On Mar 30, 7:40*am, RJH wrote:
On 28/03/2013 07:46, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 7:25 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 00:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article ,
* * *bert ] wrote:
Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for..

Feel free to appropriate the word 'socialist' and make it your own ;-)

And you'd be happy living next door to a permanently empty house?

better that than full of people who have it handed to them on a plate
and spend the next ten years destroying it.

As my niece remarked before she emigrated 'you can tell whose on social
housing: curtains drawn till midday, three Sky dishes on the walls,
garden has 4 ft high grass cot its never mown, and there are plastic
toys and old washing machines in it all year round'

All true these days. Filled with idle scum.

Amazing. We have over 3 million social (state/HA) homes in the UK *-
almost 1 in 5. The vast majority are well cared for and (literally) of a
decent standard, with void rates well below the private sector, let
securely on something approaching affordable rates.

I've met many hundreds of tenants (as a housing worker), most
unemployed, and never met a single one who didn't want a job.

When I worked in an FE college in Hackney (1995-2005) we used to get
100+ students on the housing courses alone - almost all unemployed and
living in local council housing, desperate for a job. Almost all women,
too, curiously.


Well in the recent past there was work for all until socialists
destroyed the economy/society.
Insofar as Bliar/Brown can be called socialists.

But even then there were the idle sat in their council houses on
benefits.

There is still lots of seasonal work where I live picking fruit/
vegetables.
But I don't suppose these buggers want to do this work?
They all want highly paid work sat in front of a computer screen. But
nothing that involves effort or a bit uncomfortable/inconvenient.