# General > General >  Sad news but is it the first of many?

## Shaggy

Was waiting on this happening. IDS has a lot to answer for

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bedroom-tax...8.html#roRrodg

----------


## Flynn

Saw this last night. A shameful thing to happen, and only serves to underscore how the Tories are screwing the poor into the ground to pay for the mistakes of the rich, while at the same time they give the rich massive tax breaks. It's sickening, utterly sickening.

RIP Stephanie Bottrill.

----------


## M Swanson

Typical response from you Flynn. Not enough background and facts are known about this woman's suicide to apportion the 'blame' to anyone. For a start, if she was disabled, then why wasn't she registered as such and in receipt of the benefits payable to her? DLA would have covered the reduction in her income. Couldn't the family have arranged it, if she was unable to? And what was their input to help their struggling mother? I notice, that the Samaritan's comments, regarding what drives someone to such an outcome is not mentioned. As they quite rightly say, it's seldom one thing that pushes somebody over the edge. I don't know what led to her suicide and based on the article, I don't think anyone else does, but may Stephanie rest in peace.

----------


## Flynn

> Typical response from you Flynn. Not enough background and facts are known about this woman's suicide to apportion the 'blame' to anyone.


And that's a typically blinkered right-wing denial of the truth from you.

Actually, the facts ARE known. In fact they are comprehensively known:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...uicide-1883600

----------


## joxville

I have to be honest and say that I think it's right that people with an unused bedroom should have their benefits deducted or move to a smaller place. In saying that, those that need the extra room for themselves because they look after another that's disabled or infirm shouldn't be penalised. However, as usual with any Governement, they always go at things half-cocked, without thought for the implications it's going to have on those most affected. You can't expect people to just up and leave a home because they have one room too many when there clearly isn't enough smaller places available. Once again, it a case of 'sod you Jack, I'm alright'. 

The mental anguish that Stephanie Bottrill must have gone through is unimaginable, and to finally take her own life is sad beyond belief and disgusting at the extreme. The Governemnt must call a halt to the benefit changes and instead of trying to save money, they should spend money on a national house building campaign. If they were able to find billions to save the banks and their rich friends, then they should find the money to kick start the building industry again. Get the country out of the recession by spending money that will have a knock on effect of putting people back in work and more houses will be available for those who can't afford to buy. Maybe I'm being naive, is my view too simplistic? I don't know, but something has to be done. We really don't want to learn of another suicide because a shower of ( expletive deleted) care only for themselves and the rich.

RIP Stephanie, my heart cries for you.

----------


## Alrock

> I have to be honest and say that I think it's right that people with an unused bedroom should have their benefits deducted or move to a smaller place....


Have to disagree with that, however, if it is going to be done it has to be done in a fair way. It should only come into effect after you have repeatedly refused suitable alternative accommodation & help should be provided with moving costs as moving house is not cheap & the reason people are on Housing benefit is that they are on benefits or a low income so would really struggle with the cost.

----------


## M Swanson

> And that's a typically blinkered right-wing denial of the truth from you.
> 
> Actually, the facts ARE known. In fact they are comprehensively known:
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...uicide-1883600


There was no denial of the truth from me Flynn. More of the same old twisting and turning for you then. I stated that I didn't have enough facts, based on the link given, to decide what drove Stephanie to take her own life. But you know that, don't you! Just yet another good opportunity for you to make some good, political mileage, huh?

Anyway, having now read a fuller account in the Mirror rag, I begin to form a more educated opinion. There are still some important facts missing, like if this lady suffered mental health issues, prior to the conception of the tax. One impression I have, is that she was probably clinically depressed, which may well have come about upon her daughter moving out of the family home. It can be a traumatic time and some folks never adapt to living on their own. She writes of loving her family very much, so doesn't it seem odd that she felt driven to leave them all? It just doesn't fit, imo.

I haven't received any answer to the question about why she wasn't registered disabled, so I guess it's another fact not known. If she had have been, she could have applied for a discretionary housing payment and would have had a very good chance of receiving the assistance she needed. That was one option. Why didn't the family, who knew she was struggling, seek help for her in the form of a social worker? Maybe one could have helped to arrange a transfer, or exchange that would have been suitable? Another option may have been to take in a lodger to help meet the increased tax charge? The right person could even have given her the company she obviously craved. I only wish I could have helped Stephanie. One thing's for sure, IF my own mother had been in this situation, I would have raised the £20 deficit, despite having a low income, whilst working to find a good solution long-term. Wouldn't you?

Jox, what would have been the consequences of the banks being allowed to go bust? There would most certainly have been a knock-on effect to other banks and it wouldn't have just been shareholders who lost money, but depositors too. That's you, me and millions more of us. What do you think the outcome of that would have meant?

----------


## joxville

I don't know the answers M., but I do know that this Government has shown clearly that it doesn't care for those who are poor or hit the hardest by their policies.

----------


## joxville

> Have to disagree with that, however, if it is going to be done it has to be done in a fair way. It should only come into effect after you have repeatedly refused suitable alternative accommodation & help should be provided with moving costs as moving house is not cheap & the reason people are on Housing benefit is that they are on benefits or a low income so would really struggle with the cost.


I  agree with you, I should have expanded in my original post. 

I know a woman who lives in a three bedroom house with just her 8yr old daughter. She has NEVER worked in the 24 years since she left school. In that time she became a dog addict and for the last 11 years has been on methadone. She weighs 25 stone, and because of her drug abuse problem and weight issue she gets Disability Living Allowance. She has openly admitted she has no intention of ever getting a job, even though her doctor has told her she needs to lose weight for the sake of her health; but if she does then she's scared that she'd be deemed fit for work and lose her benefits. She is one of those who knows how to play the system, having a social worker and a 'health professional' of some sort, fighting her case. But that doesn't excuse the fact she is living in a home where she has an unused room, one that could be used by a larger family. 

That's the reason that I support the idea of those who are too lazy to get off their backsides and get a job, to contribute to society instead of being a drain on the country's finances, should lose some of their benefits. Off course, every case should be dealt with on merit, and as much assistance made available as possible, but if they refuse that help then they should lose money. However, the fact still remains that there aren't enough single bed houses for people to downsize too, so the Government needs to address that problem before taking money of those who can least afford to lose it.

----------


## focusRS

> I  agree with you, I should have expanded in my original post. I know a woman who lives in a three bedroom house with just her 8yr old daughter. She has NEVER worked in the 24 years since she left school. In that time she became a dog addict and for the last 11 years has been on methadone. She weighs 25 stone, and because of her drug abuse problem and weight issue she gets Disability Living Allowance. She has openly admitted she has no intention of ever getting a job, even though her doctor has told her she needs to lose weight for the sake of her health; but if she does then she's scared that she'd be deemed fit for work and lose her benefits. She is one of those who knows how to play the system, having a social worker and a 'health professional' of some sort, fighting her case. But that doesn't excuse the fact she is living in a home where she has an unused room, one that could be used by a larger family. That's the reason that I support the idea of those who are too lazy to get off their backsides and get a job, to contribute to society instead of being a drain on the country's finances, should lose some of their benefits. Off course, every case should be dealt with on merit, and as much assistance made available as possible, but if they refuse that help then they should lose money. However, the fact still remains that there aren't enough single bed houses for people to downsize too, so the Government needs to address that problem before taking money of those who can least afford to lose it.


Methadone for dog addiction? Little wonder the country is in such a state.

----------


## sids

> dog addiction? .


Once that gets its teeth into you...

----------


## Shaggy

The scare mill is working overtime.....It is rumoured that the Govt are considering cutting housing benefit payments to those in privately owned rented accommodation to bring them in line with the local councils own rent pricing for a similar sized house. Now THAT will cause hardship and homelessness on an unprecedented scale. Buy to rent owners now no longer having the easy money off the council funded tenants will find it a struggle to pay the mortgage. I wouldn't put it past the goon squad to do this but we'll see soon enough if it is a rumour and the havoc it will cause should it turn out to be true

----------


## dandod

As sorry as I feel for this woman's family it just does not ring true but that may be my suspicious mind and I suspect I am not the only person who thinks it strange. I have to say I totally agree with the bedroom tax if it means freeing up larger houses for families so they can leave the smaller houses for those who need to downsize. I hope the government does not back down. Would you kill yourself for the sake of £20 a week? Just to prove a point to the government I sure as hell wouldn't.

----------


## Flynn

> As sorry as I feel for this woman's family it just does not ring true but that may be my suspicious mind and I suspect I am not the only person who thinks it strange. I have to say I totally agree with the bedroom tax if it means freeing up larger houses for families so they can leave the smaller houses for those who need to downsize. I hope the government does not back down. Would you kill yourself for the sake of £20 a week? Just to prove a point to the government I sure as hell wouldn't.


There. Are. Not. Enough. Smaller. Properties. For. People. To. Move. To.

----------


## sam09

More than 50% of Housing Benefit Claimants are working people on low incomes, including many serving in the Armed Forces. 
(at present members of the Armed Forces on Active Service are exempt).

----------


## Flynn

> I stated that I didn't have enough facts, based on the link given, to decide what drove Stephanie to take her own life.


No you didn't. You said 


> Not enough background and facts are known about this woman's suicide to apportion the 'blame' to anyone.




But as usual when you have been shown to be completely wrong you are backtracking.




> Portes thinks there is no wider decay in British government beyond Duncan Smith's department. I am not so sure. The British right is riding off with the loons. Like the Republicans with the Tea Party, the supposedly mainstream Conservatives have decided to woo Ukip rather than fight it. To show that they are "listening", they must pursue policies that make little sense and invent the evidence to support them.




This is the nub of this government and for all of its apologists. They deny the undeniable, and believe in fantasies.

M Swanson, you have chosen to debate an issue by crying "foul", which is pathetic. The evidence is all there: if it hadn't been for this cruel government's despicable policies, for which you are an apologist,  forcing ordinary people into penury, then this tragic case would not have happened. It is a very demonstrable tip of a huge iceberg. All over the country there are people whose lives are being made, quite unnecessarily, less tolerable, more stressful and more miserable because the government chooses to pander to its mindless right wing and the Ukip idiots.

Above quote is from this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ddling-figures

----------


## dandod

> There. Are. Not. Enough. Smaller. Properties. For. People. To. Move. To.


 Ok first of all I am not stupid you ignorant you little man. And secondly I have a small property and need a larger one and would gladly move or swap. And from the sounds of things the woman was offered several properties but none were suitable. At least she was offered.

----------


## Flynn

> Ok first of all I am not stupid you ignorant you little man. And secondly I have a small property and need a larger one and would gladly move or swap. And from the sounds of things the woman was offered several properties but none were suitable. At least she was offered.





> The report found that:
> In the north of England families with a spare room outnumber overcrowded families by three to one (1) so thousands will be hit by the bedroom tax despite there being no local need for them to move. The mismatch between people living in overcrowded homes who need to swap with those who have a spare room works only on paper and nationally. In reality, to make it work you would have to move thousands of families thousands of miles.If those people do choose to move there are simply not enough smaller social homes available for all 660,000 households affected by the bedroom tax to move to, andIf everyone affected did decide to move, many would have to go into the more expensive private rented sector, which would mean in some cases housing benefit claims could actually increase.Meanwhile, if disabled people in adapted properties moved into smaller homes this could also cost the taxpayer millions more in costly home adaptations. Some 77 per cent of people on Disability Living Allowance live in the social housing sector and two thirds of the people hit by the bedroom tax are disabled. Around 100,000 households live in properties adapted for their needs, some through local authority grants at an average cost of £6,000.


http://www.housing.org.uk/media/pres...me-home-truths

Now, who's the ignorant one?

----------


## dandod

Why do you have to bully people who don't agree with you? Is is because you we're bullied as a child? Not loved enough? Not everyone will agree. My opinion is that I don't believe that this woman killed herself for the sake of £20 a week I suspect it is the family trying to make money off the government. Thisismy opinion and a narrow minded fool like you is not going to change it with your quotes and links get amine of your own.

----------


## Alrock

> ....a narrow minded fool like you.....


Pot... Kettle... Black... Anyone?

----------


## Flynn

> Why do you have to bully people who don't agree with you? Is is because you we're bullied as a child? Not loved enough? Not everyone will agree. My opinion is that I don't believe that this woman killed herself for the sake of £20 a week I suspect it is the family trying to make money off the government. Thisismy opinion and a narrow minded fool like you is not going to change it with your quotes and links get amine of your own.


Posting facts to disprove your argument is not bullying.

----------


## Flynn

> Jox, what would have been the consequences of the banks being allowed to go bust? There would most certainly have been a knock-on effect to other banks and it wouldn't have just been shareholders who lost money, but depositors too. That's you, me and millions more of us. What do you think the outcome of that would have meant?


Well, we'd probably now be in the same position as Iceland - who let their banks fail - with a stabilised economy and virtually no national debt.

----------


## dandod

The way you word your posts are. Why do you feel the need to quote other people's views or "facts" as you call them do you nothaveyour own opinions which are not influenced by anyone else. I guess some people are just born followers and in my opinion you are one of them.

----------


## Flynn

> The way you word your posts are. Why do you feel the need to quote other people's views or "facts" as you call them do you nothaveyour own opinions which are not influenced by anyone else. I guess some people are just born followers and in my opinion you are one of them.


Are you disputing the National Housing Association publishes facts? 

No-one has opinions uninfluenced by others. My opinions are the result of my life experiences, and the influences on my life by others. For example my opinion of you is directly influenced by your behaviour toward me on this board, where you have directly insulted me simply for arguing the point at hand.




> … you ignorant you little man.

----------


## orkneycadian

> There. Are. Not. Enough. Smaller. Properties. For. People. To. Move. To.


Odd - Most of the ads you see over here for housing exchanges, are folk looking for bigger houses, not smaller ones.

----------


## piratelassie

Why do some people try to justify Tory policies? The Tory philosophy is simply " f... you Jack,I'm all right. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it. The bedroom tax idea won't work for many practical and moral reasons, and everyone knows it. It's fundamentally stupid.

----------


## squidge

To charge people for extra rooms in their homes when there are not enough properties for people to move out into is disgusting immoral and cruel.

 Whether we think this woman died because of the bedroom tax or not, it is clear that this is a charge which will hit the poor, the sick and the vulnerable and many who cannot move to a smaller property because none are available in their locality.

 Whatever the reasons for this woman's suicide and it is not likely to be just one, it appears the bedroom tax was the last straw. The final thing she could not cope with.  We should not be targetting the poorest in society to make their lives harder, if i can remind you the current recession, the banking crisis and the lack of growth was not the fault of those on benefit.

----------


## M Swanson

> M Swanson, you have chosen to debate an issue by crying "foul", which is pathetic. The evidence is all there: if it hadn't been for this cruel government's despicable policies, for which you are an apologist,  forcing ordinary people into penury, then this tragic case would not have happened. It is a very demonstrable tip of a huge iceberg. All over the country there are people whose lives are being made, quite unnecessarily, less tolerable, more stressful and more miserable because the government chooses to pander to its mindless right wing and the Ukip idiots.


Even by your standards this is complete nonsense, Flynn. For starters, I have never cried, "foul."  I've questioned the 'facts,' as given by that rag the 'Mirror.'  I mean who wouldn't? I suppose it would be a much different story, if the lady had blamed the Labour Party for nearly bankrupting the country and forcing the new government to introduce austere measures to bail us out of the doobries and this article then appeared in the Mail? S'pect you'd have even more to complain about. BTW. If Labour were to be elected in 2015, what chance do you think there would be of them abolishing the bedroom tax? As with so many other policies, my best guess would be, not a lot! Shucks, up until the last day of their governance, they were still running with many of Margaret Hilda's policies. Hypocrites!

So, according to the expert Dr Flynn, Stephanie would still be alive, but for the tax. You can support this statement with 'facts,' of course. Who the hell do you think you are? You and your comrades really don't care about people, do you? It's all about towing the ideological line and grasping every opportunity to further the evil cause, imo.  Never mind, the Org provides fertile ground for your ambitions. 

Pleased to note that UKIP is proving to be a threat to your totalitarian, nightmarish dreams, Flynn. As they're not going to go away, I guess you'll just have to live with their growing popularity with a nation sick and tired of being beaten with the left wing sticks. Strewth! You bore me.

----------


## squidge

Towing the party line and furthering the cause. Oh my! I am laughing at the irony of your post. If ANYONE thinks that these stupid blinkered cruel ineffective welfare reforms are designed to help people get off benefits and into work they are deluded. These policies are designed to tow the party line and further the cause of tory ideology. The sort of ideology which appeals to those narrow minded people who are unable to understand things outside their own experience. The sort of ideology dreamed up by politicians who have never done a days proper work for wages they need to pay their bills. Sneering, heartless policies that we saw in the 80s and we are seeing now. It should be labour's shame that they look completely unlikely to change them.

----------


## Flynn

> Even by your standards this is complete nonsense, Flynn. For starters, I have never cried, "foul."  I've questioned the 'facts,' as given by that rag the 'Mirror.'  I mean who wouldn't? I suppose it would be a much different story, if the lady had blamed the Labour Party for nearly bankrupting the country and forcing the new government to introduce austere measures to bail us out of the doobries and this article then appeared in the Mail? S'pect you'd have even more to complain about. BTW. If Labour were to be elected in 2015, what chance do you think there would be of them abolishing the bedroom tax? As with so many other policies, my best guess would be, not a lot! Shucks, up until the last day of their governance, they were still running with many of Margaret Hilda's policies. Hypocrites!
> 
> So, according to the expert Dr Flynn, Stephanie would still be alive, but for the tax. You can support this statement with 'facts,' of course. Who the hell do you think you are? You and your comrades really don't care about people, do you? It's all about towing the ideological line and grasping every opportunity to further the evil cause, imo.  Never mind, the Org provides fertile ground for your ambitions. 
> 
> Pleased to note that UKIP is proving to be a threat to your totalitarian, nightmarish dreams, Flynn. As they're not going to go away, I guess you'll just have to live with their growing popularity with a nation sick and tired of being beaten with the left wing sticks. Strewth! You bore me.


I care about people before profit, that's why I'm not frothing all over my keyboard as you appear to be. I know I'm on the side of compassion. 

The story WAS in the Mail too, and it was pretty much the same as reported in the Mirror. It was also on C4 news, ITV news, Sky news. And they all said the same as the Mirror article.


UKIP don't even have a single MP. They have MEPs who are all - Farage included - big fat hypocrites who are happy to suck on the Brussels teat. The good thing about UKIP is come 2015 they will split the tory vote as the nutcases and loon side of the tory party all vote UKIP, thus returning a Labour government. Oh, UKIP have some county councillors, but they're nearly all nazi fruitcakes, or complete morons who ask on their Facebook pages if "tuna are real fish like ones that swim in water?"



Come 2015 every county that has elected UKIP councillors will have realised what a bunch of morons UKIP are.

----------


## Flynn

Great observation made on Twitter:

"Mick Philpott kills six kids: Tories blame the benefit system. Bedroom tax victim commits suicide: Tories "don't comment on individual cases".

https://twitter.com/Grumpy_Uncle/sta...79686481747970

----------


## orkneycadian

> Oh, UKIP have some county councillors, but they're nearly all nazi fruitcakes, or complete morons who ask on their Facebook pages if "tuna are real fish like ones that swim in water?"


Seems quite intelligent and educated, compared to what often gets posted on some forums, preceded by "Does anyone know...." ;-)

----------


## billmoseley

I don't see the point in blaming someone there are probably lots of reasons why this lady has done this. If you have ever been depressed then you know full well how things seem stack up and seem worse than they really are. Before judging lets have the full facts

----------


## Flynn

> I don't see the point in blaming someone there are probably lots of reasons why this lady has done this. If you have ever been depressed then you know full well how things seem stack up and seem worse than they really are. Before judging lets have the full facts


We have the full facts. Have you not read the thread?

----------


## ducati

> We have the full facts. Have you not read the thread?


We are not all remote mind readers like you must be.

----------


## Flynn

No mind-reading required. Just read the facts.




> Ten days ago Stephanie Bottrill sat in the redbrick terrace house which had been home for 18 years to write notes to her loved ones, the Sunday People reports.She ripped the pages from a spiral-bound notebook and placed them neatly in little brown envelopes. There was one for her son. Another for her daughter. Her mother. Friends. And a very special one for the year-old grandson she doted on. Then in the early hours of last Saturday Stephanie, 53, left her home for the last time, leaving her cat Joey behind as the front-door clicked shut. She crossed her road in Meriden Drive, Solihull, to drop one of her letters and her house keys through a neighbour’s letterbox. Then she walked 15 minutes through the sleeping estate to Junction 4 of the M6. And at 6.15am she walked straight into the path of a northbound lorry and was killed instantly. Stephanie Bottrill had become the first known suicide victim of the hated Bedroom Tax.In the letter to her son, Steven, 27, she had written: “Don’t blame yourself for me ending my life. The only people to blame are the Government.”Stephanie was tormented over having to find £20 a week to pay for the two under-occupied bedrooms she had been assessed for. Days before her death she told neighbours: “I can’t afford to live any more. Solihull council Labour group leader David Jamieson, who knows the family well, said: “I’m absolutely appalled this poor lady has taken her own life because she was worried how she would pay the Bedroom Tax. I hope the Government will take notice and reconsider this policy.”

----------


## ducati

> No mind-reading required. Just read the facts.
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


And perhaps you could post details of your Psychiatric credentials?

Seems a bit odd to be driving a van after all that training. ::

----------


## M Swanson

> No mind-reading required. Just read the facts.
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


Your ignorance on the psychology of suicides is staggering Flynn. We do not know the 'facts,' that led Stephanie to take her own life. All we do know, is that rags, like the Mirror, have grasped this opportunity to use the tragedy to push their own ideology and sell a few more papers in the process. FGS, they even mentioned Joey the cat. Make of that what you will.  ::  Neither people like you, nor them, care about the suffering of this poor lady and that is a 'fact' and can be proven. It's no coincidence that none of these reports, or you on this thread, have mentioned the trauma experienced by the unfortunate lorry driver who was involved. He'll doubtless carry the horror with him for the rest of his life. You claim to be a trucker, yet no mention of him from you. That should be surprising, but it's not. Stephanie was my first thought, but he was my second. It's all about politics and you and your ilk just don't care. Shame on you, Flynn.

----------


## Flynn

We know she was unable to work through ill health.

We know she was struggling to find the money to feed herself.

We know there were no appropriate smaller properties for her to move to.

We know the bedroom tax was the last straw that drove her to take her life.

In this particular case the lady wrote a suicide note stating very clearly that the trigger for her suicide had been the bedroom tax.  That's not radical campaigners retrospectively fitting the two facts of 'suicide' and 'was struggling with bedroom tax' into the same equation; that's her own words and her own note and her own family who feel she wanted this information shared.

Your blind denial of the facts is astonishing. It is no wonder you vote UKIP.

And your presumption of who and what I care about, based on nothing at all, also speaks volumes.

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=Flynn;1027833]We know she was unable to work through ill health........ NO. There has been no information given about any health problem she may have had, which meant she couldn't work. No disabled status and she was not in receipt of any benefits relating to a disability. All that is mentioned, is hearsay about what a doctor may have said to her. No facts here then.

We know she was struggling to find the money to feed herself........ NO. It was suggested that she spent little on food, but no reason was given for this. If you knew more about psychiatric disorders, you would know that very often, the first thing a sufferer of depression loses is their appetite. Most find eating very difficult and this often lasts for the duration of the illness. Her State income wasn't given, so it's only guesswork as to why she may have found difficulty in buying food. NO fact here then.

We know there were no appropriate smaller properties for her to move to.......... NO. She was offered at least one and turned it down. There were other options which could have been pursued, but weren't. Why not? She had family to assist, didn't she? FACT

We know the bedroom tax was the last straw that drove her to take her life......... NO. It was the reason she stated, but as she was acting irrationally and obviously mentally ill, there could have been very good reasons why she chose to explain her actions in this way. Maybe she thought it better not to apportion blame elsewhere? We don't know.

In this particular case the lady wrote a suicide note stating very clearly that the trigger for her suicide had been the bedroom tax.  That's not radical campaigners retrospectively fitting the two facts of 'suicide' and 'was struggling with bedroom tax' into the same equation; that's her own words and her own note and her own family who feel she wanted this information shared. Already answered. 

Your blind denial of the facts is astonishing.......... Only to you, at the moment, Comrade Flynn. I deal with 'facts, not political opportunities in tragic cases such as this. I care, you see. 

It is no wonder you vote UKIP..... I have never voted UKIP. Show me where I've ever said I had. Who the heck do you think you are? 

And your presumption of who and what I care about, based on nothing at all, also speaks volumes.......... And STILL, no mention of the plight of the unfortunate lorry driver from you Comrade. But in your defence, I must say you don't even pretend to care a jot. Now, that truly does speak volumes about the political opportunist you are and to hell with flesh and blood. At least you tow the party line.

----------


## rob1

Actually M, the yahoo article clearly states that this lady could not work due to Myasthenia gravis.  The articles I have read on the matter do not say that she was struggling to feed herself, but do say that she did not have the heating on during the winter as she could not afford it.    I have not found an article or perhaps I missed it regarding her turning down a smaller property, however one of the articles does say that no other homes were avaliable.  
In theory this is a good idea. A smaller house is easier to heat for example.  Had this woman been in a 1 bed house then perhaps she could have heated it.  However there are somethings that really do need to be looked at in greater detail.  It is unfair to charge someone more for an occupied room when there are no smaller ones are available and it is unresonable to charge a disabled person to pay more for a room that they may use to store equipment for example. 
Finally, there are probably loads of people out there with similar cercumstances to this lady and very few of them will contemplate ending it all for the sake of £20 a week.  the governement are hardly to blame for her death.

----------


## mi16

There are two sides to the argument here, and both are valid.
Personally I agree with the bedroom tax, but only if a smaller home can be made available, it shouldnt need to be immediately local to your current residence but it should be available i.e. if you wee in a 3 bed in Melvich and offered a 1 bed in Wick then that should be classed as acceptable.
One thing that has barely been touched on was that she was incredibly selfish to take her life in this manner.

----------


## squidge

Selfish? You do you know that when someone commits suicide it is often because they can see no other option. Often that suicide is best thing they think they can do for the people they love. When you ask people about their suicidal thoughts they are often ONLY thinking about other people. That other people will be glad they are no longer there, that their friends and loved ones will be relieved of a burden when they are dead and that killing themselves is the BEST thing they can do for their families. That may sound irrational but people are not generally thinking a way which allows them to recognise their value .... Thats not really the word I mean ....its a bit like they can only see that everyone would be better off without them. In a way its not selfish at all.

----------


## Alrock

> ....i.e. if you wee in a 3 bed in Melvich and offered a 1 bed in Wick then that should be classed as acceptable....


What if the person in question worked in Melvich doing a low paid job?
Would you really want to dump them onto the dole queue to save a few quid on housing benefit?

----------


## Flynn

> Finally, there are probably loads of people out there with similar cercumstances to this lady and very few of them will contemplate ending it all for the sake of £20 a week.  the governement are hardly to blame for her death.


Really? When someone is already struggling to afford food, suddenly demanding an extra £80 a month rent is not going to help them.

----------


## Flynn

> There are two sides to the argument here, and both are valid.
> Personally I agree with the bedroom tax, but only if a smaller home can be made available, it shouldnt need to be immediately local to your current residence but it should be available i.e. if you wee in a 3 bed in Melvich and offered a 1 bed in Wick then that should be classed as acceptable.
> One thing that has barely been touched on was that she was incredibly selfish to take her life in this manner.


And if there are no 1 bed properties available close by their family and friends, is it right to demand they move possibly hundreds of miles away, to an area they don't know, where they know no-one, have no support network of family and friends? Would you accept being told to move from Caithness to Essex, for example?

----------


## mi16

If you are cap in hand looking for a house then you cannot be choosy.If you want choice or sentiment then I'm afraid you are on your own. So yes it is acceptable.

----------


## mi16

> Selfish? You do you know that when someone commits suicide it is often because they can see no other option. Often that suicide is best thing they think they can do for the people they love. When you ask people about their suicidal thoughts they are often ONLY thinking about other people. That other people will be glad they are no longer there, that their friends and loved ones will be relieved of a burden when they are dead and that killing themselves is the BEST thing they can do for their families. That may sound irrational but people are not generally thinking a way which allows them to recognise their value .... Thats not really the word I mean ....its a bit like they can only see that everyone would be better off without them. In a way its not selfish at all.


Yep completely selfish with no thought for the motorist who hit her.What about his life, that she put at risk and has undoubtably traumatised.

----------


## Flynn

> If you are cap in hand looking for a house then you cannot be choosy.If you want choice or sentiment then I'm afraid you are on your own. So yes it is acceptable.


I didn't ask if it was acceptable. I asked if YOU would accept it happening to YOU.

----------


## mi16

> I didn't ask if it was acceptable. I asked if YOU would accept it happening to YOU.


I am not in rented accommodation. Therefore I would tell the government to do one.

----------


## Alrock

> I am not in rented accommodation. Therefore I would tell the government to do one.


Ahhh.... "I'm all right Jack" it is then....

----------


## mi16

> Ahhh.... "I'm all right Jack" it is then....


Absolutely not, if I was in rented accommodation and living of the state, and had no alternative but move to the other end of the country to keep a roof over my head, then of course I would go.
However I do not currently live off the state therefore the govrnment would be told to do one.

----------


## Flynn

> Absolutely not, if I was in rented accommodation and living of the state, and had no alternative but move to the other end of the country to keep a roof over my head, then of course I would go.
> However I do not currently live off the state therefore the govrnment would be told to do one.


So it is, as previously said, "I'm alright Jack…"

----------


## mi16

What are you suggesting Flynn, that people in privately owned properties should be down sizing or pay a tax on the spare rooms?Luckily all my rooms are occupied

----------


## squidge

Regardless of whether you would be able to move or not- and we have done this to death on previous threads where it has been shown that some posters completely lack any understanding or insight into the situation of others- there is still something like 400,000 tennants facing the bedroom tax who need one bedroomed properties and around 60 000 available properties. That is where the immorality of this policy lies. To charge people for having an extra room when there are not enough properties for them to move into is disgusting.

----------


## Flynn

> What are you suggesting Flynn, that people in privately owned properties should be down sizing or pay a tax on the spare rooms?Luckily all my rooms are occupied


You are clearly incapable of empathising with others not in the same situation as you. I don't rent either, but I know damned well that if was in rented accommodation and the bedroom tax applied to me I would not accept being told to move hundreds of miles from family and friends to an area I don't know, where I have no friends or family.
You on the other hand have perfectly demonstrated the "I'm alright Jack so screw you" attitude that is destroying this country.

----------


## M Swanson

> You are clearly incapable of empathising with others not in the same situation as you. I don't rent either, but I know damned well that if was in rented accommodation and the bedroom tax applied to me I would not accept being told to move hundreds of miles from family and friends to an area I don't know, where I have no friends or family.
> You on the other hand have perfectly demonstrated the "I'm alright Jack so screw you" attitude that is destroying this country.


So, the mystery is solved. The omnipotent, Comrade Flynn has spoken. The person "destroying this country," is mi16, of the Caithness Org and anyone else of the same persuasion, who owns their own property; works and is not a recipient of benefits and has the gall to have an opinion.  How dare they presume they have the right to anything!  

Folks, you need look no further for the true enemies of Britain, who trash the country and its' people without a second thought. Just glance back on this thread and select Comrade Flynn and his moll's posts to understand what got us in this mess in the first place.  They just don't care, but have turned pretending they do into almost an Art form.

Keep telling it as you see it mi16.  ::

----------


## mi16

> You are clearly incapable of empathising with others not in the same situation as you. I don't rent either, but I know damned well that if was in rented accommodation and the bedroom tax applied to me I would not accept being told to move hundreds of miles from family and friends to an area I don't know, where I have no friends or family.You on the other hand have perfectly demonstrated the "I'm alright Jack so screw you" attitude that is destroying this country.


 As I said earlier if you are not capable of paying your rent yourself then you should have no right to dictate where you live.It's not that I don't empathise with folk on benifits, many are in the situation through no fault of their own.But that's life, you get what you pay for.The country is on its knees from decades of living outwith our means and now I am afraid the cloth needs to be cut.

----------


## Flynn

> So, the mystery is solved. The omnipotent, Comrade Flynn has spoken. The person "destroying this country," is mi16, of the Caithness Org and anyone else of the same persuasion, who owns their own property; works and is not a recipient of benefits and has the gall to have an opinion.  How dare they presume they have the right to anything!  
> 
> Folks, you need look no further for the true enemies of Britain, who trash the country and its' people without a second thought. Just glance back on this thread and select Comrade Flynn and his moll's posts to understand what got us in this mess in the first place.  They just don't care, but have turned pretending they do into almost an Art form.
> 
> Keep telling it as you see it mi16.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?




> You on the other hand have perfectly demonstrated the "I'm alright Jack so screw you" attitude that is destroying this country.


Does not equate to one person being responsible for the destruction of Britain, and the demolition of the long held British values of tolerance and compassion which are rapidly being replaced by selfishness and bigotry.

Go back to licking the jackboots of Herr Farage.

----------


## Flynn

> As I said earlier if you are not capable of paying your rent yourself then you should have no right to dictate where you live.It's not that I don't empathise with folk on benifits, many are in the situation through no fault of their own.But that's life, you get what you pay for.The country is on its knees from decades of living outwith our means and now I am afraid the cloth needs to be cut.


Then cut it for those who can most afford it, not those who can least afford it.

----------


## mi16

> Then cut it for those who can most afford it, not those who can least afford it.


The huge benefits bill this country has is one of the major causes of our financial state, Surely it makes sense to rectify the root problem rather than continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul. When in many instances Paul has zero intention of ever giving a penny back to Peter.

----------


## Flynn

> The huge benefits bill this country has is one of the major causes of our financial state, Surely it makes sense to rectify the root problem rather than continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul. When in many instances Paul has zero intention of ever giving a penny back to Peter.


No, the current financial state was created by greedy rich people playing fast and loose with banking. Those are the people who should be paying for the financial crisis, not the people at the bottom.

----------


## mi16

> No, the current financial state was created by greedy rich people playing fast and loose with banking. Those are the people who should be paying for the financial crisis, not the people at the bottom.


Aah so you don't see the £200 billion benifits bill as a significant problem then?

----------


## Flynn

> Aah so you don't see the £200 billion benifits bill as a significant problem then?


No I don't. I see it as a red herring being used by the Right to distract the credulous from the fact that they have done nothing to make the creators of the financial crisis pay for their mistakes, while they crucify the poor to pay for those mistakes.

----------


## neilsermk1

> There. Are. Not. Enough. Smaller. Properties. For. People. To. Move. To.


You hit the nail on the head with that one Flynn, there are just not enough smaller properties to allow people to down size should they want to.

----------


## Oddquine

> The huge benefits bill this country has is one of the major causes of our financial state, Surely it makes sense to rectify the root problem rather than continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul. When in many instances Paul has zero intention of ever giving a penny back to Peter.


Can't disagree with that...but that should be a structured rejigging of _all_ aspects of the Welfare system.including the NHS....and not just the ideology driven, vote-buying knee-jerk reactions by successive Governments. That isn't tackling the root problem.....it is just attacking those least able to cope for short-term savings.  Personally, I'd means test everything which is currently a "right".....like child benefits, bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc.....and get the NHS back to being a health oriented needs driven service  and not one which is, as it is now,..a demand/entitlement driven service...not always oriented to health but to life/appearance enhancement.

I'd also stop subsidising the profits of employers who pay crap wages by stopping all working tax benefits......and of course, I'd plug all the loopholes which allow tax avoidance and tax evasion...and into the bargain..I'd get rid of or at the least cut in half the higher rate pension tax relief. And I would come up with a realistic definition of "poverty" which of itself would cut costs......poverty should_ not_ be being defined as being unable to afford designer clothes, have a mobile phone on a contract, afford a sky package and have access to every brain-numbing games console invented. Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor...what is _that_ about..bar the definition of poverty is based around the expectations of Thatcher's children to have it all....and the median income is boosted to silly money levels by the extortionate incomes of the top 10% or so.  

Welcome to the UK with its privatised health, privatised education, privatised utilities and privatised poverty......and the perception that you are poor if you can't afford luxuries.  ::

----------


## Thumper

Oh wow,yet again the posters come out of the wood work who down those who arent in work! I seriously dont know why you havent opened up one of the old ww2 camps and shove all us moochers into it,we could cut grass with nail scissors and scrub the roads clean with nail brushes just to show we are working,maybe we could even lay a new train track,and we could then man the railway with those of us unlucky enough to not have jobs,then we could fill the train with people who dare to have a bedroom or two more than they need,and all their belongings and ship them off to who knows where,but hey as long as they arent in Caithness making the place look untidy,and worthless then heyho!Oh wait even better idea,why dot you send us all to Stroma,we wouldnt be seen,wouldnt have too many bedrooms and if we cant grown our own food or fed for ourselves without all the hefty handouts we get we could slowly starve to death,it wouldnt matter cos you would have to see any unemployed people.....problem solved! I really cannot understand the mentality of some people,but if I ever become so narrowminded and self centred I hope someone will bloomin well shoot me x

----------


## mi16

> Can't disagree with that...but that should be a structured rejigging of _all_ aspects of the Welfare system.including the NHS....and not just the ideology driven, vote-buying knee-jerk reactions by successive Governments. That isn't tackling the root problem.....it is just attacking those least able to cope for short-term savings. Personally, I'd means test everything which is currently a "right".....like child benefits, bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc.....and get the NHS back to being a health oriented needs driven service and not one which is, as it is now,..a demand/entitlement driven service...not always oriented to health but to life/appearance enhancement.
> 
> I'd also stop subsidising the profits of employers who pay crap wages by stopping all working tax benefits......and of course, I'd plug all the loopholes which allow tax avoidance and tax evasion...and into the bargain..I'd get rid of or at the least cut in half the higher rate pension tax relief. And I would come up with a realistic definition of "poverty" which of itself would cut costs......poverty should_ not_ be being defined as being unable to afford designer clothes, have a mobile phone on a contract, afford a sky package and have access to every brain-numbing games console invented. Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor...what is _that_ about..bar the definition of poverty is based around the expectations of Thatcher's children to have it all....and the median income is boosted to silly money levels by the extortionate incomes of the top 10% or so. 
> 
> Welcome to the UK with its privatised health, privatised education, privatised utilities and privatised poverty......and the perception that you are poor if you can't afford luxuries.


I concur with basically all you have said.
The Welfare sysetm needs looking at in a big way.
Women getting breast enhancements on he NHS because of vanity is completely and utterly wrong.

I have no problem with folk being on benifits when they HAVE to be on benifits, but in my time I have witnessed many chancers who would deliberatley fail exams, or mess up an interview to avoid having to take paid work, which has made me very sceptical about career dolites.

----------


## Flynn

> but in my time I have witnessed many chancers who would deliberatley fail exams, or mess up an interview to avoid having to take paid work...


Maybe it's time you stopped watching Trainspotting.

----------


## mi16

> No I don't. I see it as a red herring being used by the Right to distract the credulous from the fact that they have done nothing to make the creators of the financial crisis pay for their mistakes, while they crucify the poor to pay for those mistakes.


Its one mother loving big herring though my good man.
I may be mistaken but have the banking sector not paid back huge amounts of what they borrowed in government bailouts? I thought the total was something like £400 billion outstanding at the end of 2011.
RBS cleared their debt, I think around the tail end of last year.
Not to forget the public purse is reputedly set to make around £27billion in interest on the bailouts.

----------


## mi16

> Maybe it's time you stopped watching Trainspotting.


Why?, its was one of Danny Boyle's finest movies.
Much better than that Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit that you are so keen on.

----------


## squidge

> The person "destroying this country," is mi16,  of the Caithness Org and anyone else of the same persuasion, who owns  their own property; works and is not a recipient of benefits and has the  gall to have an opinion.  How dare they presume they have the right to  anything!  
> 
> Folks, you need look no further for the true enemies of Britain, who  trash the country and its' people without a second thought. Just glance  back on this thread and select Comrade Flynn and his moll's posts to  understand what got us in this mess in the first place.  They just don't  care, but have turned pretending they do into almost an Art form.


What M Swanson and others fail to grasp is that you can support ABSOLUTELY the desire to own your own home, you can work all your life - hard and long and pay taxes and not have to claim benefit and yet still understand that others may not be so lucky as you.  I have worked ALL my life except for the last six years when I have been having babies and raising them and Im nearly fifty. During that six years I have done a variety of voluntary work.   I have claimed JSA for three months and the old sickness benefit for four months in my entire life. I have owned my own home, a couple of them actually but I doubt that I will do so in the future. I currently rent privately and I am lucky that I have a long term tenancy in an estate house.  I had to leave my bought house when my first marriage ended.  That was not a choice but a necessity. So I would LOVE to buy a house again but am unlikely to do so.  I can absolutely want that and support that and yet still have empathy and understanding for those less fortunate than myself.  

As for an enemy, IF there is an enemy  then nowhere have any of us said that it is  M Swanson, Mi16 or people like me.  IF there is an "enemy" - it isnt a person at all, it is an attitude, the attitude that the newspapers and the politician would have us take that the poorest, the neediest, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed are the scum of the earth, somehow sub human and worthy of our hatred and disgust and vilification.  That somehow they are lazy and good for nothing and therefore  "undeserving". 

Those who are seduced into this view seem to be unable to see outside their own experiences and fail completely to understand why others  cant replicate their lives.  They seem to need to have a sense of superiority.  A few weeks ago I was abused and threatened repeatedly  by PM in the most appalling manner on this board (Not by anyone posting on this thread I want to make clear) and one of the comments made by the culprit was that they could buy and sell my and my (expletive expletive) family many times over.  I dont understand why it matters but it clearly does and the experience I had was the end product of the attitude displayed by Mi16 and M Swanson, The attitude which over time manifests itself in the opinions that because someone is  unemployed, because someone doesnt own a house or because they have to claim housing benefit or sickness benefit  they simply dont deserve a safe, settled life, they dont deserve to have peace, they dont deserve to have their own front door, a cupboard of food, new clothes or a bottle of wine, a family or children or for that matter, a spare room.  

Standing up against that attitude does not mean we think those who have worked hard  made good decisions, been smart, been lucky, saved and frugal should not reap the rewards of that. It simply means that there is a place for having those things, striving for those things, working hard and yet still caring what happens to others. 

Standing up against that attitude does not mean that we think that people should just be allowed to languish on benefits.  It means for me that we need a welfare system which ensures that those people receiving benefits are truly entitled and meeting the conditions for receiving benefits. This does not mean treating everyone as if they are a scrounging lazy lying fraudster.  IT means that we treat people with respect and not with contempt. It means a drive for growth and jobs to offer opportunities for people to train or gain experience and to move into work.  It does not mean hounding people into their graves through endless assessments of their fitness to work, through cruel bedroom taxes which people cannot avoid even if they want to because there are not enough smaller properties, it doesnt mean having league tables so offices compete to get the highest number of people off benefits, and it doesnt mean treating people - anyone -  like scum. 

See if that makes me your enemy M Swanson then you are quite simply bonkers.

----------


## mi16

> the experience I had was the end product of the attitude displayed by Mi16 ...


I object to that statement, if you had bothered to read my posts I clearly stated that I have no issue with folk who have to be on benefits, be it due to lack of opportunity, ill health or whatever. What I do have a problem with is folk who milk the system dry and live a life of relative luxury when there is no real reason that they could not be out there working.

----------


## squidge

> I object to that statement, if you had bothered to read my posts I clearly stated that I have no issue with folk who have to be on benefits, be it due to lack of opportunity, ill health or whatever. What I do have a problem with is folk who milk the system dry and live a life of relative luxury when there is no real reason that they could not be out there working.


Im sorry if you object mi16 but I read your posts and this is what I  saw. I did not see any distinction between those you consider genuine  claimants and those you consider "folk who milk the system dry".  




> As I said earlier if you are not capable of paying your rent yourself then you should have no right to dictate where you live.





> If you are cap in hand looking for a house then you cannot be choosy.If you want choice or sentiment then I'm afraid you are on your own. .


If thats not what you meant then Im glad.

----------


## mi16

> Im sorry if you object mi16 but I read your posts and this is what I  saw. I did not see any distinction between those you consider genuine  claimants and those you consider "folk who milk the system dry".  
> 
> If thats not what you meant then Im glad.


 you are mixing up two different points there though squidge to suit your agenda. In your first quoted section I am referring to benefits on the whole, the second two are purely about the bedroom tax.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Those with less than 60 per cent of median income are classified as poor...what is _that_ about..bar the definition of poverty is based around the expectations of Thatcher's children to have it all....and_ the median income is boosted to silly money levels by the extortionate incomes of the top 10% or so_.


The blue statement contains the bad arithmetic error I mentioned in another thread.

A correct statement is that the median income is not affected at all (in the arithmetic sense) by the extortionate incomes of the top 10% or so.

That is why the median income is used in the definition of poverty levels. The figure of 60% seems somewhat arbitrary, but it's chosen to reflect actual incomes of the poorest elements in society relative to "typical" incomes. The choice of 60% can be affected by the top 10% of earners, but I suspect it's insensitive to them.

The Oddquine bloke's error is a common one, and it's one of the reasons why so much rubbish is written about poverty levels - both in the media and on forums such as this one.

----------


## squidge

> you are mixing up two different points there though squidge to suit your agenda. In your first quoted section I am referring to benefits on the whole, the second two are purely about the bedroom tax.


The only agenda I have is to treat people fairly and with compassion  Mi16.  I said what I saw and Im sorry if you didnt intend it to be  interpreted that way but that is how it read.  Im glad that you didnt  mean to imply that people who are on housing benefits dont deserve to  live in a place they choose without being harrassed and forced to move  hundreds of miles away on the whim of a politician who has clearly no  idea about real life. There are not enough smaller houses and until  there are then the Bedroom Tax is an appalling policy.

----------


## mi16

> The only agenda I have is to treat people fairly and with compassion  Mi16.  I said what I saw and Im sorry if you didnt intend it to be  interpreted that way but that is how it read.  Im glad that you didnt  mean to imply that people who are on housing benefits dont deserve to  live in a place they choose without being harrassed and forced to move  hundreds of miles away on the whim of a politician who has clearly no  idea about real life. There are not enough smaller houses and until  there are then the Bedroom Tax is an appalling policy.


 No one is forced to move anywhere or do anything, it is quite simple really. If you are on housing benefit and have a spare room you can either pay the difference or move. The choice is there.

----------


## Flynn

> No one is forced to move anywhere or do anything, it is quite simple really. If you are on housing benefit and have a spare room you can either pay the difference or move. The choice is there.


No it isn't. 

There. Are. Not. Enough. Smaller. Properties.

What part of that are you not understanding?

----------


## squidge

But it isnt as simple as that and surely you arent blinkered enough to really think it is.  

You cant move if there is nowhere to move to.  Even if we disregard people's personal circumstances and moved the whole country round then we would have a shortfall of smaller properties of over a quarter of a million properties. So you dont have a choice - you have to pay - you CANT move.  You CANNOT avoid the penalty. You cant go into private rentals as there are so few of those who accept housing benefit tenants as to close that avenue off to you,

Then there is the cost of moving -there is no financial help to move house so if you are on benefits and dont have the money to move what do you do? Put all your stuff on a handcart and wheel it to your new home 500 miles away?

So what you present as a choice is in fact no choice at all.    The only choice there is for many is to pay the Bedroom tax or to fall into rent arrears. If you pay it then you have a reduction in an already minimal income and that can lead to increased stress and worry and maybe depression and it can be unbearable and lead to ill health which will make it harder for you to return to work and if you doint pay it then you build up rent arrears which means that even if a property comes available you wont be considered for a move because you are in arrears, you may face eviction and  it also means increased stress, worry, maybe depression and it can become unbearable. Again these things will make it harder for you to return to work. 

It is a stupid, cruel, short sighted, ill thought out policy which simply causes hardship for people already struggling.

----------


## mi16

> But it isnt as simple as that and surely you arent blinkered enough to really think it is.  
> 
> You cant move if there is nowhere to move to.  Even if we disregard people's personal circumstances and moved the whole country round then we would have a shortfall of smaller properties of over a quarter of a million properties. So you dont have a choice - you have to pay - you CANT move.  You CANNOT avoid the penalty. You cant go into private rentals as there are so few of those who accept housing benefit tenants as to close that avenue off to you,
> 
> Then there is the cost of moving -there is no financial help to move house so if you are on benefits and dont have the money to move what do you do? Put all your stuff on a handcart and wheel it to your new home 500 miles away?
> 
> So what you present as a choice is in fact no choice at all.    The only choice there is for many is to pay the Bedroom tax or to fall into rent arrears. If you pay it then you have a reduction in an already minimal income and that can lead to increased stress and worry and maybe depression and it can be unbearable and lead to ill health which will make it harder for you to return to work and if you doint pay it then you build up rent arrears which means that even if a property comes available you wont be considered for a move because you are in arrears, you may face eviction and  it also means increased stress, worry, maybe depression and it can become unbearable. Again these things will make it harder for you to return to work. 
> 
> It is a stupid, cruel, short sighted, ill thought out policy which simply causes hardship for people already struggling.


 Has anyone actually been asked to move 500 miles, or are you a Proclaimer in disguise? There is always the take in a lodger option to offset the tax. The basic options are to either stay put and pay, get a job and pay, house exchange, move or lodger.

----------


## Flynn

> Has anyone actually been asked to move 500 miles, or are you a Proclaimer in disguise? There is always the take in a lodger option to offset the tax. The basic options are to either stay put and pay, get a job and pay, house exchange, move or lodger.


You're still not getting it. There are no jobs, not enough smaller properties, and people cannot afford to pay.

The bedroom tax is a vile, cruel policy dreamed up by a bunch of sociopathic, out of touch with real life, millionaires as a sop to their credulous followers.

----------


## squidge

Ok Get a lodger is an idea if you can do that.  If however you are sick or disabled or caring for someone who is sick or disabled then that may not be an option. If you are a single parent then you may be uncomfortable taking in someone you do not know. 

Stay put and pay can lead to the issues that I already mentioned

Get a job and pay - thats ok if you live in orkney where unemployment is 1.5% but heaven help you if you live in an area of high unemployment or if like many people you can only get a low paid or part time job and still have to rely on housing benefit.  If you are sick, disabled or a carer and cant work you are screwed, If you are a single parent then childcare might be an issue - cost and access. 

House exchange - if you are in an area where house exchange is available to a smaller property and you havent fallen into arrears whilst being unable to pay your bedroom tax cos if you have its unlikely you will be considered for an exchange. 

Move we have already discussed and it might be five miles or five hundred miles, if you cant afford it it makes no odds. 

The policy is - again - ill thought out, cruel and short sighted.

PS If i was a proclaimer in disguise then my tune of choice would likely be Cap in Hand  :Wink:

----------


## mi16

I don't recall that tune.You're thinking of brass in pocket by the pretenders

----------


## squidge

Lol dont think so 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWSpPkf78s

As if I could get Craig and Charlie mixed up with Chrissie!!!!

----------


## Thumper

I am not "clued up" on all the ins and outs,but I have a feeling that IF you took in a lodger you would lose most of your benefits then anyway? You cannot have any extra income when claiming benefits,so surely this would be the same? What everyone seems to forget is...those who do abuse the system will still find a way to do it,no matter how hard claiming becomes,to them it is the career,while those of us who genuinely need it will be continued to be punished and shunned by some of society for not having a job!Thats sadly the way it works,yes there are plenty of unemployed who simply do not want a job,but please dont tar us all with the same brush x

----------


## mi16

> I am not "clued up" on all the ins and outs,but I have a feeling that IF you took in a lodger you would lose most of your benefits then anyway? You cannot have any extra income when claiming benefits,so surely this would be the same? What everyone seems to forget is...those who do abuse the system will still find a way to do it,no matter how hard claiming becomes,to them it is the career,while those of us who genuinely need it will be continued to be punished and shunned by some of society for not having a job!Thats sadly the way it works,yes there are plenty of unemployed who simply do not want a job,but please dont tar us all with the same brush x


I think stoke council have suggested that tennants take in a lodger, I think you can earn a certain amount of money and your benefit remains unaffected.

----------


## mi16

Surely a single parent will be ok if in a two bed place?

----------


## Thumper

> Surely a single parent will be ok if in a two bed place?


  I doubt it,they have ways and means of getting you lol,my son is 16 so technically I am no longer a single parent,how that is worked out I will never know  :Frown:  x

----------


## M Swanson

Squidge ranted:-  Those who are seduced into this view seem to be unable to see outside their own experiences and fail completely to understand why others cant replicate their lives. They seem to need to have a sense of superiority. A few weeks ago I was abused and threatened repeatedly by PM in the most appalling manner on this board (Not by anyone posting on this thread I want to make clear) and one of the comments made by the culprit was that they could buy and sell my and my (expletive expletive) family many times over. I dont understand why it matters but it clearly does and the experience I had was the end product of the attitude displayed by Mi16 and M Swanson, The attitude which over time manifests itself in the opinions that because someone is unemployed, because someone doesnt own a house or because they have to claim housing benefit or sickness benefit they simply dont deserve a safe, settled life, they dont deserve to have peace, they dont deserve to have their own front door, a cupboard of food, new clothes or a bottle of wine, a family or children or for that matter, a spare room.

Oh! Dear! Here comes the judge. And the evidence is based on what? Show me the any post I've ever written that states that ALL who are unemployed are scroungers, or that I've ever decried anyone for not owning a house, or nobody should "claim housing benefit, or "sickness benefit," or "don't deserve to have a safe, settled life," etc. Just because you say I have such attitudes, doesn't make it the truth. Dish the dirt and give us some examples. We're waiting.

Whilst you're at it, perhaps you may like to inform our readers what my thoughts are on the bedroom tax? I haven't actually mentioned them, but I'm sure that won't stop you telling folks how I think it is. How very intelligent.  :: 

How on earth, do you arrive at the decision that mi16 and I are responsible for anybody who writes to you, much less the contents of that PM? Totally nonsensical!

----------


## M Swanson

> Thats sadly the way it works,yes there are plenty of unemployed who simply do not want a job,but please dont tar us all with the same brush x


That's fair enough Thumper. But is anyone who posts to the Org actually doing this?  ::

----------


## mi16

> I doubt it,they have ways and means of getting you lol,my son is 16 so technically I am no longer a single parent,how that is worked out I will never know  x


At 16 he is legally an adult that's how.

----------


## Thumper

> That's fair enough Thumper. But is anyone who posts to the Org actually doing this?


sadly I doubt it,it seems we are all just wasters  :Frown:  x

----------


## Thumper

> At 16 he is legally an adult that's how.


Yes he is legally an adult,BUT he is in full time education and also he is my son,not my partner or a parent so how am I not a single parent anymore? This rule seems silly and unjust! Plenty of single or so called single people get the benefit and live with a partner,for me to still be eligible I would have to throw my son out,ooh I wonder if there are any single bedroom houses he could have.........x

----------


## Thumper

oops misread your post M swanson,I thought you were actually agreeing with me that people on here arent giving people who are unemployed a chance..........silly me!x

----------


## M Swanson

Oh! Right, Thumper.  :Grin:  So who is not giving unemployed people a chance? Answer that with a few examples and it'll make you the most sensible poster to the Org.  ::

----------


## mi16

> Yes he is legally an adult,BUT he is in full time education and also he is my son,not my partner or a parent so how am I not a single parent anymore? This rule seems silly and unjust! Plenty of single or so called single people get the benefit and live with a partner,for me to still be eligible I would have to throw my son out,ooh I wonder if there are any single bedroom houses he could have.........x


I suppose as long as you are breathing and single you are a single parent.

----------


## Thumper

I am too much of a lady to name names,all that is needed is to read this,and the many other threads on unemployment,benefits etc and I am sure you like the rest of us can make your own mind up on who assumes we are all scroungers etc and who actually sees that every circumstance is different  :Smile:  Do not get me wrong,I know that there are plenty of people out there who have no intention of working,now or ever if they can help it! I for one want to work! I have been out of work for 10 months now and I hate it,but I also hate the fact that everyone assumes I just sign on,collect a fortune and happily live my life on my ill gotten gains  :Frown:  the point I am trying to get across is that yes there are scammers and fraudsters out there,but trust me they are anything but illiterate idiots as they seem to be able to work and abuse the system for their own gain,but not everyone who is unemployed is like that,infact they are the minority,but they still get every person who is unfortunate nough to fall on hard times a bad name!
I also know I will be accused of assuming that people think this way,but the written word does not lie,now I will have to excuse myself as it my day to attend the DWP,sadly!x

----------


## squidge

> Oh! Dear! Here comes the judge. And the evidence  is based on what? Show me the any post I've ever written that states  that ALL who are unemployed are scroungers, or that I've ever decried  anyone for not owning a house, or nobody should "claim housing benefit,  or "sickness benefit," or "don't deserve to have a safe, settled life,"  etc. Just because you say I have such attitudes, doesn't make it the  truth. Dish the dirt and give us some examples. We're waiting.
> 
> Whilst you're at it, perhaps you may like to inform our readers what my thoughts are on the bedroom tax? I haven't actually mentioned them, but I'm sure that won't stop you telling folks how I think it is. How very intelligent. 
> 
> How on earth, do you arrive at the decision that mi16 and I are responsible for anybody who writes to you, much less the contents of that PM? Totally nonsensical!


I havent the time to wade through the acres of stuff you post but a quick look found the words "idlers" and "workshy". If you hadnt got so pushily indignant and read what I said I was talking about attitudes. The "I managed it so they should be able to do so too" is prevalent in many of your posts.  "I can live on fifty pounds a week, I can make a pot of stew for 45p, I would move 500 (just for you mi16) miles to look for work, I have never had to rely on benefits so why cant others." and on and on it goes M Swanson.  

Your posts suggest that those who cannot must be "workshy" or "idle" or they would be off on their bikes to get work, walking 8 miles every day to a job that pays NMW.  You do not seem to understand that not everybody is the same as you.  If that is not what you think then you might want to examine how you say things. 

The consequences of attitudes like the ones displayed on this board by you and others do contribute to the identification of those who cannot get off benefits, who have to rely on housing benefits as an underclass of people who do not deserve the same things in life that we all deserve. Whether you think that just now or not your attitudes and lack of empathy encourage that view to develop.  

 It leads to people being lumped together in a homogenous group of benefit claimants identified as workshy idlers ( words you have used on this board) and career claimants.  It leads to people's worth being measured by how much they earn, how big a house they have, and if they dont own their own home and dont have a job they are seen as worth nothing. The consequenses of these attitudes and lack of empathy can encourage that " I can buy and sell you a million times over" as if that is all that matters and lead to attacks on benefits recipients, disabled people being abused and the insulting and threatening PMs that I received. These are the consequence of the governments policies and the support of the policies and attitudes of "Im alright Jack"  and " I got by so you mustnt be trying hard enough" that we see over and over again. 

Finally M Swanson. You suggested in your earlier post that people who disagree with you are the "enemy". That somehow understanding people and how hard life can be and speaking against the bedroom tax and other horrible cruel welfare reforms and how they should be supported in their difficulties means that we somehow do not support hard work, home ownership or reaping the rewards of what we strive for.  You suggest that we think people should be allowed to languish on benfits for their whole lives if that is what they want.  You are wrong and stupid if you really believe that.

----------


## Thumper

> I suppose as long as you are breathing and single you are a single parent.


thats the point though.....apparently I no longer am!x

----------


## Thumper

Squidge- can I just say publicly what a great post! I would rep you but havent spread it around enough again,but your posts are sensible,thoughtful and non judgemental.well done x

----------


## Flynn



----------


## secrets in symmetry

Here's a good job for you Thumper: Positions in the Nuclear Industry in Caithness

The pay's ok too...




> Recruiter - Astec Services Ltd
> Salary From £40 to £60 per hour
> Location - Thurso
> Job term - Contract
> Job hours - Full time 
> 
> We have an upcoming opportunity for the use of a significant number of Nuclear safety engineers to support a number of different work packages. The work would be permanently stationed in Caithness.


There's nothing that says "Rabbits need not apply".  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> I havent the time to wade through the acres of stuff you post but a quick look found the words "idlers" and "workshy". If you hadnt got so pushily indignant and read what I said I was talking about attitudes. The "I managed it so they should be able to do so too" is prevalent in many of your posts.  "I can live on fifty pounds a week, I can make a pot of stew for 45p, I would move 500 (just for you mi16) miles to look for work, I have never had to rely on benefits so why cant others." and on and on it goes M Swanson.  
> 
> Your posts suggest that those who cannot must be "workshy" or "idle" or they would be off on their bikes to get work, walking 8 miles every day to a job that pays NMW.  You do not seem to understand that not everybody is the same as you.  If that is not what you think then you might want to examine how you say things. 
> 
> The consequences of attitudes like the ones displayed on this board by you and others do contribute to the identification of those who cannot get off benefits, who have to rely on housing benefits as an underclass of people who do not deserve the same things in life that we all deserve. Whether you think that just now or not your attitudes and lack of empathy encourage that view to develop.  
> 
>  It leads to people being lumped together in a homogenous group of benefit claimants identified as workshy idlers ( words you have used on this board) and career claimants.  It leads to people's worth being measured by how much they earn, how big a house they have, and if they dont own their own home and dont have a job they are seen as worth nothing. The consequenses of these attitudes and lack of empathy can encourage that " I can buy and sell you a million times over" as if that is all that matters and lead to attacks on benefits recipients, disabled people being abused and the insulting and threatening PMs that I received. These are the consequence of the governments policies and the support of the policies and attitudes of "Im alright Jack"  and " I got by so you mustnt be trying hard enough" that we see over and over again. 
> 
> Finally M Swanson. You suggested in your earlier post that people who disagree with you are the "enemy". That somehow understanding people and how hard life can be and speaking against the bedroom tax and other horrible cruel welfare reforms and how they should be supported in their difficulties means that we somehow do not support hard work, home ownership or reaping the rewards of what we strive for.  You suggest that we think people should be allowed to languish on benfits for their whole lives if that is what they want.  You are wrong and stupid if you really believe that.


Is this really, really it? "Acres of stuff," to choose from to validate your judgement of my attitude and yet you can't provide ONE sensible, or worthy, scrap of evidence. How embarrassing for you.  ::   I could have a field day with your flights of fancy, but you've done a good enough job of humiliating yourself.  "Fair and compassionate?" Yeah! Right!  LOL.

----------


## Flynn

> Is this really, really it? "Acres of stuff," to choose from to validate your judgement of my attitude and yet you can't provide ONE sensible, or worthy, scrap of evidence. How embarrassing for you.   I could have a field day with your flights of fancy, but you've done a good enough job of humiliating yourself.  "Fair and compassionate?" Yeah! Right!  LOL.


Is that it, all you can do is post ad hominem?

----------


## squidge

Embarrassed and humiliated. Lol lol if you say so and have nothing else in your little bag of tricks. Have a nice day sweetie :Smile:

----------


## M Swanson

> Have a nice day sweetie


If that's an apology then I accept it, thanks. You have a nice day too, precious.  :Grin:

----------


## mi16

> If that's an apology then I accept it, thanks. You have a nice day too, precious.


Im not sure it was.

----------


## Flynn

The bedroom tax, not saving the country a penny. Entirely predictable. Entirely avoidable. And causing much unnecessary suffering, particularly to families with children.http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013...erm?CMP=twt_fd

----------


## Shaggy

Ministers now have the audacity to demand a £20k pay rise....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mps-line-20...5.html#SWatKJy

For every minister that gets a £20k pay rise theres 1000 homes with an extra bedroom losing £20....

----------


## squidge

Labour Controlled North Lanarkshire Council have become the first council in Scotland to threaten to evict someone for rent arrears due to the Bedroom Tax.
This letter has gone to out to a tennant for arrears of £50.10.  This letter was sent to a tenant who had NO arrears until the bedroom  tax was implemented.  The tenant is a single man who has suffered from  mental health problems for most of his life.  He has asked for a move to  a smaller house but there are no suitable accommodation available for  him - surprise surprise. 

http://no2bedroomtax.co.uk/2013/05/n...ore-evictions/

----------


## mi16

> Labour Controlled North Lanarkshire Council have become the first council in Scotland to threaten to evict someone for rent arrears due to the Bedroom Tax.
> This letter has gone to out to a tennant for arrears of £50.10. This letter was sent to a tenant who had NO arrears until the bedroom tax was implemented. The tenant is a single man who has suffered from mental health problems for most of his life. He has asked for a move to a smaller house but there are no suitable accommodation available for him - surprise surprise. 
> 
> http://no2bedroomtax.co.uk/2013/05/n...ore-evictions/


I dont see why the North Lanarkshire council are taking flak for it.

----------


## squidge

They have the option to not take action against people in rent arrears where those arrears are purely as a result of the Bedroom Tax.  The Scottish Government has asked councils to do this and many have agreed including Highland Council.  

Its disappointing that a labour council are not taking the opportunity to support vulnerable people in this case and an indication of where Scottish Labour see their loyalties lying

----------


## mi16

> They have the option to not take action against people in rent arrears where those arrears are purely as a result of the Bedroom Tax. The Scottish Government has asked councils to do this and many have agreed including Highland Council. 
> 
> Its disappointing that a labour council are not taking the opportunity to support vulnerable people in this case and an indication of where Scottish Labour see their loyalties lying


You learn something every day, I am sure in this mans case something will be sorted out.

----------


## squidge

I hope so and I hope that the stress and fear this letter may very well have put him under has not made his ill health worse.

----------


## squidge

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...ur-run-1899977

South Lanarkshire too,  Im not entirely sure why the Scottish government havent changed the law but as I said many councils have agreeed to avoid these evictions and I am disappointed that these havent.

----------


## rob murray

Some questionably nasty stuff flying around this thread !

----------


## cptdodger

> Some questionably nasty stuff flying around this thread !


You want to read this thread then - http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...cists-Who-Says. This is tame compared to that one !

----------


## rob murray

> You want to read this thread then - http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...cists-Who-Says. This is tame compared to that one !


I haven't, and wont read it, I  will take your word for it, I read the org but Im trying hard not to post, some one on here said something about democracy / free speech etc, fair enough, if that means open season to open up on and kick out at soft targets ( and I have to stress thats my opinion, supported I would say by some fellow posters ) then who am I to argue. Obviously some people get a hit out of it ! I didn't really know Caithness was home to the BUF / UKIP, but heh thats democracy, and  that said Ive been gone quite a long time.

----------


## Alrock

> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...ur-run-1899977
> 
> South Lanarkshire too,  Im not entirely sure why the Scottish government havent changed the law but as I said many councils have agreeed to avoid these evictions and I am disappointed that these havent.


Could it be down to these unfortunate individuals getting dragged into a game of Party Politics...
They don't want to evict people but the more they evict (or at least threaten to) the more negativity is generated over this unfair tax & the Tory government specifically & the Westminster government in general.

----------


## Oddquine

> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...ur-run-1899977
> 
> South Lanarkshire too,  Im not entirely sure why the Scottish government havent changed the law but as I said many councils have agreeed to avoid these evictions and I am disappointed that these havent.


They haven't changed the law likely because it would be the thin edge of a wedge they couldn't afford, at our pocket money level, to continue to add to over cuts still to come.   Maybe, as well, they can't legislate for Housing Associations to go  easy on bedroom tax arrears.......and Housing Associations provide a lot  of Social Housing over and above that directly provided by Councils.

The only reason, as far as I can see, for Nulabour to be demanding a law change is that they want legislation to oblige their Nulabour run councils to play nicely.......because Nulabour can't persuade them to do it voluntarily. (and into the bargain, it does make a really good anti-SNP sound-bite!)

Good explanation of the Scottish Governments POV here  http://www.holyrood.com/2013/03/scot...n-bedroom-tax/

and a good look at Nulabour's mindset here http://www.scoop.it/t/yes-for-an-ind...-over-scotland

Not sure how The Moray Council will deal with it all.  Nulabour members on the Council decided to make a political point (mostly following the Scottish Party's preferred wording) and put forward a motion basically saying 
_That The Moray Council will not evict any tenant as a consequence of  the bedroom tax as long as tenants engage with advice services but  believes that the Scottish Government has a responsibility to protect  tenants and local authorities all across Scotland.
_
_The Moray Council calls on the Scottish Government to introduce  emergency legislation and provide funding for local government and  social landlords to deliver this policy of non-eviction_.

The 6 Independents and the Tory on the committee voted against.....the 2 Labour members and the 4 SNP ones voted for.   I fervently hope that they do, when it comes to the crunch........as it will, not evict solely on bedroom tax arrears......but given, according to the Labour report "_One of their councillors accused Labour of standing up for the downtrodden as if that was a thing to be embarrassed about"_..I hae ma doubts.

----------


## Shaggy

There's another thing that everyone seems to be missing here over the bedroom tax...Why aren't building companies rushing to build 1-bed houses or flats. The demand is huge yet no-one seems to be bothering to build anything. Quite the opposite in Caithness actually as local companies have been laying off staff due to lack of work.....yet we're talking what? 6-8 weeks to build a basic house? yet its nearly 2 months into this tax and there's simply nothing happening. Ulterior motive by the govt? or just downright despise of the poor?....wonder who or what will be next to be hit with the cuts?

----------


## mi16

> There's another thing that everyone seems to be missing here over the bedroom tax...Why aren't building companies rushing to build 1-bed houses or flats. The demand is huge yet no-one seems to be bothering to build anything. Quite the opposite in Caithness actually as local companies have been laying off staff due to lack of work.....yet we're talking what? 6-8 weeks to build a basic house? yet its nearly 2 months into this tax and there's simply nothing happening. Ulterior motive by the govt? or just downright despise of the poor?....wonder who or what will be next to be hit with the cuts?


It's all very well building one bedroom properties, but who is going to buy them?

----------


## Oddquine

> There's another thing that everyone seems to be missing here over the bedroom tax...Why aren't building companies rushing to build 1-bed houses or flats. The demand is huge yet no-one seems to be bothering to build anything. Quite the opposite in Caithness actually as local companies have been laying off staff due to lack of work.....yet we're talking what? 6-8 weeks to build a basic house? yet its nearly 2 months into this tax and there's simply nothing happening. Ulterior motive by the govt? or just downright despise of the poor?....wonder who or what will be next to be hit with the cuts?


That would likely be because every extra bedroom increases the purchase price/ rent which can be charged?  People buying to rent out for income aren't going to buy one bedroom places. The demand may be huge but the profit on one bedroom places doesn't tend to be. And anyway, affordable housing, unless built by a Housing Association specifically for rent,  tends to be affordable only if you can buy part of the house upfront and afford the rent for the rest.  Never quite worked out myself how that is affordable for anyone on benefits or basic wage levels.....and those are the people who tend to have most problems with meeting housing costs.

To an extent, house building, like benefits, is predicated on families with children....or couples intending to have children.....and councils, when allowing planning permission tend just to say "affordable housing"  as a quid pro quo for the planning acceptance....and don't say x number of 1 bedroom houses, x number of 2 etc bedroom houses.......and if you just leave it up to private building companies to define affordable housing.....they are going to decide on the kind which will gain them most profit.

----------


## rob murray

> It's all very well building one bedroom properties, but who is going to buy them?


No individuals, social housing entities, but have they the money ?

----------


## mi16

> No individuals, social housing entities, but have they the money ?


I think we all know the answer to that

----------

