Not quite sure where you want the scum bags to live.Do decent people in poorer areas deserve to have them next door more than someone in kirkella?
The 'social housing' clause in planning applications is the least thought out and most clueless bollocks ever, it's failed disastrously, it should be binned immediately.
I agree tbh. I've worked my arse off to buy my house, and have to continue to work to keep it, while the other end of our road are a bunch of scrotes who do not work, one has an ankle tag on and they enjoy a better lifestyle than me by not working and using the system, a system which encourages them to do so. One is "disabled" (classic over weight ****, who manages to drive the 200m to drop his ****ing kids off at the school over the road from us, while he nips into the shop for a few beers and his ***s. He also wears joggers with a chelsea shirt too. I support social housing and think we have a duty of care as a nation, but the rules should be applied a lot more rigorously.
So anyone any idea where the scrotes should live-esp. the criminal ones-should the decent less well off have to have them them on their streets or should the toffs have bail hostels near them instead
We have lots of "doorstep" residents near us and a hostel for women with social problems.Generally not too bad except in Summer when we all get to share their music.I think all communities should share this pleasure.
Not neccesarily that affordable housing shouldn't be put in decent areas, but some common sense should be applied to who gets a house and where. For instance some fat 18 year old chav who's a single mum with 3 kids with a drink problem should not be housed opposite people who have paid the best part of a million pounds for their houses and have ferraris and such parked on their drives. If they have to have affordable housing (and on such highly prosperous developments as the one I'm talking about I really don't think they should have to) they should at least have a system where respected members of society get rewarded for being trouble free residents who look after their property for a couple of years by being given these nicer areas rather than a tramp who tops the priority list due to filing homeless. If you'd just spent 800k on a mint house and then 6 months down the line the house opposite is occupied by a fat tramp who's always blasting out happy hardcore, having house parties attended by more tramps and pikeys, and the lawn is an overgrown mess full of rubbish because they can't be arsed to mow it or be tidy, how would you feel?
So if a rich kid has a posh house bought for him he deserves better neighbours than a bloke doing permanent nights to support his family in a poorer part of town? I think we should not have ghettos for rich or poor.If we start to build mixed communities it might help when policies are being decided which might impact on levels of crime and anti social behaviour. I doubt David Cameron and his wife have ever or will ever live amongst ordinary people let alone "failing families" so if his policies were to cause more problems from such families he will not actually have to experience the results
News of another new planning app progressing: http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/york...mpaign=Yorkshire_23rd_Dec_2013_-_Daily_E-mail
Yes he should. You get what you pay for. Affordable housing and some of its occupants in some areas is an absolute travesty. Some dole dossing scum of the earth drug riddled tramp should be kept far away from anyone who's paid good money for the privelege of owning a nice house in a nice area. Give the man who works nights to support his family the house in the nice area instead, doesn't he deserve it more?
House prices tend to function as a social filter, generally people aspire to move to more affluent areas partly in order to move away from social problems. That in itself causes more problems as the housing vacuum that is left by social mobility is filled by those less fortunate (or scrotes if you prefer). That has always gone on and will continue. The real issue is not where to house people but the fact that when they behave unacceptably, wherever they are housed, nothing is ever done about it. It's just accepted by the authorities. A zero tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour, wherever and whenever it occurs, is the answer.
I bought a new build flat in London, it was in one of four gated blocks that were supposed to be surrounded by key worker housing, but once all the flats were sold(for about £250k each), the houses round the outside were sold to a housing association. From my lovely balcony, I could watch the drug squad carry out their raids, I could sit listening to drum and bass until 4.00 am and I could watch eight year olds throwing bricks at each other at gone midnight. Within a year, those flats had lost 20% of their value. You're telling me it's right for some ****ing vermin, who don't give a **** about the state of the property, or what their kids get up to, should be allowed to **** up the area I want to live in?
You're telling me it's right for some ****ing vermin, who don't give a **** about the state of the property, or what their kids get up to, should be allowed to **** up the area I want to live in?[/QUOTE] I do not think anyone should be allowed to **** up anyones area. If the rich had to send their kids to our schools they would make sure they were better schools.Same applies to anti social neighbours. It could be argued that only paying 250k in London makes you a bit of a pauper down there so I suggest they did this to you rather than to the folks in Belgravia
