No Fault Evictions

[Croolis]

Ohhhh kay. Thanks for your input.

 

[Jacob]

....
I would like you to explain how you are able to make such a generalised statement when clearly you have absolutely no experience of dealing with such people judging by your dismissal of facts.
....

The explanation could be that I'm much older than you, have been around a lot, have read and listened a lot, have had to listen to boring tedious nonsense from people like you all my life!
Funny that slagging off single-mothers-on-benefits is back in fashion amongst the unwoke?
Was it something in the Daily Mail? I was beginning to miss them - makes a change from moaning about immigrants.
I guess immigrant-single-mothers-on-benefits would completely do their heads in!
Even worse if they also had mobile phones and flat screen TVs, according to comments elsewhere!

 

[woodieallen]

I see our Foreign Secretary has been exhibiting his astounding grasp of World politics.

David Lammy sparks diplomatic row with blog post on Armenia crisis​

Mr Lammy....please....WTF has it got to do with you? If you were an elderly worldlywise statesman of some provenance and experience then....by all means. But you're not. So...don't make yourself look more stupid than you are (I admit that is pushing things)

 

[ey_tony]

The explanation could be that I'm much older than you, have been around a lot, have read and listened a lot, have had to listen to boring tedious nonsense from people like you all my life!
Funny that slagging off single-mothers-on-benefits is back in fashion amongst the unwoke?
Was it something in the Daily Mail? I was beginning to miss them!
Makes a change from immigrants.
I guess immigrant-single-mothers-on-benefits would completely do their heads in!
Even worse if they also had mobile phones and flat screen TVs, according to comments elsewhere!

I suspect you're not that much older than I am but you have been less successful or feel that you were unappreciated during your working life, hence you are bitter towards those who have been! They're the type who are the vociferous left wingers.
You even believe your own left wing nonsense..

I actually have no axe to grind with single mothers whose sole ambition is to get pregnant either at school or just after leaving, then get a council house and live on benefits until their offspring leave home.
I actually do understand some of their reasons for their lifestyle choice but someone clearly has to fund it so can you explain the positive financial contribution in actual figures which they make to society to justify those benefits they've received for all of those years?

If you're much older than I am then you will remember a time when there were very, very few single mothers. It was very much frowned upon and arguably for good reason.
Most women waited until they were married to have their children with a husband to support them. Of course times have changed and there is far more support for single mothers today and I'm glad the stigma attached to single mothers has largely abated but it doesn't conceal the fact that the taxpayer has to fund their single motherhood lifestyle choices.

You say they don't exist, I say you don't know what you're talking about...it doesn't matter a jot whether you 'read and listened'...you clearly don't have any experience of what you're arguing about.
If you really knew anything about it you would know that many of these very young single mothers choose motherhood as it gives them the opportunity to break free and live independently from very troubled homes and abusive parents so that's why it's actually very often a choice they make.

They are different to those who suddenly decide to have a child or weren't responsible enough to use contraception and having little or nothing saved, they expect and feel entitled for the taxpayer to fund everything.
Each to their own but this is one of the results of your socialist dream which is less than ideal.

Sorry but you come across as someone utterly clueless when it comes to living in the real; world.

 

[Jacob]

.....

If you're much older than I am then you will remember a time when there were very, very few single mothers. It was very much frowned upon and arguably for good reason.
.....

What astonishing ignorance!
They were always there but hidden away.
Babies were often forcefully adopted, if not illegally aborted with risk of mother's death too.
Many died in "orphanages" and there have been some notorious cases uncovered over the years - literally so with discoveries of unmarked graves of unnamed children.
Others lived their lives pretending that their mothers were their elder sisters...and so on.
I've known many cases and some with happier endings where mothers and children have been re-united.
I recall helping to search for a local girl gone missing - her parents said maybe better to find her dead rather than pregnant. P.S. this was in the early 60s, not some long ago backwards era, and nothing to do with religion either - just some very awful normal middle class parents.
Attitudes were appalling but have changed dramatically for the better in my lifetime, thanks also to the welfare state.

 

[Jacob]

I suspect you're not that much older than I am but you have been less successful or feel that you were unappreciated during your working life, hence you are bitter towards those who have been! They're the type who are the vociferous left wingers.
You even believe your own left wing nonsense..

I actually have no axe to grind with single mothers whose sole ambition is to get pregnant either at school or just after leaving, then get a council house and live on benefits until their offspring leave home.
I actually do understand some of their reasons for their lifestyle choice but someone clearly has to fund it so can you explain the positive financial contribution in actual figures which they make to society to justify those benefits they've received for all of those years?

If you're much older than I am then you will remember a time when there were very, very few single mothers. It was very much frowned upon and arguably for good reason.
Most women waited until they were married to have their children with a husband to support them. Of course times have changed and there is far more support for single mothers today and I'm glad the stigma attached to single mothers has largely abated but it doesn't conceal the fact that the taxpayer has to fund their single motherhood lifestyle choices.

You say they don't exist, I say you don't know what you're talking about...it doesn't matter a jot whether you 'read and listened'...you clearly don't have any experience of what you're arguing about.
If you really knew anything about it you would know that many of these very young single mothers choose motherhood as it gives them the opportunity to break free and live independently from very troubled homes and abusive parents so that's why it's actually very often a choice they make.

They are different to those who suddenly decide to have a child or weren't responsible enough to use contraception and having little or nothing saved, they expect and feel entitled for the taxpayer to fund everything.
Each to their own but this is one of the results of your socialist dream which is less than ideal.

Sorry but you come across as someone utterly clueless when it comes to living in the real; world.

Some seriously weird and out of touch nonsense here! Ignore button pressed!

 

[Croolis]

Sorry but you come across as someone utterly clueless when it comes to living in the real; world.

Here's some hard real world truths for ya and others, and I won't just pick on "single mums" to explain it (which itself is a very, very wide and nuanced category that, because of your "OH", and hinted at in your own post, you should know that it shouldn't be referenced so glibly). You ain't gonna like it, but I think you deserve to be patronised, simply because you make the rest of us have to listen to your drivel:

Every community that's ever been since homo sapiens started forming them contains the feckless, the lazy, the useless, the mentally deranged, the simply obstinate. Some of them get around their inability to perform and fit in by actually becoming the ruling class (of course, you'd probably describe these people as "successful").

But the bulk of them just hang around, being a pain in the buttocks, making annoying little waves around everyone else's lives, sometimes bigger waves, sometimes just an irritant. Different societies deal with them in different ways, but almost always, they only "deal" with individuals that become an extreme problem, mostly by properly exiling them, torturing them, murdering them and others.

The rest of them, they just live with. By ignoring them. Or giving them alms or something. And that's what we do too. We pay them off. That's right - your tax dollar that you like to whine about so much, in part performs that service. It takes the w@nkers, puts them in a mostly crappy house, feeds them a bit, clothes them a bit, generally (but not completely) keeps them from being a bigger pain in the buttocks than what they could be.

And it's a good system, it mostly works. We pay them off. And at the same time, we also get to help people who have generally just fallen on bad luck and keep them going too. You seem to think that we can just get rid of them simply because they outrage you with their turnip bleeding fecklessness. Send 'em to prison! Put 'em in the army! Flog 'em! Whip 'em! You seem to think that there's some kind of answer to this and all it takes is for someone as forthright as you to take some tough decisions and this problem, that has plagued human society since the dawn of man, will just go away because you're not some kind of bleeding heart snowflake.

Behave. Get a grip on yourself, Do some critical thinking. Be glad we actually have the wealth to put our undesirables to bed in the way that we do. You'll pop a vein and bulge your eyes out because you can't stomach the thought that you have to work and these sprouts don't and you have to pay for it. But it's never going away until we are all served by robots in a post-scarcity society or something. You (allegedly) have "more" than they have. They've (mostly) chosen to have less because that's how they roll. Part of the tax for having more is to subsidise the underclass.

So it would be nice for everyone around you if you could get your head around it and stop bending our fooking ears with it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Your last sentence - oh, the irony.

 

[Croolis]

Your last sentence - oh, the irony.

Yeah? Well, all I've seen you do m8 is make silly person, narrow minded and poorly argued statements and rather weak little quips like the one I'm quoting here. That are convincing nobody.

But I'll concede the truth of "tha can't educate pork" .

 

[AJB Temple]

Being deliberately abusive and unkind is not appropriate in a civilised forum. I have reported a member who has very few posts and several of them are ad hominem attacks and abusive. We can surely do better than this.

 

[Croolis]

Being deliberately abusive and unkind is not appropriate in a civilised forum. I have reported a member who has very few posts and several of them are ad hominem attacks and abusive. We can surely do better than this.

Only OK if you have a few thousand posts, right?

 

[Jacob]

Here's some hard real world truths for ya and others, and I won't just pick on "single mums" to explain it (which itself is a very, very wide and nuanced category that, because of your "OH", and hinted at in your own post, you should know that it shouldn't be referenced so glibly). You ain't gonna like it, but I think you deserve to be patronised, simply because you make the rest of us have to listen to your drivel:

Every community that's ever been since homo sapiens started forming them contains the feckless, the lazy, the useless, the mentally deranged, the simply obstinate. Some of them get around their inability to perform and fit in by actually becoming the ruling class (of course, you'd probably describe these people as "successful").

But the bulk of them just hang around, being a pain in the buttocks, making annoying little waves around everyone else's lives, sometimes bigger waves, sometimes just an irritant. Different societies deal with them in different ways, but almost always, they only "deal" with individuals that become an extreme problem, mostly by properly exiling them, torturing them, murdering them and others.

The rest of them, they just live with. By ignoring them. Or giving them alms or something. And that's what we do too. We pay them off. That's right - your tax dollar that you like to whine about so much, in part performs that service. It takes the w@nkers, puts them in a mostly crappy house, feeds them a bit, clothes them a bit, generally (but not completely) keeps them from being a bigger pain in the buttocks than what they could be.

And it's a good system, it mostly works. We pay them off. And at the same time, we also get to help people who have generally just fallen on bad luck and keep them going too. You seem to think that we can just get rid of them simply because they outrage you with their turnip bleeding fecklessness. Send 'em to prison! Put 'em in the army! Flog 'em! Whip 'em! You seem to think that there's some kind of answer to this and all it takes is for someone as forthright as you to take some tough decisions and this problem, that has plagued human society since the dawn of man, will just go away because you're not some kind of bleeding heart snowflake.

Behave. Get a grip on yourself, Do some critical thinking. Be glad we actually have the wealth to put our undesirables to bed in the way that we do. You'll pop a vein and bulge your eyes out because you can't stomach the thought that you have to work and these sprouts don't and you have to pay for it. But it's never going away until we are all served by robots in a post-scarcity society or something. You (allegedly) have "more" than they have. They've (mostly) chosen to have less because that's how they roll. Part of the tax for having more is to subsidise the underclass.

So it would be nice for everyone around you if you could get your head around it and stop bending our fooking ears with it.

I agree with every word! Couldn't put it better myself!
Yes it's a good system.
Breath of fresh air, thanks for that.
PS I have amended my earlier post above #1,345 I got called away and forget to finish it.

 

[AJB Temple]

Only OK if you have a few thousand posts, right?

No. It is never acceptable to make ad hominem or borderline abusive attacks on a public forum. It demeans the perpetrator. Civilised debate ends when this behaviour emerges.

My point about very few posts is that to me it is suggestive of trolling when in a wood forum an individual who has barely contributed decides to be aggressive.

 

[Chris152]

Here's some hard real world truths for ya and others, and I won't just pick on "single mums" to explain it (which itself is a very, very wide and nuanced category that, because of your "OH", and hinted at in your own post, you should know that it shouldn't be referenced so glibly). You ain't gonna like it, but I think you deserve to be patronised, simply because you make the rest of us have to listen to your drivel:

Every community that's ever been since homo sapiens started forming them contains the feckless, the lazy, the useless, the mentally deranged, the simply obstinate. Some of them get around their inability to perform and fit in by actually becoming the ruling class (of course, you'd probably describe these people as "successful").

But the bulk of them just hang around, being a pain in the buttocks, making annoying little waves around everyone else's lives, sometimes bigger waves, sometimes just an irritant. Different societies deal with them in different ways, but almost always, they only "deal" with individuals that become an extreme problem, mostly by properly exiling them, torturing them, murdering them and others.

The rest of them, they just live with. By ignoring them. Or giving them alms or something. And that's what we do too. We pay them off. That's right - your tax dollar that you like to whine about so much, in part performs that service. It takes the w@nkers, puts them in a mostly crappy house, feeds them a bit, clothes them a bit, generally (but not completely) keeps them from being a bigger pain in the buttocks than what they could be.

And it's a good system, it mostly works. We pay them off. And at the same time, we also get to help people who have generally just fallen on bad luck and keep them going too. You seem to think that we can just get rid of them simply because they outrage you with their turnip bleeding fecklessness. Send 'em to prison! Put 'em in the army! Flog 'em! Whip 'em! You seem to think that there's some kind of answer to this and all it takes is for someone as forthright as you to take some tough decisions and this problem, that has plagued human society since the dawn of man, will just go away because you're not some kind of bleeding heart snowflake.

Behave. Get a grip on yourself, Do some critical thinking. Be glad we actually have the wealth to put our undesirables to bed in the way that we do. You'll pop a vein and bulge your eyes out because you can't stomach the thought that you have to work and these sprouts don't and you have to pay for it. But it's never going away until we are all served by robots in a post-scarcity society or something. You (allegedly) have "more" than they have. They've (mostly) chosen to have less because that's how they roll. Part of the tax for having more is to subsidise the underclass.

So it would be nice for everyone around you if you could get your head around it and stop bending our fooking ears with it.

Yep, an interesting post, I think. I'd just add that if people don't want to support 'the feckless, the lazy, the useless, the mentally deranged, the simply obstinate' etc, they'd best live in gated communities with excellent security. Plenty of examples around the world where that has to happen.