Any suggestions as to an alternative?

Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government.

The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal.

Thats the story, or non-story.

What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that.

They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs.

Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently.


We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it.

Oh the government are playing a great game with even those on benefits (in work via Tax Credits) squaring up against those on benefits (out of work) when in some cases they are probably getting a similar amount each week in hand outs.

To be honest I doubt it will save the Tories in the next election but in creating a them and us situation where people in work are looking with distain at those without it they are already planting seeds that may help their party further down the line. Not quite Maggie selling off cheap council houses for votes but its an equally cynical path they are taking.

I will admit having to Google '[ihyperfecund[/i' in that piece.

Quote: JerryChicken "Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government. The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal. Thats the story, or non-story. What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that. They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs. Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently. We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it.'" www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... horse.html

Quote: JerryChicken "Its not so much the demonising of individual families by government departments and ministers, its the mis-information that is printed in news media that openly and publically supports that flavour of government. The local authority are presented with a situation that they have a responsibility to cater for, they own some land that a developer is interested in developing for a private housing scheme so they sell that land to the developer (all local authorities have been tasked with identifying tranches of land for development) and in the planning permission they have an allowance for a percentage of social housing (this is normal and well established in all new developments now) which, because the local authority aren't allowed to develop their own social housing they hand over to a social housing association to handle, one of those requirements is for one house to be larger than the standard two or three beds, again, this is normal. Thats the story, or non-story. What The Sun do is take that non-event and turn it into a witch hunt, they first of all question the price of the land that was sold to the developer without informing its readers whether it was the going rate, discounted down, or extortionately high - they give the impression though that the council almost gave it away by stating "only £240,000" but don't expand on that. They then make a big point about the houses being "eco-friendly" presumably to make a spurious point that these houses will be more expensive to build, but failing to point out that ALL new housing developments are built this way now to the extent where a development close to me include garden bicycle sheds to encourage the cycle to work scheme and washing line posts c/w a washing line to encourage residents not to use tumble dryers - these are eco-friendly in the same way that those houses have dual circuit central heating and highly insulated walls and roofs. Calling a six bedroom £400,000 rental property a "palace" and a "mansion" is just pure sensationalism and another of their reports today states that the family involved have a horse and want two more at a cost to the taxpayer (haven't found that story yet, just heard it on the radio) - pure bollox as I have never heard of a horse benefit payment, nor does a horse need to be a thoroughbred hunter to qualify as a horse, you can pick them up for a few quid, for leisure or food purposes apparently. We all know what The Sun is all about and what they have done to the story is nothing less than we'd expect, the problem is that too many people actually believe even half of it.'" www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... horse.html

One case of a woman on benefits who has eleven kids and a horse ... so let's cut the benefits of EVERYONE, regardless of reasons or circumstance, even those recently made redundant, those who are genuinely desperate for work and those in work.
Yes, we know the kids will suffer the most, both now and in their future life chances but, hey, this woman has a horse ! ... so sod the lot of them.

That seems to be the plan.

Clothing and food vouchers to ensure that the money is spent on what it is intended for - the kids or better yet create a government charity and issue the clothes direct.

The woman is keeping horses.

Was your mouth agape as you sat and typed that?

Been told the fourh eldest daughter also has a hamster.

Yeah and you can guarentee the Government would link up with someone like Tesco so not only provide them with free labour but send them new customers too.

Could be the way forward?

I think the point that you miss is - a house of this size and quality is beyond 99% of the people who are actually funding it. The point of the horse comes back to the point I made earlier benefits should provide the basic essentials - owning and feeding a horse doesn't fall into that category - even you must agree? It would also suggest the levels of benefits this family is receiving is in excess of their basic needs.

And this would affect her housing situation how?

How much is he charging to bowl share???

Guess the good thing is he will forget if you've paid the rent or not this week