Jump to content

Mhk In Local Authority Housing?


buzzbuzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tell you what, instead of raising taxes why not just ensure completely that the weak, vulnerable people who are genuinely in need of help are taken care of and the piss taking tw**s get feck all by creating work schemes so that they are contributing to the society they take from rather than banging out tribes feral children who merely repeat the cycle a majority of the time ......cue LDV

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sums you up exactly Matt,job creation in government and you have a scutch of kids.

I can assure you macmannin I would've been a lot wealthier if I'd stayed in the private sector but I made my choices and I am happy enough with them, I'd hardly call 3 children a scutch along with the fact that my 3 siblings only have 2 children between them so I think things balance out.

 

I've no idea why you have umbrage with me personally, I can only assume that you wish to be like me but fail at every hurdle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He can retire at the next election.

He could retire now if he wasn't so greedy.

 

Really? I am quite amazed at the forums posters intimate knowledge of Mr Singers personal financial situation.

 

How can anyone say he is worth x, y or z and then slag him because of that when in reality, we know nothing about his circumstances. For example all these flats he is supposed to own, how do we know that they are not all subject to second/ third mortgages and costing more per month than they generate in rent?

 

I have, as others have said, found him a pretty straight type of person and not someone who would do anything by using his status to jump lists or the like.

 

The only thing that I dont like, is seeing him as an MHK, working weekends at Lloyd's chemists. I dont think MHKs should do anything other than their job.

 

Having said that, why would anyone, who earns a wage as an MHK and who is not exactly a spring chicken, work at weekends?

 

Unless they really needed the money?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience most driven people don't need money - they want it. To them financial success is a measure of their worth and vindication of their other failings as humans.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

He can retire at the next election.

He could retire now if he wasn't so greedy.

 

Really? I am quite amazed at the forums posters intimate knowledge of Mr Singers personal financial situation.

 

How can anyone say he is worth x, y or z and then slag him because of that when in reality, we know nothing about his circumstances. For example all these flats he is supposed to own, how do we know that they are not all subject to second/ third mortgages and costing more per month than they generate in rent?

 

I have, as others have said, found him a pretty straight type of person and not someone who would do anything by using his status to jump lists or the like.

 

The only thing that I dont like, is seeing him as an MHK, working weekends at Lloyd's chemists. I dont think MHKs should do anything other than their job.

 

Having said that, why would anyone, who earns a wage as an MHK and who is not exactly a spring chicken, work at weekends?

 

Unless they really needed the money?

 

So he works in Lloyds Chemists at the weekend, he also earns £50,000 as an MHK, and he's 5 years over state pension age so he gets his state pension and potentially other private pensions as well - but you don't think people should be making assumptions or digging into his financial affairs?

 

He comes across as a greedy twat, and likely IS a greedy twat who should be explaining himself to the people who voted him in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

more likely that he'll sit on his arse and do nothing until his term of office ends. The man is clearly interested only in the money and despite the calls there is absolutely no chance of him foregoing another 3 years + income as an MHK even if he is despised and achieves nothing - then again he was like that before he got relected......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Really? I am quite amazed at the forums posters intimate knowledge of Mr Singers personal financial situation.

 

How can anyone say he is worth x, y or z and then slag him because of that when in reality, we know nothing about his circumstances. For example all these flats he is supposed to own, how do we know that they are not all subject to second/ third mortgages and costing more per month than they generate in rent?

 

I have, as others have said, found him a pretty straight type of person and not someone who would do anything by using his status to jump lists or the like.

 

The only thing that I dont like, is seeing him as an MHK, working weekends at Lloyd's chemists. I dont think MHKs should do anything other than their job.

 

Having said that, why would anyone, who earns a wage as an MHK and who is not exactly a spring chicken, work at weekends?

 

Unless they really needed the money?

 

Because he's Jewish? Lol.

 

1) Let's look at the facts. LS is paid £50k pa out of the taxpayer's pocket, a salary that an awful lot of those taxpayers can only dream about.

 

2) He now additionally wants to move into taxpayer subsidised housing, paying a relatively peppercorn rent out of his salary.

 

3) He apparently has access to the benefits of ownership of a portfolio of property.

 

Technically he may be well within his rights. Morally he's completely out of order, this accommodation should be reserved for pensioners/retirees of far more modest means.

 

Problem is, there's a House on Prospect Hill that's full of this sort of atttitude of entitlement.......

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? I am quite amazed at the forums posters intimate knowledge of Mr Singers personal financial situation.

 

How can anyone say he is worth x, y or z and then slag him because of that when in reality, we know nothing about his circumstances. For example all these flats he is supposed to own, how do we know that they are not all subject to second/ third mortgages and costing more per month than they generate in rent?

 

I have, as others have said, found him a pretty straight type of person and not someone who would do anything by using his status to jump lists or the like.

 

The only thing that I dont like, is seeing him as an MHK, working weekends at Lloyd's chemists. I dont think MHKs should do anything other than their job.

 

Having said that, why would anyone, who earns a wage as an MHK and who is not exactly a spring chicken, work at weekends?

 

Unless they really needed the money?

 

Because he's Jewish? Lol.

 

1) Let's look at the facts. LS is paid £50k pa out of the taxpayer's pocket, a salary that an awful lot of those taxpayers can only dream about.

 

2) He now additionally wants to move into taxpayer subsidised housing, paying a relatively peppercorn rent out of his salary.

 

3) He apparently has access to the benefits of ownership of a portfolio of property.

 

Technically he may be well within his rights. Morally he's completely out of order, this accommodation should be reserved for pensioners/retirees of far more modest means.

 

Problem is, there's a House on Prospect Hill that's full of this sort of atttitude of entitlement.......

 

i like Mr Singer, but I agree

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointed by the virulent (and an antisemitic) rants on this forum. If this was hosted in England one or two of the posters would be in handcuffs by now. Sheltered housing is not for pensioners, or for retirees, or for poor people, or for rich people. It is for anyone who meets all the criteria (medical and financial) and who waits his/her turn on the list until the accommodation becomes available. It is not means-tested nor was ever meant to be. The Independent story explained all this fully and concluded there was nothing to see here, then front-paged the story as though something crooked was nevertheless going on and editorialised it shamefully. Yellow journalism distracting attention from the real villains in Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointed by the virulent (and an antisemitic) rants on this forum. If this was hosted in England one or two of the posters would be in handcuffs by now. Sheltered housing is not for pensioners, or for retirees, or for poor people, or for rich people. It is for anyone who meets all the criteria (medical and financial) and who waits his/her turn on the list until the accommodation becomes available. It is not means-tested nor was ever meant to be. The Independent story explained all this fully and concluded there was nothing to see here, then front-paged the story as though something crooked was nevertheless going on and editorialised it shamefully. Yellow journalism distracting attention from the real villains in Parliament.

 

Agreed. The antisemitic sentiments displayed anonomously by some of the cowardly posters in this thread are completely disgusting and I would think bordering on the illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...