Neil Down Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said: "Mental Asylum" is not a thing anymore. You're thinking of the 80's. "I'm mental" is not the carte blanche you think it is. I'm guessing you're just knee jerking out of habit. You're not very good at this "guessing game" are you Rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, Neil Down said: You're not very good at this "guessing game" are you Rich? Well his lack of knowledge of the subject suggests otherwise. Maybe he can claim "I'm mental" instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said: Well his lack of knowledge of the subject suggests otherwise. Maybe he can claim "I'm mental" instead. I think he's already sussed that you are mental... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Neil Down said: I think he's already sussed that you are mental... No you are... (See where this childish thread is going?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 14 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: No you are... (See where this childish thread is going?) I’d give up. It was quiet for a week or so and now all the childish sniping has returned. Funny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 20 hours ago, yootalkin2me said: So, it would appear that although she's paying a paltry £20 per week back, this £20 is more than likely paid from benefits therefore we are effectively paying ourselves back for over £39k that we didn't spend: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=45371&headline=Benefit of £39k falsely claimed over 10 years&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019 I take your point, and agree it must be repaid, but it's effectively a lifetime burden for her. It may only be £20 per week but it's £20 out of not a lot for the rest of her life. That's probably the difference between going to the pub occasionally or having the odd takeaway meal and not for the rest of her life. Her lifestyle, due to repaying this money and the loss of amount she's been overclaiming will be fundamentally, and probably permanently, worse going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, Declan said: I take your point, and agree it must be repaid, but it's effectively a lifetime burden for her. It may only be £20 per week but it's £20 out of not a lot for the rest of her life. That's probably the difference between going to the pub occasionally or having the odd takeaway meal and not for the rest of her life. Her lifestyle, due to repaying this money and the loss of amount she's been overclaiming will be fundamentally, and probably permanently, worse going forward. She had every opportunity to stop in the 10 years but chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said: I’d give up. It was quiet for a week or so and now all the childish sniping has returned. Funny that. some wish you would. You have this knack of making inflammatory comments without knowing much. Look up the word "sniping" it does not relate to any comments so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Neil Down said: some wish you would. You have this knack of making inflammatory comments without knowing much. Look up the word "sniping" it does not relate to any comments so far You are literally doing what he is accusing "you" of. (slow clap) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said: You are literally doing what he is accusing "you" of. (slow clap) The irony was not lost on me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 50 minutes ago, Neil Down said: She had every opportunity to stop in the 10 years but chose not to. I think the sentence is fair. Just pointing out that it isn't a light one for the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Or the taxpayer for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 In our society, the tax payer will always have to take financial responsibility for more vulnerable persons who are part of that society and rightly so. The £ 40,000 headline cost in this case will draw the attention of those who do not think about the above but how much of that amount would ave had to be paid in Social Security payments to give this person the support that they need, maybe under a different payment scheme, to allow them to be able to survive in our society? The greatest ' crime ' here seems to be the removal of a social house from the pool of houses that could be used by those who need it were it to be have made available. Douglas Corp will have been paid their rent on this house, were they also guilty of turning a blind eye to the social security fraud? If we are to abandon our responsibilities to the vulnerable through the social security system, then we would have to accept that, in reciprocity,we may also have to accept thye non payment of, let's say, the unemployed payment to those, who for no fault of their own, find their selves out of work. In this case you could have a family of five without any money coming in to support, feed and clothe the family. Is that what we want? Or do we pay out in order to receive when 'WE' want the support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Vulnerable? Taking the piss, more like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 It shows a wanton lack of knowledge by the Corpy as to what is going on or not going on such as occupation of their properties. This is the most serious aspect of the case. People are living in expensive private flats with no chance of ever buying because of the rents and this property has been unoccupied for years which I am sure will have done it no good. Surely social housing should be inspected at least once a year so that the tenants can point out any concerns and the landlords, the Corpy, in this case can ensure the property is being kept in good order. I wonder how many properties are left empty for months on end whilst the tenants winter in warmer climes ? I am sure most tenants are decent people who have improved their homes and keep them in good order, but there will always be a few, like this person who take the Michael, she should have been chucked in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.