So in one example we have one woman in fear of her life that has a panic room installed in her home and in another we have a child who is so disabled that 24 hour care is required and the carers need a room to sleep.
I agree with the premise of the bed room tax, if you don't need the room, don't expect the tax payer to pay for it.
There needs to be some compassion though and the high court has today told the Government that the law needs changing.
What surprises me, given the dreadful nature of these cases, is that the Government is appealing the verdict and the case will be heard in the Supreme Court.
The Govt. claims that local councils have been given discretionary funds to deal with cases like this. The problem is that the hurdles that one has to go through to get discretionary payments puts many off or they are turned down because, well, the funds are just that, up to someone's discretion.
I think the Government have made clear the utter contempt that they feel for the most vulnerable in society.
|
>> I agree with the premise of the bed room tax, if you don't need the
>> room, don't expect the tax payer to pay for it.
The premise is fine. Problem is at interface between premise and reality.
|
+1 here.
It is not and never should be, described as a bedroom tax.
It IS a reduction in housing benefits for those who do not need the number of bedrooms present in their current tax-payer funded home.
There is a correlation between number of bedrooms and rent charged, I expect, so fewer (NOT LESS!) bedrooms in a house/flat should mean lower rents and lower public purse payments.
However, this reduction in benefit needs to be applied with common sense to account for special circumstances.
|
I agree 100% with Roger.
I need to go and lie down.
|
>> I need to go and lie down.
>>
Do you have a special safe room for that?
|
>>for those who do not need the number of bedrooms present
This was not a problem in some military married quarters years ago, as there would be a locked door between the bedrooms of attached properties. So, for example, in a terrace of two bedroomed houses, some could be occupied by couples without children, who only needed one bedroom, and others could be occupied by families who needed two or three bedrooms.
Not ideal, but it worked reasonably well.
|
|
Properties like that don't exist any more on a large enough scale.
|
"I think the Government have made clear the utter contempt that they feel for the most vulnerable in society."
David Cameron knows the anguish of bringing up a disabled child - but he is clueless about the practical difficulties of bringing up a disabled child whilst living on the breadline.
|
>> "I think the Government have made clear the utter contempt that they feel for the
>> most vulnerable in society."
I don't see it the same way.
I see it as a govt willing to make the difficult decisions.... and in this case willing to make the fiscally important decision of telling people who need to receive state benefits (i.e. those that need the rest of us to pay for them) that there is no bottomless pit of money, that they themselves have responsibilities and if they receive a benefit it should cover what they need...not more than they need.
As ever, there's a balance to be had... and it would be nice if officialdom did their bit to try to get that balance right...I live in hope.
The woman that has the 'safe' room..... why can't her bedroom be the safe room, why does it need to be the extra bedroom?
|
>> The woman that has the 'safe' room..... why can't her bedroom be the safe room,
>> why does it need to be the extra bedroom?
Why can't her abusive boyfriend be locked up
|
"Why can't her abusive boyfriend be locked up"
That was certainly my thoughts; if he's that dangerous, he needs to be kept out of the way. It can't be much of a life for the woman if she's constantly worried about him.
|
>> It can't be much of a life for the woman if she's constantly worried about him.
He's probably made her feel so insecure of herself. A friend of a friend is in a violent relationship. She puts up with it because he's has drummed it into her head (quite literally most probably) that no one else would "love" her the way he does and that no one else would want her.
She did pluck up the courage to leave him once and move miles away (with the help of someone else). 3 months down the line she said she was lonely, didn't know anyone in the area, etc. so moved back in with him again. Silly cow.
|
>>I see it as a govt willing to make the difficult decisions....
That's fine. As I said, the bedroom tax in principal is a good thing.
>>As ever, there's a balance to be had... and it would be nice if officialdom did their bit to try to get that balance right...I live in hope.
That's the point. The Govt. ignored the balance and ignored the courts when told to be balanced.
>>The woman that has the 'safe' room..... why can't her bedroom be the safe room, why does it need to be the extra bedroom?
The "safe rooms" / "panic rooms" that I have seen are usually the smallest room in the house. It will have a aluminium or steel walls, floor and ceiling. The door will be reinforced as will the frame so it can't be buckled. There will be no window or the window will be reinforced. It is not designed to allow a person through. There may well be no heating in the room as the pipework may have been removed to reinforce the floor.
The room is probably not furnished to allow quick entry for the woman and her child and as such it is not suitable for sleeping in long term.
|
>> I see it as a govt willing to make the difficult decisions.... and in this
>> case willing to make the fiscally important decision of telling people who need to receive
>> state benefits (i.e. those that need the rest of us to pay for them)
The supposed rationale for the bedroom tax was not saving money, it was to incentivise best use of social housing stock. Given the way lettings are prioritised it is probable that the new tenant will be getting Housing Benefit too - hence the savings being nil/negligible.
Problem in practice is that there are insufficient properties with fewer bedrooms - particularly one bed places - in social housing stock. There was no real incentive to build them in past. Tenants who agree to be decanted are therefore likely to be in private lettings at no less public cost.
The biggest group of over occupiers of course are those over pension age. As they are vocal, vote and get public sympathy they're exempt from the over occupation charge.
|
>> The supposed rationale for the bedroom tax was not saving money, it was to incentivise
>> best use of social housing stock.
A great chunk of social housing stock is occupied by people who do not need that size of property and some are occupied by people who no longer need to be living in social housing at all.
The govt needs to get people to think differently and to accept it isn't 'their' house, it's a heavily subsidised house provided by the State* whilst you NEED it.
* i.e. the rest of us
|
No-one can argue with that WP....trouble is the law of unintended consequences.
1. The lack of suitable social housing to downsize to
2. The cuts in other benefits is a double whammy
3. This policy may well work in the metropolis but is causing real hardship in rural areas, especially if they happen to be holiday locations as well.
I gained sufficient insight into life on benefits to understand that 90% of people on such benefits struggle to make end meet and that there is real suffering as a result of the benefits changes brought in in recent years.
It was badly thought out.
|
>>>> The govt needs to get people to think differently and to accept it isn't 'their'
>> house
Whilst that is, of course, the case, it is their 'home'. People are odd creatures and get attached to such things.
Even some rental agreements in the private sector can be very long term and offer protection to tenants to stay in their 'home' for extreme periods of time. Even in central London, the most sought after address in the country, there are people living in places for very long terms at very low rents in the private sector. Should this opportunity not extend to those in council homes, or is it another case of judging everyone's rights by how much money they've got or haven't got?
|
>> Whilst that is, of course, the case, it is their 'home'. People are odd creatures
>> and get attached to such things.
Yes... and wouldn't we all.
However, if you've been given something for nothing or a very low subsidised rate because of a need... then when that need is negated, you should expect to move on, because someone else will need it.
The problem has arisen, because no one expects the 'moving on' bit, the welfare state system has allowed it to become a 'right'.
So widowed granny living in a 3 bed on her own, (when once she was married with 2 kids) still lives there... and expects to pass it on to her builder son who is more than capable of sorting his own housing arrangements out.
That sort of thing needs sorting out, so that those that need it can access it and we are not wasting the resource, the one we're all paying for.
>> Should this
>> opportunity not extend to those in council homes, or is it another case of judging
>> everyone's rights by how much money they've got or haven't got?
It isn't a case of judging rights by money, it's a case of ensuring the welfare state steps in to provide your need... not your wish, want, like, etc.
|
|
I don't think anyone mentioned allowing people to inherit rights of tenancy from their parents, WP. Not germane.
|
|
Rights to inherit a tenancy are restricted to Secure Tenancies. These are rapidly becoming as rare as hen's teeth and I know of a large HA is surreptitiously moving tenants with these and giving them assured tenancies to avoid these "rights" the rights only work once and only then to someone who can prove that they have been resident in the property and this is their sole residence.
|
>>it's a case of ensuring the welfare state steps in to provide your need..<<
I lived in a Council house for years in Leicestershire and they wanted us to look upon it as our home and look after it as such. That house now costs more in rent than our privately rented house in the Fens does so I fail to see where council house rents are subsidised if the tenant isn't claiming benefits.
A lot of them aren't.
The ex Mr Pat still lives there ....alone, and has done for 35 years since I left. His long term girlfriend lives next door alone and has done for 35 years.
They are both 3 bedroomed semi's....there's the cause of the problem.
Pat
|
>> That house now
>> costs more in rent than our privately rented house in the Fens does so I
>> fail to see where council house rents are subsidised if the tenant isn't claiming benefits.
What does it cost in relation to other, non council, 3 bedroomed properties in the area?
... and what does local authority accommodation in The Fens cost compared to yours?
|
Council houses and Association housing in the Fen is dearer than ours on a size for size basis.
The only dear privately rented houses are those rented to a large number of Eastern Europeans all living in one room. Most landlords prefer not to go down that route if they can find a long term tenant.
We've been here 9 years and the rent has never gone up yet.
Pat
|
>> They are both 3 bedroomed semi's....there's the cause of the problem.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Unless I have it wrong there are two types of problem
1 Social housing occupied and paid for by people who are not on benefits, and not claiming housing benefits. Possibly (?) the situation Pat is referring to. No financial penalties but HA should be trying to move as appropriate
2. Social housing where the "rent" is funded by housing benefit which is then being docked in some situations, if they do not move.
Seems to me that the Government is trying to include both but they have a bigger stick in case 2 which is where most of the cases in the media seem to be concentrated.
Is that what our CAB members are seeing?
|
>> >>>> The govt needs to get people to think differently and to accept it isn't
>> 'their'
>> >> house
>>
>> Whilst that is, of course, the case, it is their 'home'. People are odd creatures
>> and get attached to such things.
Its social housing. Provided by, and subsidised by the state to meet basic housing needs. As your needs change, you should be moved to that which does meet your needs. In short, its not your house, so its not your choice.
|
>>>> In short, its not your house, so its not your choice.
>>
No, but, again, it is your home - so it's not quite that black and white and some kind of humane interpretation of individual cases needs to be applied.
|
>> Its social housing. Provided by, and subsidised by the state to meet basic housing needs.
>> As your needs change, you should be moved to that which does meet your needs.
>> In short, its not your house, so its not your choice.
Sort of 'grace and favour' thing?
That appears to be the attitude of the current government, one adopted post coalition.
As PAt points out it was not the case historically and there are millions of legacy tenants who were accommodated on basis of it being their home. Why do you think 'right to buy' has such appeal and OAPs are excluded from bedroom tax?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Jan 16 at 10:35
|
>> Sort of 'grace and favour' thing?
>>
>> That appears to be the attitude of the current government, one adopted post coalition.
Shouldn't any State Benefit be along those lines?
Let's face it, the majority that can afford it, pay for those that cannot. That is civilised and i'm glad we are civilised.
However, when you no longer need it, you move on and leave it for someone that does.
What's wrong with that?
|
There really is no sensible argument against the principle of not funding surplus bedrooms from welfare when so many people paying their own way don't have one, or simply couldn't afford to rent a similar house in the same area.
The exception for OAPs is reasonable - younger people should move, or be prepared to pay for what they are not entitled to - at least they have that option.
|
>> or is it another case of judging
>> everyone's rights by how much money they've got or haven't got?
>>
It's not the quantity but the source of the money
The principle for benefits in general, which is hard to argue with, is that benefits should be the backup for those who are unable to provide for themselves, not a lifestyle choice.
I am well aware that the cases in the media of those claiming way over the average salary in benefits are as much exceptions as the "bedroom tax" cases discussed here.
However there is a need to rebalance the culture of benefits to get back to a sensible level where people who cannot provide for themselves or their families are helped, and those who can but choose not to are pushed towards providing for themselves.
This government, unfortunately, while understanding the principles seems less than effective at ensuring that the implementation is fairly done.
Maybe they choose the wrong people to deliver services maybe they are incompetent at publicising decisions properly I don't know.
I still agree with the principles , by and large, but i have serious concerns about the quality of the organisations, whether private or civil service who implement many of the benefit processes.
Rant over....
|
, it's a heavily subsidised house provided by the State* whilst you NEED it.
>>
>> * i.e. the rest of us
>>
>>
>>
Council houses aren't subsidised.
|
|
You're right, they're rented out using a formula based on the Local Housing Allowance.
|
>> Council houses aren't subsidised.
>>
They are considerably cheaper than private stock, so as the tax payer coughs up for that and their keep, then in my book they are subsidised.
|
They are considerably cheaper than private stock, so as the tax payer coughs up for
>> that and their keep, then in my book they are subsidised.
>>
They don't, that's why i said they aren't subsidised. Something being cheaper isn't a subsidy.
|
>> They don't, that's why i said they aren't subsidised. Something being cheaper isn't a subsidy.
>>
Who paid for the older stock's build?
The fact they are transferred to a housing company nowadays doesn't change anything and the fact that modern builds for housing associations are nominally not paid for by the taxpayer still doesn't change anything, because they are then let, cheaply and paid for by..the taxpayer.
|
The fact they are transferred to a housing company nowadays doesn't change anything and the fact that modern builds for housing associations are nominally not paid for by the taxpayer still doesn't change anything, because they are then let, cheaply and paid for by..the taxpayer.
>>
>>
Council houses aren't free. The tenants pay rent.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 21:20
|
>> Council houses aren't free. The tenants pay rent.
>>
With housing benefit?
|
>> With housing benefit?
In proportions varying from nil to 100%.
|
>> >> Council houses aren't free. The tenants pay rent.
>> >>
>>
>> With housing benefit?
>>
Some will pay rent some not. Some in private some not.
|
|
The stock in the County where I worked had opted out of council ownership. Whilst they are still a social landlord they are now a commercial entity
|
>> in another we have a child who is so disabled that 24 hour care is required and the carers need a room to sleep.
As SWMBO pointed out, the carer is the grandfather. The reason claimed for an extra bedroom was for the overnight carer to sleep in. Cushy job?
|
>>The reason claimed for an extra bedroom was for the overnight carer to sleep in. Cushy job?
Most nursing homes are the same for some night staff who sleep there but are on call should there be a problem. They get an allowance to sleep there and a working rate if they work.
|
>The Govt. claims that local councils have been given discretionary funds to deal with cases
>like this. The problem is that the hurdles that one has to go through to get discretionary
>payments puts many off or they are turned down because, well, the funds are just that, up to
>someone's discretion.
If the 'problem' is with local councils why are you bitching about The Govt?
Last edited by: Kevin on Wed 27 Jan 16 at 23:30
|
>> If the 'problem' is with local councils why are you bitching about The Govt?
Because the government is being disingenuous on two counts:
Firstly as Zippy says the funds for Discretionary Housing Payments are inadequate and shrinking. Secondly they're intended to deal with temporary situations not permanent arrangements, the tenants in these cases would need to reapply at frequent intervals.
|
|
There's been little or no investment in building social housing for single people or disables people either - link that to the election pledge to sell of HA properties non-nuclear families are being pushed to margins and into private rental where rents are escalating. It's a real nightmare scenario. As regards locking up that woman's ex-partner - how long you going to lock him up for 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years or 60 years?
|
>> As regards locking up that woman's ex-partner - how long you
>> going to lock him up for 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years or 60 years?
All at - what is it - £1,000 a week in prison?
Makes the cost of a safe room seem a bit insignificant.
|
"As regards locking up that woman's ex-partner - how long you going to lock him up for 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years or 60 years?"
So, it's the victim that has to suffer. Sounds about par ......
|
>> As regards locking up that woman's ex-partner - how long you
>> going to lock him up for 6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years or 60 years?
As long as he is a threat. Isn't that what prison is for? As far as a safe room goes, she just needs a reinforced bedroom door with a good lock, forget this jodie foster hollywood M****. Its a ridiculous example, specially when there are genuine ones to use.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 09:34
|
>>As far as a safe room goes, she just needs a reinforced bedroom door with a good lock
I can kick in a plasterboard wall in a couple of minutes - I expect a psychopath can do it quite a bit faster.
Windows are even easier.
|
>> >>As far as a safe room goes, she just needs a reinforced bedroom door with
>> a good lock
>>
>> I can kick in a plasterboard wall in a couple of minutes - I expect
>> a psychopath can do it quite a bit faster.
>>
>> Windows are even easier.
Surely a psychopath should be in a secure hospital? Not all houses have plasterboard stud walls, windows in flats need ladders (its quite easy to spot raving psychopaths up ladders) windows can have safety glass, ANY bedroom can be made secure enough for long enough to summon assistance.
Its a crappy example, and it will always be a crappy example.
|
>>Surely a psychopath should be in a secure hospital?
Of course.
But that's no longer the chosen way in the UK. Perceived as too expensive.
And its quite difficult to put someone in prison for what you think they might do.
So much as I agree with most of what you're saying, the chosen solution would appear to be the least s***e of the possibilities available.
But this keeps happening, a policy for the whole nation gets derailed because of a tiny few examples.
A combination of sensationalist reporting, a scandal loving lookership and politicians who cannot work out how to be flexible near the edges just serve up chaos.
|
Zero, you know lots about quite a bit of stuff but on this you're talking from your fundament.
Whatever else might be possible the safe room is the solution chosen, with involvement of police, social services etc. It's beyond parody that the law penalises her because of it. For that reason its an excellent test case.
|
>> Zero, you know lots about quite a bit of stuff but on this you're talking
>> from your fundament.
>>
>> Whatever else might be possible the safe room is the solution chosen, with involvement of
>> police, social services etc. It's beyond parody that the law penalises her because of it.
>> For that reason its an excellent test case.
See the answer above for real life practical examples and answers. I bet you any cent you like that example wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of appeal. And what evidence do you have that solution was sanctioned by social services and the police?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 10:00
|
>> See the answer above for real life practical examples and answers. I bet you any
>> cent you like that example wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of appeal. And what
>> evidence do you have that solution was sanctioned by social services and the police?
The suggestion of sanction by police etc was an informed guess but is spot on. How do you think it was funded and carried out in social housing?
The facts in case of 'A' are at para 10 & 11 of the judgement:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/sr_-and_a_v_sos_for_work_and_pensions_approved_judgment_2.pdf
In light of what's said there you might want to reflect on your earlier ill informed speculation.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 11:37
|
>> In light of what's said there you might want to reflect on your earlier ill
>> informed speculation.
i refer you, again, to the practical answers i gave some moments ago.
|
>> I bet you any cent you like that example wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of appeal.
That was a pretty powerfully constituted Court of Appeal and it doesn't read like the odd egregious decision might. It relies on authority which the judges say was not seriously challenged in front of them.
Permission to appeal was given. There is already at least one other 'bedroom tax' case in the Supreme Court's queue and this court clearly hope this case will be heard at same time.
|
>> >>what evidence do you have that solution was sanctioned by social services and the police?
>>
>>
>> www.gov.uk/government/publications/sanctuary-schemes-for-households-at-risk-of-domestic-violence-guide-for-agencies
Can you point me to the part of that report that says a separate room has to be provided please
Thanks
Oh and by the way, you too have failed to answer my real world practical examples as well.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 13:40
|
>>Can you point me to the part of that report that says a separate room has to be provided please
Chapter 5.
Noone has said a serarate room 'must' be provided, but there is an option for it if the common-sense solutions you mention are deemed inadequate and the risk is high enough.
I've never seen a case requiring a safe room, but see about 1 new case each year of women/children being rehoused in safe accommodation - I expect saferoom numbers are likely to be measured in the hundreds, rather than thousands across the UK.
100 women are murdered every year by their partners (and about 25 men) - usually there is a significant history of previous abuse (often with several partners).
It's a bit like child safety - there are various degrees of involvement from supporting families to permanent removal of children.
Saferoom provision is to reduce the risk of death - unfortunately it doesn't deal with the perps.
|
>> Saferoom provision is to reduce the risk of death
Yes all well and good....and I do know first hand from my policing days, the real problem some women (usually women) have with extreme domestic violence.
However, why couldn't the bathroom or main bedroom be built as the safe room. Why does it need to be the spare extra bedroom that otherwise isn't needed?
|
For years there has been a lack of new social housing being built in this country.
The "right to buy" sell-off was fundamentally flawed in that the proceeds of sale were not reinvested into new housing.
There will always be people in, or out of, work who will not be able or willing to purchase their own home and it seems to me that given the lack and often dire quality of privately owned property for rent, it does appear that it is not unreasonable for the state to build houses for rental.
A fair market rent, based on the cost of building and maintaining such houses, should be applied, I think with suitable discounts for those whose income or lack of employment warrant it.
Means tested - yes and why not?
I'm sounding a lefty here, I know, but having a daughter who for a period of time was a single mother of two, I know how hard it can be for some people to manage.
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 19:00
|
|
To quote Zero..."I agree with Roger....I may have to lie down"
|
>> To quote Zero..."I agree with Roger....I may have to lie down"
+1
|
>> However, why couldn't the bathroom or main bedroom be built as the safe room. Why
>> does it need to be the spare extra bedroom that otherwise isn't needed?
Because, as posts above suggest, a truly safe room requires characteristics close to those of a custody cell. not really compatible with 'other use'.
And as an aside, why do the 'righty tighties' think it's OK to utterly disregard any sense of dignity for social housing tenants; the you don't own it so we can kick you around at will theory?
|
>>'righty tighties
What does that mean?
|
>> What does that mean?
It's been used here before - try a forum search
|
Jeez, why do you have to make things so hard? i already had searched.
A forum search for "righty tighties" both within the last year and outside the last year, across all forums showed three uses; You using it this time, me asking what it mean, and you using it in November - which also did not explain it.
Given that I have showed you that tried, do you suppose you could now possibly share the meaning of your little phrase?
|
|
One would presume it's a mildly pejorative term describing those with right-wing ideas and Scottish/Yorkshire fiscal prudence.
|
I assume so. But its also a silly and cliquey approach to communication.
In the past one often found cliques which would communicate in little used phrases and words, mostly to give themselves some air of mystery I think. Or at least hide that they didn't have anything much to say.
But I thought it'd had largely passed.
|
>>In the past one often found cliques which would communicate in little used phrases and words
Everyone does this to try to suggest an air of superiority and to justify their delusional need for a large paypacket.
Doctors, accountants, lawyers, managers not least.
|
>>managers not least.
Oh God yes.
My worst experiences being s***e middle management in the M.O.D.
|
>> Jeez, why do you have to make things so hard? i already had searched.
There's a bit more than you suggest in search results but Lygonos has it; pejorative equivalent of (loony) left.
|
>>There's a bit more than you suggest in search results
I am not suggesting, I am stating. And no there isn't.
Ok;
Loony left = crazy and left wing. Got it.
Righty Tighties = right wing and ?????
Is it, as Lygonos said, related to fiscal care?
|
According to Urban Dictionary
"righty tighty lefty loosy
Refers to threads on a screw, nut, bolt, etc. To tighten, you turn to the right (clockwise). To loosen, you turn toward the left (counter clockwise). A few exceptions exist, notably old propane cylinders and some pipe fittings.
"How do I get this screw out?"
"Righty tighty lefty loosy!"
However, if Righty Tighties = right wing and tight is the argument deployed by loony lefties, then righty tighties such as Guido respond with
order-order.com/2015/09/29/zoe-williams-magic-money-tree/
|
|
Oh dear, that's really quite sad.
|
"do you suppose you could now possibly share the meaning of your little phrase? "
Come on, Brompt, let's see a definition - don't leave us in the dark ............ like some people on here would.
|
Haywain, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you were struggling so much. Insensitive of me, I apologise, I do normally try to be aware of the needs of the more challenged.
This is probably the best resource, but it is complicated, you need to pay and it uses quite a lot of difficult words. Thus it hardly seems suitable for you, but I put a reference here on the slight chance that you may have aspirations to adequacy.
www.oed.com/help
I should think that this is much more applicable to your [sadly not] unique needs...
ddeubel.edublogs.org/2011/07/19/the-idiots-dictionary-ii/
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 22:14
|
"I apologise"
Apology accepted, but I'd rather hear you articulate the subject in your own words. I assume that you are bright enough?
Resorting to insults is not necessary.
|
>> Because, as posts above suggest, a truly safe room requires characteristics close to those of
>> a custody cell not really compatible with 'other use'.
No they dont. You do, but you keep disregarding any other practical examples. .
|
>>No they dont. You do, but you keep disregarding any other practical examples.
Stop being such a tool Zed.
There are many cases where a 'safe room' is entirely unnecessary.
There are a handful where a group including social work and the Police deem that it is.
I'll leave that judgement to their discretion, not yours.
|
If a woman is truly in danger, and if the experts involved believe that a safe room is required, and given that it probably happens once every squidrillion years or so, there's doesn't seem to be much good reason for objecting.
It'd cost more to send independent experts to audit the process.
Also, a safe room doesn't really seem like "jewellery". If someone was trying to justify huge TVs and Blue Ray players because they couldn't get to the cinema, then I could see the "jewellery" aspect.
But an unpleasant room with nothing going for it other than the ability to lock it tight???
|
I'd never heard of this panic/safe room concept in the context of domestic violence. It seems daft to me.
If the partner is violent and controlling he isn't going to stop and let the victim go and lock herself in, is he? I find it hard to believe that there are more than a handful of these, if any.
|
|
Its a Jodie Foster Hollywood fantasy.
|
>> Its a Jodie Foster Hollywood fantasy.
>>
Ah, she who destroyed fantasies by disclosing she bats for the other side!
|
NOOOoooooooo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
b***** hell, another fantasy gone. Although possibly replaced...........
|
No. I didn't.
And, as Al might say, I are disappoint.
|
Oh dear, bad news bear then
(and no, I have no intention of explaining that one to you)
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 23:13
|
One of those taxes like the poll tax which was and is a total cockup.
Still the nasty party go for the weak.We need far more social houses build which isn't happening.
|
What was wrong with the Poll Tax?
Ok, they messed up the PR campaign, but what was actually wrong with the tax? As far as I could work out a bunch of people who were going to have to start paying their share didn't like it.
I don't think I ever managed to work out what else was wrong with it.
|
>> Nor me.....really....
>>
Count me in as well.
|
Poll Tax was introduced whilst I was a student, living away form home at university. I was in private shared accommodation, big house with 5 people in it. Before Poll Tax we had "Rates" if I recall correctly, I presume the landlord accounted for the Rates in the rent he charged because we never had to worry about that.
Once Poll Tax came in, we all had to fork out money from our maintenance grants/loans which we'd never done before, lowering our meagre incomes quite significantly. Did the rent go down? Did it 'eck as like. I did not have a Bank of Mum and/or Dad to rely on. On to the debts it went. Nice bit of interest for the Tories' friends at GnatWest, the Frank Bank, and tht private landlords scooping up a few extra quid for nowt.
I doubt the posters above with their interpretation of "fairness" paused to consider such cases.
|
Al, did you pay the charge then, was it at full rate, was there a lower rate for students.
I lived at home when I was at university so don't know about the 70s, but 2 of my kids have been to university in the last 14 years and neither paid any council tax during their university time at all.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 16:14
|
>>I doubt the posters above with their interpretation of "fairness" paused to consider such cases.
You were living somewhere, using services and would now be required to pay your share of that cost.
Yes, I considered the fairness of that. And I was quite comfortable with it.
Presumably your view of fair was that you didn't pay your share, and either the landlord or someone else did? I can certainly see why you would prefer that.
|
>> You were living somewhere, using services and would now be required to pay your share
>> of that cost.
>>
>> Yes, I considered the fairness of that. And I was quite comfortable with it.
>>
>> Presumably your view of fair was that you didn't pay your share, and either the
>> landlord or someone else did? I can certainly see why you would prefer that.
>>
That is exactly my take on it.
|
|
>>Presumably your view of fair was that you paid exactly the same as someone on a modest wage in a 1-bed hovel. I can certainly see why you would prefer that.
|
>> >>Presumably your view of fair was that you paid exactly the same as someone on
>> a modest wage in a 1-bed hovel. I can certainly see why you would prefer
>> that.
'Scuse me, in those days I was living on a very modest wage, barely worthy of the word, and you could most certainly have described my one room bedsit with shared toilet as a hovel.
And it was down the a***-end of Reading which is no joy now but back then was a war zone.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 18:02
|
>> >>Presumably your view of fair was that you paid exactly the same as someone on
>> a modest wage in a 1-bed hovel.
Since when has affluence, or lack of it, dictated what you pay for things?
There's no sliding scale on gas, electric, fuel, cars, household goods, beer, food, etc.
If you were to include council tax in the same category as income tax and NI... why not set it at personal income rates and apply it to everyone, rather than just clobber those who own a property.
|
> Since when has affluence, or lack of it, dictated what you pay for things?
>>
In buying products none. But in taxes they are nearly always linked.
>> If you were to include council tax in the same category as income tax and>> NI... why not set it at personal income rates and apply it to everyone, rather than just clobber those who own a property.
>>
We could have a local income tax but no one would suggest bringing it in. Not a political party anyway.
|
>> If you were to include council tax in the same category as income tax and
>> NI... why not set it at personal income rates and apply it to everyone, rather
>> than just clobber those who own a property.
Just to be clear, tenants pay Council Tax on same basis as homeowners. Those on benefits or low incomes get Council Tax Relief - CTR. CTR schemes are devolved and each Council sets it's own criteria. Nearly all require a contribution from the occupier. Typically 10% plus but some authorities, Milton Keynes Is one, it's as high as 25%.
In the real world, where people are struggling with all sorts of stuff, that's a lot of your weekly benefit. More so if you're paying 14% of your rent for a 'spare' room but cannot downsize as there's nothing available.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Jan 16 at 10:24
|
More so if you're paying 14% of your rent for
>> a 'spare' room but cannot downsize as there's nothing available.
>>
I think that's the bit that is most unfair, if they were refusing to move I could understand the extra payments, but when there's a lack of housing to downsize to then it is, to me, unfair.
|
>>but when there's a lack of housing to downsize to then it is, to me, unfair.
Agreed. The payments should kick in when you refuse a viable alternative, and not when there is no alternative available.
|
>> >>I doubt the posters above with their interpretation of "fairness" paused to consider such cases.
>>
>> You were living somewhere, using services and would now be required to pay your share
>> of that cost.
>>
>> Yes, I considered the fairness of that. And I was quite comfortable with it.
>>
>> Presumably your view of fair was that you didn't pay your share, and either the
>> landlord or someone else did? I can certainly see why you would prefer that.
>>
No, you haven't worked out what I was saying. I did pay my share under the old Rates system. When I started paying rent for a bedroom, under the Rates system, I was charged £25 a week, including Rates. I paid them as part of my rent, I don't think anyone believes landlords paid Rates out of their own pockets out of the goodness of their hearts. It was built in to the rent.
Then, along came the Poll Tax. I still paid the £25 a week rent, but the landlord had no rates to pass on to the council out of that, so the portion of that £25 which used to go to the council went in his sky rocket. I forked out extra to pay the Poll Tax. Grants did not increase to cover this, in fact it happened at the same time as grants were being phased out in favour of loans. I was a student between 1988 and 1992, I got the double whammy of these Thatcherite punishments for being a working class boy done good who earned a place at a prestigious university from a state school background.
You think that was fair? You're surprised students at the time protested about it?
I have no idea how it works for students under Council Tax now, as that was introduced after I graduated. I hope I'll find out 7 years from now, inshallah.
|
So no problem with Poll Tax at all then, just the Landlords not reducing their rents.
Rather protesting against the wrong thing and the wrong group of people then, weren't you?
|
Yes, you could look at it like that, or you could be pragmatic and realise that you might actually get somewhere protesting at a government or voting them out, rather than trying to get capitalists in a free market economy, behaving exactly as they are entitled to do, to change their ways out of a sense of fairness and brotherhood of man (don't save any kisses for me, or fishes for tea - as I thought they were singing when I was 6).
The system did get changed, after a relatively small period, so protesting to the government turned out to be exactly the right course of action.
Perhaps those of a mind to recall the Poll Tax as some kind of golden era of fairness might like to consider voting Liberal Democrat, as they're the only major (no sniggering at the back) party in the UK who propose a local income tax to replace the existing council tax.
|
>>so protesting to the government turned out to be exactly the right course of action.
Successful and right are not necessarily the same thing.
Nonetheless, my point is that the tax was just fine in itself however we regard the flawed implementation. So historically when we bemoan the past surely we should be regarding the Poll Tax as a reasonable and appropriate tax which the landlords prevented being implemented properly for students.
Which rather makes hating Margaret Thatcher for it somewhere between silly and wrong.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 1 Feb 16 at 13:13
|
Whoever said anything about hatred? I voted Tory sometimes, I was even in the Young Conservatives. But I didn't agree with everything they did.
The landlords prevented nothing, they just took advantage. That the implementation was ill thought out and flawed was not their fault. They're just making money, I'd probably do the same under the same circumstances. The problem is that there was no way to square the inherent, significant issues with a Poll Tax, such as this example. Not that I think Council Tax is much better as it goes.
|
>> Which rather makes hating Margaret Thatcher for it somewhere between silly and wrong.
Even I don't hate Margaret Thatcher for it. Indeed, since it gave her the rope by which she finally hung herself I'm grateful in a wry sort of way.
As originally conceived, a flat rate per capita tax across the whole country, it had a certain simplicity. There was however a fairness argument when two people in poorly paid manual jobs were charged exactly same as say a Consultant Surgeon and his eminent QC wife.
The real problems came when that simplicity hit the complication of real world government finance (the central grant). The charge varied from town to town, in London from street to street, by a factor of two or three. Add in the administrative complication outlined in my reply to commerdriver at 19:46 yesterday www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=21640&m=478750&v=e it became pretty well impossible to sustain.
Which is why by time Thatch fell all three candidates were committed to abolish.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Feb 16 at 14:54
|
>>Which is why by time Thatch fell all three candidates were committed to abolish.
No it isn't. They were all committed to abolish simply because such a PR job had been done that it was impossible to support the tax and believe you could be elected. Had the electorate supported the tax then they would all equally have been supporting it.
As I said, nothing wrong with the tax. Yet there are many people who believe it was an evil tax and profess hatred towards Margaret Thatcher for it [and the miners' strikes].
And ultimately the publicity against the tax was driven by the fervour of those who did not pay and did not wish to pay. The vast majority of the people against the tax didn't even know why they were against it beyond the sector who didn't want to pay and the sector who believed what they read int he tabloids - and, of course, the normal bandwagon jumpers.
Rents are driven by market rates and would have sorted themselves out, as Al pointed out.
|
All of this cobblers would go away if we had a flat rate income/business tax, a non-means tested citizen's income (as Finland is about to try, and Switzerland is to have a referendum on), and scrapped the benefit system entirely.
Wouldn't the world be a simpler place.
|
>> All of this cobblers would go away if we had a flat rate income/business tax,
>> a non-means tested citizen's income (as Finland is about to try, and Switzerland is to
>> have a referendum on), and scrapped the benefit system entirely.
>>
>> Wouldn't the world be a simpler place.
>>
You mean the same rate for every adult everywhere in the country however much they earn, whatever their circumstances? I am unconvinced that there is any system which would be fair to everyone. The current system is not bad but still has its winners and losers in fairness terms.
|
>> You mean the same rate for every adult everywhere in the country however much they
>> earn, whatever their circumstances?
Yes. But you have to combine a flat rate tax with a flat rate Citizen's Income. Everyone gets the same, everyone pays the same proportionally to the effort they're willing to make in terms of generating their own income. That is supremely fair. We all get, say, £1200 a month from the government. Nobody claims any benefits at all (at all). No pensions, UB40, nothing. Then, we all choose if we want to work on top of that to earn more money. All earnings are then taxed at the same rate. So, it creates an incentive to people in so far that if you want more money, you have to earn it. You can not claim it. And there is no penalty for earning more, as there is at the moment with increasing income tax rates.
I think Finland is about to try it, and Switzerland is having a referendum on it. If it works for them, I think we should give it a go too.
|
>Wouldn't the world be a simpler place.
Perhaps, but how would you stop each political party trying to show how they could make it that little but more comfortable for their own likely supporters? Of any spectrum.
|
>> Perhaps, but how would you stop each political party trying to show how they could
>> make it that little but more comfortable for their own likely supporters? Of any spectrum.
>>
Yes, Politicians and ingrained political allegiances and prejudices in the population at large would indeed be the biggest blocker to making this happen, and work. But that doesn't render it impossible. Anything worth doing is seldom easy.
|
>> As I said, nothing wrong with the tax.
OK, lets pretend there's nothing wrong with the principle.
What other countries, even those where an existing central database of citizens avoids problems of expense and practicality the UK had with its Community Charge Register, levy a flat rate poll tax today?
|
>> I have no idea how it works for students under Council Tax now, as that
>> was introduced after I graduated. I hope I'll find out 7 years from now, inshallah.
Full time students are disregarded for Council Tax. A houseful of students like that my son lives in pays nothing.
As Mrs B too is a full time student she is disregarded at home. I'm treated as a single occupier and get a 25% discount. Daft given our combined income but there you go.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Feb 16 at 14:40
|
I pay full rate for our main home, and get a whopping 10% discount for our cottage in the Borders (where our bin goes out probably every 6 weeks and where our children don't go to school).
Fortunately the cottage has a septic tank so there is no sewerage charge (other than £250 split 3 ways every 2-3 years to have it 'de-sludged')
|
I seem to remember reading at the time that students only had to pay 20% of the charge.
I wonder how much many students spent on beer.
I suspect more a case of not wanting to pay, rather that couldn't pay.
|
They started the tax in Scotland as faraway from the Tory hartland they could get.
One thing about the Scots they are not stupid.So anything going wrong the Scots could deal with it.It did go wrong people just didn't pay and went on the move.
There is always a bright spark somewhere thinking of silly things to get on.This was one of them the polltax.What about taxing the likes of Google or any other multinational who operate in the U.K to pay their fair share which they don't.Just my opinion for what it is worth.
|
Ok Dutchie, so help me understand.
What was actually wrong with the "poll tax"?
And the Scots are as stupid or as not-stupid as anyone else in the UK. There's no concentration of intelligence or stupidity. (Well, except down the bottom of the High Street in Ammanford).
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 23:56
|
Hahaha...my wife has family there !
|
Then you know just what I mean. In the holidays I was dispatched to Ammanford to stay with my Auntie Let and Uncle Thomas John. Not a word of English for the whole holiday.
Dodgy lot down the bottom, with their running water and inside toilets and their English ways.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 00:11
|
What was wrong with the poll tax/community charge?
Nothing in essence if you looked at it purely from a 'you voted for us, so this is how we will redistribute the wealth, and if you don't like it you can vote us back out again' line.
But....
It was easy to avoid by disappearing from the voters role and could be seen as back-door gerrymandering by getting the poor (read: non-Tory voters) away from the ballot box.
It was more expensive and far less efficient than property based local taxes to collect.
The Tories knew this before they implemented it.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 01:58
|
>> It was easy to avoid by disappearing from the voters role and could be seen
>> as back-door gerrymandering by getting the poor (read: non-Tory voters) away from the ballot >> box.
Very one sided opinion
It was an effort to make everybody responsible for the council they got. If you lived in a property and were of suitable age you paid community charge.
>> It was more expensive and far less efficient than property based local taxes to collect.
again very one sided opinion far fairer to have 4 adults paying in a house paying more than the one old lady living next door in the same sized house and using far less local services
Can't see any difference in efficiency of collection, if anything it is easier to assess and collect tax from an individual than a house with multiple variations in occupancy and demand on council services
>>
>> The Tories knew this before they implemented it.
>>
we obviously inhabit different political spaces and have different opinions.
|
>> Can't see any difference in efficiency of collection, if anything it is easier to
>> assess and collect tax from an individual than a house with multiple variations in occupancy
>> and demand on council services
The Achilles Heel of the Community Charge, apart from the perception/reality of unfairness, was that in the real world collection was of nightmarish complexity -and therefore expense.
OK, probably straightforward in rural/small town but in a University city or a London Borough with a constantly shifting tenants it was very easy for an individual to fall through the net - whether wilfully or not. I know Wikipedia is not a source but en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge gives a reasonable account.
Ironically, Social Media etc means it's now easier to trace people and some Councils have revisited records of Community Charge liability orders and sent in debt collectors.
Property on the other hand is a cinch to tax - it ain't going anywhere. Set a rate of charge for the occupier based on value with easements for a few simple and provable exemptions (single occupancy, Students etc) together with relief or low incomes and the job is done.
>> >> The Tories knew this before they implemented it.
>> >>
>>
>> we obviously inhabit different political spaces and have different opinions.
It's not a matter of opinion. Government papers in the public domain and the memoirs of Thatcher era Ministers make the warnings given crystal clear.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 31 Jan 16 at 19:50
|
>> It was easy to avoid by disappearing from the voters role and could be seen
>> as back-door gerrymandering by getting the poor (read: non-Tory voters) away from the ballot box.
It wasn't a problem for anyone to register to vote...as long as they paid their way. Those that chose not to, couldn't register to vote, which is fine by me.
The poor or students etc were given far lower levels to pay.
|
>> What was wrong with the Poll Tax?.....
>> I don't think I ever managed to work out what else was wrong with it.
>>
another example of a sensible principle badly implemented
|
>> >> What was wrong with the Poll Tax?.....
>> >> I don't think I ever managed to work out what else was wrong with
>> it.
>> >>
>> another example of a sensible principle badly implemented
It is a very sensible way of apportioning taxes at a local level where per head spending is prevalent and per head taxation is appropriate.
Much more difficult too implement than it looks, as there are myriad ways for tax avoidance, albeit at the risk of exclusion from the levers and benefits of society. The exclusion was seized on by opponents, the benefits not explained by those proposing it. And I mean not even an attempt, however pathetic, to explain the benefits or justify it.
One of Maggies failings was her apparent overbearing, bullying, dismissive demeanour, which was her fall back position when challenged. The "poll" tax was a classic example of her failings exploited, and it cost her her job.
She had run her course tho, job done, no need for her.
|
>> If the partner is violent and controlling he isn't going to stop and let the
>> victim go and lock herself in, is he? I find it hard to believe that
>> there are more than a handful of these, if any.
That's not the scenario. Safe rooms are used where the perp is away but is deemed a continuing threat. The usual safeguards in terms of injunctions etc will also be in place. She can retreat to it if he returns.
I'd urge anyone questioning this woman's circumstances to read the first few pages of the judgement - linked upthread.
|
>> That's not the scenario. Safe rooms are used where the perp is away but is
>> deemed a continuing threat. The usual safeguards in terms of injunctions etc will also be
>> in place. She can retreat to it if he returns.
>>
>> I'd urge anyone questioning this woman's circumstances to read the first few pages of the
>> judgement - linked upthread.
And I'd urge you to consider why it has to be a separate room.
|
>> And I'd urge you to consider why it has to be a separate room.
If you read other's contributions to this thread it's pretty clear. The technical requirements of a true safe room are not, or not always, compatible with it also being a bedroom or bathroom.
Probably also true that in this case the room pre-dated the bedroom tax. Do you move her to a different property and incur cost of another safe room there?
|
>> And I'd urge you to consider why it has to be a separate room.
Right, I've now had time to look at the government guidance on sanctuary rooms which Lygonos found for us.
As might be expected there are rigorous specifications for doors - double locks proof against key duplication, fireproof, viewer etc. Room also needs to be secured against access from roof void (and presumably via adjoining rooms too).
IN particular the document states - It is important to note that Sanctuary doors are not suitable for stud partition walls.
Also needs straightforward escape in case of fire so preferably not above first floor and at front for fast access by fire service.
If the master bedroom (preferred) or bathroom meet those criteria then fine. If not then another room can be used, as was presumably case here.
While there are (single number) thousands of Sanctuary Rooms in country only around 300 are affected by the bedroom tax.
|
>> why do the 'righty tighties' think it's OK to utterly disregard any sense of dignity for social housing tenants; the you don't own it so we can kick you around at will theory? <<
It's worse than that Bormp.
They think all CH tenants are on benefits, don't want to work, own all the latest gadgets paid for by the state and wear shell suits.
The really hard thing is 'they' will never get a reality check because they'll never dare venture near one to find the truth.
Pat
|
There should be a levy on all house sales or that Stamp Duty is put aside for the building of social housing in the locality every time a property is sold.
I'm not against the selling of council houses in general, the money raised should have been used to build a replacement, modern, and energy efficient property.
|
Certainly public owned land should not be sold for private housing development and ring fencing stamp duty for public house building is a good idea, but there is and has always been fierce opposition to hypothecation of taxes by HM gov. You can understand why.
Even the victims surcharge in court does not go to victims. Which is annoying when you are knicked for something that has no victim.
|
>> Certainly public owned land should not be sold for private housing development
interesting, that links back to the thread about mod land. Very popular either excess quarters or bases to be sold for property development. It brings in top dollar. Question is if we don't sell it i that, who do we sell it to?
|
>> >> Certainly public owned land should not be sold for private housing development
>>
>> interesting, that links back to the thread about mod land. Very popular either excess quarters
>> or bases to be sold for property development. It brings in top dollar. Question is
>> if we don't sell it i that, who do we sell it to?
Loads of ideas.
1/ HM gov pays developer to build houses for social housing on MOD land.
2/ HM gov puts clause in sale of land contract that 50% of housing turned over to local authority
3/ HM gov bundles up land sales, buy x plot in poshville, you build what you want, you also get y plot in scrubsville and you build social housing
As far as MOD land sales go, one wonders why they need hundreds of thousands of acres of open plains resembling Germany, where they practise tank battles, when we know there will never ever be a tank war in Germany. Its about time the likes of Tyneham were returned to their owners, or rebuilt as villages and hamlets.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 09:19
|
> 1/ HM gov pays developer to build houses for social housing on MOD land.
2/ HM gov puts clause in sale of land contract that 50% of housing turned over to local authority
>> 3/ HM gov bundles up land sales, buy x plot in poshville, you build what you want, you also get y plot in scrubsville and you build social housing
Could work yes, but govs don't seem too keen on that. Would work on land salesfor new builds, but not for excess quarters.
>> As far as MOD land sales go, one wonders why they need hundreds of thousands of acres of open plains resembling Germany, where they practise tank battles, when we know there will never ever be a tank war in Germany. Its about time the likes of Tyneham were returned to their owners, or rebuilt as villages and hamlets.
I don't think there's that much land more like a few thousand at Lulworth. Across the whole mod I'm not sure for tank ranges. As to why it looks like Germany, well they were built to look like where they would fight. Some have been built to look like afghan villages. As to why they need that amount of space, that form of warfare needs large amount of space. Its the hardest skill to keep current in and relearn. The nature of the training means they need plenty of space.
|
>> I don't think there's that much land more like a few thousand at Lulworth. Across
>> the whole mod I'm not sure for tank ranges. As to why it looks like
>> Germany, well they were built to look like where they would fight.
Yes indeed, and we know that a: the army is losing its tanks and b:there will never be a tank war in Germany. Its not just the dorset coast ranges, there is most of salisbury plain, and other similar large areas dotted across the countryside.
>>Some have been
>> built to look like afghan villages.
Have you noticed one thing about afghan villages? they are not very big, and they don't look like salisbury plain or tyneham.
As to why they need that amount of space,
>> that form of warfare needs large amount of space. Its the hardest skill to keep
>> current in and relearn. The nature of the training means they need plenty of space.
A wide area fast moving tank war across vast european plains is not going to happen. Our last large area wide ranging tank wars have been in the desert.. We dont have a desert.
|
Yes indeed, and we know that a: the army is losing its tanks and b:there will never be a tank war in Germany. Its not just the dorset coast ranges, there is most of salisbury plain, and other similar large areas dotted across the countryside.
The size of the tank fleet is pretty steady, they are just upgrading them in fact.
>>
>> >>Some have been
>> >> built to look like afghan villages.
>>
>> Have you noticed one thing about afghan villages? they are not very big, and they don't look like salisbury plain or tyneham.
I never said they were big merely explaining as to why they look the way they do.
>>
As to why they need that amount of space, that form of warfare needs large amount of space. Its the hardest skill to keep current in and relearn. The nature of the training means they need plenty of space.
>>
>> A wide area fast moving tank war across vast european plains is not going to happen. Our last large area wide ranging tank wars have been in the desert.. We dont have a desert.
>>
A lot of the principals are the same in the sense that it's wide open. There are specifics to the desert. However lots of useful training can be gained from training in those places in the UK without having to decamp to the desert.
|
>> A lot of the principals are the same in the sense that it's wide open.
>> There are specifics to the desert. However lots of useful training can be gained from
>> training in those places in the UK without having to decamp to the desert.
Is that why the filters clogged with sand and made them unreliable for most of desert storm?
|
A lot of the principals are the same in the sense that it's wide open. There are specifics to the desert. However lots of useful training can be gained from training in those places in the UK without having to decamp to the desert.
>>
>>
>> Is that why the filters clogged with sand and made them unreliable for most of desert storm?
>>
Is what why the filters got clogged? Not really sure what you mean?
|
>> The nature of the training means they need plenty of space.
>>
Training is important in many fields of varied or skilled emplyment. In my bit of the military we used many different simulators. Nuclear reactor, missile control, ship control, (like a flight simulator) and torpedo attack simulators. All very accurate simulations for practising emergency or fighting procedures in safety. Vast space not required but several big buildings in various locations.
|
>> >> The nature of the training means they need plenty of space.
>> >>
>>
>> Training is important in many fields of varied or skilled emplyment. In my bit of
>> the military we used many different simulators. Nuclear reactor, missile control, ship control, (like a
>> flight simulator) and torpedo attack simulators. All very accurate simulations for practising emergency or fighting
>> procedures in safety. Vast space not required but several big buildings in various locations.
>
But you did have the worlds oceans to practise in. Specially Russias bit.
|
>> But you did have the worlds oceans to practise in. Specially Russias bit.
>>
We did that too, but with two crewed submarines you need to keep the "off" crew up to speed. Simulators may be expensive but way cheaper and safer than breaking a nuclear submarine and you can go home for tea. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 29 Jan 16 at 10:46
|
>> >> But you did have the worlds oceans to practise in. Specially Russias bit.
>> >>
>>
>> We did that too, but with two crewed submarines you need to keep the "off"
>> crew up to speed. Simulators may be expensive but way cheaper and safer than breaking
>> a nuclear submarine and you can go home for tea. :-)
Have they plotted the Isle of Skye into the simulator yet?
|
>> Have they plotted the Isle of Skye into the simulator yet?
>>
Ship control and navigation are different skills, I am not aware of a navigation simulator.
|
. Vast space not required but several big buildings in various locations.
>>
For some training absolutely yes and it's increasing it can't however replicate everything.
|
>> They think all CH tenants are on benefits, don't want to work, own all the
>> latest gadgets paid for by the state and wear shell suits.
Pat, who are "they"
As I said above virtually all the cases the media push (from both directions) are the ones on benefit as it makes more of a story either way.
A good many people on here spent a long time living in council houses and understand the difference well
|
My mate is director of a small company near Reading and they have a unit on a small industrial estate. It's kind of like a warehouse but a not-very-full one, with offices above.
Out of the blue the nearby police training facility people contacted him asking if they could use the warehouse bit for training. They've been back twice now, half a dozen or so of them at a time. He has no idea what they get up to but they seem quite happy to accept his tea and biscuits and not pay him anything...
All very mysterious...
|
All very mysterious... once upon a time it would have been CID hardcore films. What do they do nowadays?
Perhaps he should install a covert wifi camera?
|
>> All very mysterious... once upon a time it would have been CID hardcore films. What
>> do they do nowadays?
I once had some acquaintances in the Northants Police canine unit. Used go on training sessions with them, and they used to have tame warehouses where they would do training searches. Drugs, Arms, general contraband, and explosives.
They came away once leaving some explosives behind......
|
>>They think all CH tenants are on benefits, don't want to work, own all the latest gadgets paid for by the state and wear shell suits.
Usually the ones that make it into the media. Stories about nice, decent people leading ordinary decent lives don't make good tabloid fodder, unfortunately.
However, it is a world I know and whilst the word "all" may be inappropriate, the word "some" would work. And there are far, far more than there should be.
|
>> They think all CH tenants are on benefits, don't want to work, own all the
>> latest gadgets paid for by the state and wear shell suits.
>>
>> The really hard thing is 'they' will never get a reality check because they'll never
>> dare venture near one to find the truth.
I think the term 'right tighty' would well fit me.... and I've been vocal on here about cost savings and having social housing occupied only by those that need it...
...yet...my father lived in council property for a good 10 years when I was about 14-24 years old and he still lives in an ex one now, albeit he bought it from people who owned it.
When my mother fell out with my step father when I was aged 14, we moved from a very large house to a very small housing association place, the equivalent of council accommodation and stayed there for 2 years.
So I think I have the 'reality check' needed to comment..and my views remain exactly the same.
I also think some of the best 'salt of the earth', decent, honest people I've ever met live in council estates... amongst (occasionally) some truly awful pieces of crap.. and some whose need has moved on and who really ought to be sorting themselves out and leaving that accommodation for those that NEED it.
|
Council estates have in general a bad name in the U.K which is wrong.I remember selling a car to a chap from a so called rough estate in Hull.
I took the car to his house and what a lovely couple to talk to.Also upsetting he had one room as a shrine to his son which he lost in a motorcycle accident.His son travelling through Europe lost his live near the Humber Bridge not far from home.His wife made me a cup of tea and told me about her husband not be able to move on.Their council house was spotless.It is the way some of these estates are build very soulless and dull.I wonder the architects and councils who design these places know what they are doing.
|
>> of these estates are build very soulless and dull.I wonder the architects and councils who
>> design these places know what they are doing.
Oh right, so you want your social housing stylish as well as cheap?
|
>>these estates are build very soulless and dull.
They're certainly not all soulless and dull. The two estates that I visit regularly were clearly well planned, with generous sized properties and plenty of green open space that you would be lucky to find on many private developments built over the last ten years or so.
|
>> and leaving that accommodation for those that NEED it.
Like Bob Crow.
|
>> Like Bob Crow.
Don't think he has a council flat now.......
|
|
No, he doesn't, but I bet his bit on the side is still living there tho, on his 50k a year RMT pension.
|
>> >> Like Bob Crow.
>>
>> Don't think he has a council flat now.......
>>
Bet you he is warmer where he is rather than a UK winter!
|
|
Is it a tax or a subsidy?
|
>> Is it a tax or a subsidy?
We've had 167 posts on the subject and opinion is still split.
|
It is not a tax.
It is not a subsidy.
It is a reduction in housing benefit (paid from tax receipts, not a Government Magic Money Tree) designed to reflect the calculated sleeping needs of the benefit's recipients.
The fact that there are absolutely not enough dwellings available, with fewer bedrooms to meet the demand for those calculated needs, shows what a crock of s*** civil servants can produce under political pressure.
|
Bedroom Tax - Bromptonaut
