you compare attendance allowance forms to DLA ones (2 similar benefits) you'll notice DLA is 3 times the size - why?


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 15, 2011)

not sure if i've read it right but it appears it is a Labour MP stirring the shit over this, fucking scum of the earth


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 15, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> i personally think it's DELIBERATELY long winded, to put people off. If you compare attendance allowance forms to DLA ones (2 similar benefits) you'll notice DLA is 3 times the size - why?


Well dur of course it's deliberately  long winded. Also to trip people up so that they can try and claim you're a "fraud".


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Well dur of course it's deliberately long winded. Also to trip people up so that they can try and claim you're a "fraud".


 indeed, i wonder if they catch people out with the most obvious one - how far can you walk/how long does it take , then another question that combines the two?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> i personally think it's DELIBERATELY long winded, to put people off. If you compare attendance allowance forms to DLA ones (2 similar benefits) you'll notice DLA is 3 times the size - why?



It's twice the size if you don't include the fuck-load of notes at the start of the forms, but it's still tens of pages of bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Well dur of course it's deliberately long winded. Also to trip people up so that they can try and claim you're a "fraud".



Yup, hence the whole "similar questions asked several times in slightly different ways" _schtick_. Fucking irritating, which is why I always do rough notes of answers, and then only write them into the form when I've got the answer properly honed. That way one answer doesn't deviate from another.


----------



## paolo (Aug 15, 2011)

marty21 said:


> One thing I've noticed in the last week since it all kicked off - there has been less ASB on the estate I work on - all that publicity about eviction notices and that - may have caused this



Always interesting to hear from someone who works at the sharp end.

The eviction sanctions - as I understand it - for those involved in ASB on their own estates have existed for some time.

As such, there is no change. Any thoughts on why the ASB has reduced given that the new 'policy' doesn't tackle that issue? Maybe it's just an enhanced  sense of vulnerability.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 15, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Always interesting to hear from someone who works at the sharp end.
> 
> The eviction sanctions - as I understand it - for those involved in ASB on their own estates have existed for some time.
> 
> As such, there is no change. Any thoughts on why the ASB has reduced given that the new 'policy' doesn't tackle that issue? Maybe it's just an enhanced sense of vulnerability.


yep they have - there's been a lot of misinformation in the press (surprise surprise) about them - you can get evicted if you are convicted of a crime in your locality - what will happen when any of these cases get to a court - is arguments about what is local - if you looted in Tottenham and live in Wood Green, is that local?  Also they aren't eviction notices - that is scaremongering - you only get one of them when you have been to court and proved that the tenancy has been breached.


----------



## paolo (Aug 15, 2011)

marty21 said:


> yep they have - there's been a lot of misinformation in the press (surprise surprise) about them - you can get evicted if you are convicted of a crime in your locality - what will happen when any of these cases get to a court - is arguments about what is local - if you looted in Tottenham and live in Wood Green, is that local?  Also they aren't eviction notices - that is scaremongering - you only get one of them when you have been to court and proved that the tenancy has been breached.



That confirms some stuff I heard on R4 yesterday.

I can understand the justification for tenancy sanctions for people causing problems for their neighbours. Many private sector leases have the same clause.

Is it also possible that people have been more restrained because of the huge and unavoidable sense of public horror at what we've seen? I'm speculating of course, perhaps simply because I find merely the suggestion of a parallel justice system abhorrent but 'working', even though in reality it won't be carried through in all but a few cases.


----------



## cointreauman (Aug 15, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> i personally think it's DELIBERATELY long winded, to put people off. If you compare attendance allowance forms to DLA ones (2 similar benefits) you'll notice DLA is 3 times the size - why?



I have been in receipt of DLA for some years now and it was the first "benefit" I ever received. Even then the forms were massively complicated and I well remember getting the forms back to be completed "properly"

A local charity working with special needs and handicapped children had a worker who spent her time on these forms (and many others) and said that she had been informed that the nature of DLA was the reaosn that the forms were "difficult" and in some cases applicants would get an award that was time limited (cancer treatment/recovery etc) and so would only need agreed sign off by medical specialist and it was done. In my case she said (rightly) that I would go through the hoops of being visitied by a doctor who was the final arbiter of what  my award would be listed as and I was indeed visited at home by said doctor. He was there for 5 minutes and signed the form off and also informed me that he had marked my entitlement as PERMANENT. It strikes me that perhaps having every detail including the width of my yong yang allows them to file away and forget me unless my situation changes (like I miraculously meet JC on the road to Damascus and I am all fit and well again). The bring forward on the temporal claimants is less easy to relate to for the DWP to manage and it is that tranche who face the first round of their needs being determined and reviewed as part of the thieves cuts strategy.

Until the current bnch of thieving cretins that have decided that DLA is "up for grabs" I had assumed that permanent would be permanent and adjusted my lifestyle and expectations accordingy. Will be a kick in the teeth for DLA recipients when they really dig into their individual reviews or look to put a means test on the whole thing if/when they do not get the swell of numbers by which they fail t make the "savings" they seek.

Cannot see the infirm, ill or wheelchair bound wrecking their communities seeking justice - but the kind of situation we could end up with is some serious disenfranchisement without recourse of protect that will make any difference or care about our treatment as we do not represent a powerful core of the population. We have the ballot box, I suppose, but which of the thieves to vote for??? Wondering how the courts would deal with a less able person on DLA living in adapted social housing who decides to break a window at a JobCentre Plus - loss of tenancy, loss of benefits (or allowances as DLA is deemed)....... "Out on the streets" from the daily Mail I might foresee or what?

C


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

On Ch4 news just now Millipede seemed to endorse the evicting of families if someone is convicted of rioting/looting, but on a ''case by case basis and as a last resort''

John Bird stuck up for the poor for a change...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> On Ch4 news just now Millipede seemed to endorse the evicting of families if someone is convicted of rioting/looting, but on a ''case by case basis and as a last resort''
> 
> John Bird stuck up for the poor for a change...



Tough on crime, tough on the families and children of criminals. For three generations. It's getting biblical.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 15, 2011)

The bloody code...


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I don't understand why community service isn't the main form of punishment.
> 
> It would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> Stupid bastards.


Great way to meet other criminals, unpaid work...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> Cannot see the infirm, ill or wheelchair bound wrecking their communities seeking justice - but the kind of situation we could end up with is some serious disenfranchisement without recourse of protect that will make any difference or care about our treatment as we do not represent a powerful core of the population.



You've been disabled for a number of years, and yet you've never seen people with disabilities acting up? Sheltered life, mate! 



> We have the ballot box, I suppose, but which of the thieves to vote for??? Wondering how the courts would deal with a less able person on DLA living in adapted social housing who decides to break a window at a JobCentre Plus - loss of tenancy, loss of benefits (or allowances as DLA is deemed)....... "Out on the streets" from the daily Mail I might foresee or what?
> 
> C



As far as I recall, the govt were so embarrassed when a bunch of people with disabilities chained themselves to the gates at the head of Downing Street and chucked red paint over themselves, that they all got conditional discharges.
It's a bit harder to get away with stigmatising someone who anyone with an ounce of wit will know already gets stigmatised, wittingly or unwittingly, by society. That's not to say the Tories won't do their cuts, but it is to say they're self-aware enough not to want to draw too much attention to protests by people with disabilities, or to fuel too many in the first place.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 15, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> That confirms some stuff I heard on R4 yesterday.
> 
> I can understand the justification for tenancy sanctions for people causing problems for their neighbours. Many private sector leases have the same clause.
> 
> Is it also possible that people have been more restrained because of the huge and unavoidable sense of public horror at what we've seen? I'm speculating of course, perhaps simply because I find merely the suggestion of a parallel justice system abhorrent but 'working', even though in reality it won't be carried through in all but a few cases.


it's early days - but with all this press coverage showing hoodied teens going to court to be imprisoned - it is bound to make the hoodied teens on my estate think a bit - but once the fuss dies down - they might go back to their old ways.


----------



## paolo (Aug 15, 2011)

marty21 said:


> it's early days - but with all this press coverage showing hoodied teens going to court to be imprisoned - it is bound to make the hoodied teens on my estate think a bit - but once the fuss dies down - they might go back to their old ways.



Based on what you see day to day, any thoughts on what might make a lasting change?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 15, 2011)

teens get bored - a lot of what happened was bored teenagers seeing a chance of some excitement - a lot of the problem teens on the estate haven't bothered with school, most leave at 15/16 with few , if any qualifications - sadly a lot of them have parents who have lived on benefits for years -(although there are some who have working parents)  so they are likely to go into a similar lifestyle - small time drug dealing gets them a bit of cash to get by -

I don't have the answers - all we can do is manage it - tbf - the problems on the estate are not massive - residents complain about teenagers 'hanging about' ' getting stoned' 'drinking' 'making noise' - pretty common pastimes for most teenagers... there is some petty crime - and there does seem to be a gang problem - Somalians mostly - also a few problems with neighbouring boroughs - post code stuff -

managing the estate, we don't have the time or resources in the current climate to do much - there might be more funds becoming available if the government is serious about tackling the underlying problems.


----------



## cointreauman (Aug 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've been disabled for a number of years, and yet you've never seen people with disabilities acting up? Sheltered life, mate!
> 
> As far as I recall, the govt were so embarrassed when a bunch of people with disabilities chained themselves to the gates at the head of Downing Street and chucked red paint over themselves, that they all got conditional discharges.
> It's a bit harder to get away with stigmatising someone who anyone with an ounce of wit will know already gets stigmatised, wittingly or unwittingly, by society. That's not to say the Tories won't do their cuts, but it is to say they're self-aware enough not to want to draw too much attention to protests by people with disabilities, or to fuel too many in the first place.



Don't disagree BUT the DLA applies across the widest range of disabilities and those less able to get around are often housebound through blindness (I spoke to a worker for "Action for the Blind" stated that their research showed that as many as 80% of registered bline people rarely left thier homes, so who could speak for them in a protest).

Not really a sheltered life bt one where I was far less radicalised than I have been for the past 10 of my 55 years. I lived in Stockwell and Brixton through the 60s, 70s and 80s as able bodied and fit as I just dream about now. These days I work with local charities and try to help where I can. The peope I see are mute to their plight as they really do not have a great voice, are under constant pressure for their bite of the ever diminishing Carer funds, especially in the rural communities I assist in.

I really don't think the current thieves in parliament and in Downing Street in particular give a flying fuck about disability otherwise they would realise that whilst there may be those that milk the system, they are happy to lump all withthe same "scrounger"tag.

The ranting from the right about removing the "vile and invidious" Human Rights Act shows where their mentality lies. Bollocks to the underpinning of European Law and courts system - lets do away with the act......

I have no time for the rioters and for many of them they really deserve to be punished BUT that should be done within a far and mpartial judicial system not by the stirring fukwits of the press and TV stations (the coverage by the BBC in reports and the lame Panorama piece on "the riots" showed that they are very partial in their push to promote the will of the majority in wanting Benefits stopped and people in social housing to have their tenancy agreements torn up and thrown out of their homes - to go where?

The Police showed through their treatment of Jody McIntyre what store they put by dealing with such a dangerous thug eh? Too ucking wimpish to do it last week in Tottenham and Hackney - perhaps if the "rioter" were in wheelchairs perhaps.

No I really do not think that David "fagin" Cameron and the rest of his thieves and lickspittle LDs will ever give a toss about the real needs of those living on any kind of benefits and would rather get the lowest paid into a pposition where the "Big Society" will take over.... utter bollocks really as unless and until the thieves realise that we all know them for what they are *( and as a nother thread shows - the MPs stole far more than th eodd pair of trainers or a flat screen TV) than the majority of the looters did.

So the inevitable and obvious knee-jerk reaction of Cameron and Osborne et al (fuck the LDs I diminish thm by painting them blue and thinking of them as the "me too tories" that are a scab to hopefully disappear very soon) is to "fix" the broken society in "our country" - will be an interesting fix....

In essence I think we take away the benefits and tenancy agreements of rioters and their associated families (will they chase the absent fathers too and take away their tenancy agreements too?) at our peril lest we see more than a few buildings burning - people still have to eat and be housed so pushing the problem to "somewhere" else has never worked in the past and will inevitably bring those disenfranchised and disengaged back onto the streets.

As for the disabled - we never had it so good, didn't we?

C

(sorry for the ramble)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> Don't disagree BUT the DLA applies across the widest range of disabilities and those less able to get around are often housebound through blindness (I spoke to a worker for "Action for the Blind" stated that their research showed that as many as 80% of registered bline people rarely left thier homes, so who could speak for them in a protest.



Many people with full visual impairment still don't qualify for DLA, unfortunately, especially if they were born blind or blind from an early age, and were taught coping mechanisms. Another gyp from a state that loves gypping people with disabilities.



> I really don't think the current thieves in parliament and in Downing Street in particular give a flying fuck about disability otherwise they would realise that whilst there may be those that milk the system, they are happy to lump all withthe same "scrounger"tag.



Thing is, the "scrounger" theme is inherent to neo-liberalism - the non-productive (as they erroneously think of us) must be exposed to the rigour of the workplace and the wider market: We must in effect be commodified, and then pushed to consume more. The scrounger label has utility for them, so they're deploying it across the welfare board, so universal benefits are attacked, diminished, and will eventually be erased (even the "Old Age Pension"), benefits dependent on constant information assessment (how much money goes through your bank, how you spend etc) will become the norm through the idea of a Universal Credit that will *still* act as a subsidsation of employers who choose to pay poorly.
All the rhetoric serves a purpose. Unfortunately, it's not the purpose of those who are governed that is served, it's the purpose of those who rule, and wish to continue ruling.



> The ranting from the right about removing the "vile and invidious" Human Rights Act shows where their mentality lies. Bollocks to the underpinning of European Law and courts system - lets do away with the act......



They want to do away with the act not for the "big things" it changed, but because it provides protections and a weapon against the excesses that the ruling classes and bosses are prone to indulging in. It interferes with the market being able to operate freely (hah!), so it must go. The rabid right-wingers are mostly dupes being played by the neo-libs. People like Hannan and Murray can't see beyond their own arseholes.



> I have no time for the rioters and for many of them they really deserve to be punished BUT that should be done within a far and mpartial judicial system not by the stirring fukwits of the press and TV stations (the coverage by the BBC in reports and the lame Panorama piece on "the riots" showed that they are very partial in their push to promote the will of the majority in wanting Benefits stopped and people in social housing to have their tenancy agreements torn up and thrown out of their homes - to go where?



Well, the judicial system will *always* be partial, but we can at least make sure that this "smash! punish! evict!" discourse doesn't dominate, even if only by rubbing the noses of those who voice it in their own stupidity. I have great pleasure from e-mailing local and national politicians, putting comments on blogs etc every time some knobber posts out of their arse.



> The Police showed through their treatment of Jody McIntyre what store they put by dealing with such a dangerous thug eh? Too ucking wimpish to do it last week in Tottenham and Hackney - perhaps if the "rioter" were in wheelchairs perhaps.



They tend to get quite upset at wheelchair users when they "lock on" to police vehicles (good old d-locks and handcuffs, eh?  ). Perhaps Jody caught some backlash from a copper who got put back on foot patrol for letting his vehicle be disabled by cripples! 



> No I really do not think that David "fagin" Cameron and the rest of his thieves and lickspittle LDs will ever give a toss about the real needs of those living on any kind of benefits and would rather get the lowest paid into a pposition where the "Big Society" will take over.... utter bollocks really as unless and until the thieves realise that we all know them for what they are *( and as a nother thread shows - the MPs stole far more than th eodd pair of trainers or a flat screen TV) than the majority of the looters did.
> 
> So the inevitable and obvious knee-jerk reaction of Cameron and Osborne et al (fuck the LDs I diminish thm by painting them blue and thinking of them as the "me too tories" that are a scab to hopefully disappear very soon) is to "fix" the broken society in "our country" - will be an interesting fix....
> 
> ...



No problem!

I've been saying for a couple of years that I reckon Tory policy on welfare, because it emanates from Iain Dumbfaced Shit, is even more strongly based on the Victorian-era idea that there is a "deserving" and an "undeserving" poor than new Labour's ideas were, but whre Labour occasionally trod lightly after their experiences with the Benefits Integrity Project, this lot have no brake on their actions, and it will probably ead us all shitwards, including much more civil disorder.


----------



## cointreauman (Aug 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Many people with full visual impairment still don't qualify for DLA, unfortunately, especially if they were born blind or blind from an early age, and were taught coping mechanisms. Another gyp from a state that loves gypping people with disabilities.
> 
> Thing is, the "scrounger" theme is inherent to neo-liberalism - the non-productive (as they erroneously think of us) must be exposed to the rigour of the workplace and the wider market: We must in effect be commodified, and then pushed to consume more. The scrounger label has utility for them, so they're deploying it across the welfare board, so universal benefits are attacked, diminished, and will eventually be erased (even the "Old Age Pension"), benefits dependent on constant information assessment (how much money goes through your bank, how you spend etc) will become the norm through the idea of a Universal Credit that will *still* act as a subsidsation of employers who choose to pay poorly.
> All the rhetoric serves a purpose. Unfortunately, it's not the purpose of those who are governed that is served, it's the purpose of those who rule, and wish to continue ruling.
> ...



Sorry for the delay in posting my thanks for your thoughts -I have been working "up country" as my clients have relocated from Somerset to the (cheaper labour??) North and despite the wonderful range of benefits (DLA and sod all else) I still need to work.

I am grateful that the fight goes in in all corners, and in that you do fight on it gives me the will to "stick my oar in" when faced with stupid things that present themselves.

Cheers again

C


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 21, 2011)

marty21 said:


> teens get bored - a lot of what happened was bored teenagers seeing a chance of some excitement - a lot of the problem teens on the estate haven't bothered with school, most leave at 15/16 with few , if any qualifications - sadly a lot of them have parents who have lived on benefits for years -(although there are some who have working parents) so they are likely to go into a similar lifestyle - small time drug dealing gets them a bit of cash to get by -
> 
> I don't have the answers - all we can do is manage it - tbf - the problems on the estate are not massive - residents complain about teenagers 'hanging about' ' getting stoned' 'drinking' 'making noise' - pretty common pastimes for most teenagers... there is some petty crime - and there does seem to be a gang problem - Somalians mostly - also a few problems with neighbouring boroughs - post code stuff -
> 
> managing the estate, we don't have the time or resources in the current climate to do much - there might be more funds becoming available if the government is serious about tackling the underlying problems.


sounds very similar to where I live.  We were in a NDC  area (New Deal for Communities) so over the last few years we were given some  useful things for the teenagers like an free internet cafe, and a new football pen. But they ran out of cash and a lot of the things we were promised just didn't happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2011)

He we go



> Magistrates and crown court judges could be asked to dock benefits from convicted criminals under preliminary proposals being drawn up by the government in response to the riots, the Guardian can reveal.
> 
> Ministers are looking hard at how benefits, or tax credits, could be taken away to show criminals that privileges provided by the state can be temporarily withdrawn.
> 
> Under the proposals anyone convicted of a crime could be punished once rather than potentially facing separate fines – first by a magistrates court and then a benefit office. By giving powers to the courts to strip benefits, the Department of Work and Pensions would no longer be obliged to intervene directly in the criminal justice system.



Looking hard!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 8, 2011)

There is already a means of financially penalising rioters or anyone else who is convicted: It's called "a fine".  Have the reactionaries been too busy frothing to recall this rather well known fact?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 8, 2011)

1%er said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429
> 
> Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in England.
> 
> Do the facts show that most of those involved are on benefit?



What a fucking stupid, over the top idea.


----------



## cool herc (Sep 8, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What a fucking stupid, over the top idea.


Draconian kneejerk reactions by the goverment seems to have worked though. No riots since 11th Aug.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 8, 2011)

cool herc said:


> Draconian kneejerk reactions by the goverment seems to have worked though. No riots since 11th Aug.



Yet.


----------



## cool herc (Sep 8, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Yet.



Kids back at school now. The revolution will have to be postponed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2011)

cool herc said:


> Draconian kneejerk reactions by the goverment seems to have worked though. No riots since 11th Aug.


 
I have a rock that keeps tigers away


----------



## cool herc (Sep 8, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I have a rock that keeps tigers away



Yes dear.


----------



## past caring (Sep 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Many people with full visual impairment still don't qualify for DLA, unfortunately, especially if they were born blind or blind from an early age, and were taught coping mechanisms. Another gyp from a state that loves gypping people with disabilities.



It is true that the old rules regarding DLA prevented a blind person (if this was their sole disability) from getting the highest rate of the mobility component of DLA (as that required a physical disability that prevented the act of walking) and may not have qualified for the lower rate either if their coping strategies and aids meant that they did not require guidance or supervision in order to be safely mobile.

However, the rules changed from 11th April - now the blind or severely sight impaired qualify automatically for the highest rate of the mobility component - this is defined as a combined visual accuity in both eyes of less than 3/60 on the Snellen Scale or more than 3/60 but less than 6/60 if there is a complete loss of peripheral vision and a central visual field of less than 10%.

Just by way of information, like.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 8, 2011)

1%er said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14474429
> 
> Fuck me, I never realized there was so much prejudice against people on benefits in England.
> 
> Do the facts show that most of those involved are on benefit?


You never noticed before.. where are you?

They don't actually need facts about anything, do they? Like it's been automatically the fault of single mums, or the fact that there are too many women primary school teachers (because obviously, those rioting were predominately primary school age). We don't need facts to start randomly blaming everything on women.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 8, 2011)

The blame game is worth a read


----------

