Mr1chop Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Mrchop1 Surely those that can afford to buy privately should do so, leaving the council houses for people who cant afford to buy privately & therefore need them! Yes and they do that’s why most people who live on council estates are HONEST LAW ABIDING CITOZENS. Sometime I shake my head in disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherof2 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Most of them have their fair share of specimens but IMO Winn Gardens has to be one of the worst, I have never seen so many inbred knuckle dragging neaderthals on one small estate in all my life. Thank you, I lived on Winn Gardens for 16 years from the age of 4 and certainly do not class myself as a neanderthal. Try sticking to words you know the meaning of and are able to spell correctly! I am now 36 years old with a degree & a successful business to my name surely not bad for a inbred!!! In the future don't judge everyone purely on a post code! Just out of interest what you have done to justify being a judge of others?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrietta Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Low Edges Low Edges.. another example of an estate that in its beginnings, was desirable and not easy to move onto.. then the council began using it as a sink estate! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon51 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Seems everyone is looking for someone to blame for the council estates being such scum magnets. It is obviously the council to blame for allowing the scum to live there and contaminate the place in the first place. The same council who are letting the decent people down by allowing it to happen. The occupants aren't the ones turning once-picturesque areas into dumps. The council decide who lives there and who doesn't. And they are only too keen to accommodate the lowlife. The question asked in this thread should be; "Who is responsible for turning the worst estates into what they are?" And the answer would be, unarguably; "The council who are responsible for said estates." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Seems everyone is looking for someone to blame for the council estates being such scum magnets. It is obviously the council to blame for allowing the scum to live there and contaminate the place in the first place. The same council who are letting the decent people down by allowing it to happen. The occupants aren't the ones turning once-picturesque areas into dumps. The council decide who lives there and who doesn't. And they are only too keen to accommodate the lowlife. The question asked in this thread should be; "Who is responsible for turning the worst estates into what they are?" And the answer would be, unarguably; "The council who are responsible for said estates." Go to most estates, and people will say 'the council PUT these people here'. Its almost like they believe the council hold a personal grudge against an area? Before the current systems of bidding on properties, people normally decided themselves which areas they wanted. Many of the problems on council estates reflect what is happening in society. Not so long ago there wasn't the anti social behaviour we see now, people looked after their homes and their gardens and considered getting a house from the council as a privilege, not a right. House ownership has increased a lot in the last 20 years (now around 70% of homes are owner occupied), so on some council estates you get an over concentration of people who are long term unemployed, and people with social and mental health problems. Some people who have never earned a living don't value their home as they don't have to make any effort to pay for it (full housing & council tax benefit) - so don't take any pride in looking after it. People with mental health issues may not realise that they are causing a nuisance, or acting inappropriately - but they don't always get the support they need to maintain their tenancy without upsetting neighbours. Care in the Community? Then there are the uncontrolled/unparented children - who cause a lot of upset by generally having little respect for their environment, and cause low level vandalism, and generally make people feel uncomfortable. There are often quite a lot of elderly tenants, who have lived in an area for many years and now feel trapped by the downward spiral of the standards around them. Taking action against tenants is a slow process, and if a family is evicted, there is often a duty on the council to rehouse them somewhere else. I really don't think that 'the council' can be blamed for the way some people choose to live. Look what happens when they do take action - people go to the Star - remember the tenant who wouldn't tidy her garden (probably cos it involved some physical effort), and the mother and son who are being forced to do a clean up. They think the council are monsters for wanting them to keep their homes clean and tidy! The government have tried lots of different approaches, the latest one being to build houses for sale amongst social rented properties, to try and bring different people and more money into areas, and hopefully dilute the problems. Give it a few years and we'll know if it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon51 Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Go to most estates, and people will say 'the council PUT these people here'. Its almost like they believe the council hold a personal grudge against an area? Before the current systems of bidding on properties, people normally decided themselves which areas they wanted. Many of the problems on council estates reflect what is happening in society. Not so long ago there wasn't the anti social behaviour we see now, people looked after their homes and their gardens and considered getting a house from the council as a privilege, not a right. House ownership has increased a lot in the last 20 years (now around 70% of homes are owner occupied), so on some council estates you get an over concentration of people who are long term unemployed, and people with social and mental health problems. Some people who have never earned a living don't value their home as they don't have to make any effort to pay for it (full housing & council tax benefit) - so don't take any pride in looking after it. People with mental health issues may not realise that they are causing a nuisance, or acting inappropriately - but they don't always get the support they need to maintain their tenancy without upsetting neighbours. Care in the Community? Then there are the uncontrolled/unparented children - who cause a lot of upset by generally having little respect for their environment, and cause low level vandalism, and generally make people feel uncomfortable. There are often quite a lot of elderly tenants, who have lived in an area for many years and now feel trapped by the downward spiral of the standards around them. Taking action against tenants is a slow process, and if a family is evicted, there is often a duty on the council to rehouse them somewhere else. I really don't think that 'the council' can be blamed for the way some people choose to live. Look what happens when they do take action - people go to the Star - remember the tenant who wouldn't tidy her garden (probably cos it involved some physical effort), and the mother and son who are being forced to do a clean up. They think the council are monsters for wanting them to keep their homes clean and tidy! The government have tried lots of different approaches, the latest one being to build houses for sale amongst social rented properties, to try and bring different people and more money into areas, and hopefully dilute the problems. Give it a few years and we'll know if it works. The council, being the landlord, is ultimately responsible for the type of people who they knowingly rent property to. If the council insist that a family of 'known' dregs be housed on a certain road, amongst decent people, then the council are responsible for them being there, and the standards on that road going downhill. It may be a bit of a problem for the council what to do with these scum, but it certainly doesn't help the decent folk, who couldn't give a monkeys what happens to the scum, when they are moved onto decent areas to drag them down to their subhuman levels. Irrespective of how much difficulty these idiots pose for the council, they still remain the council's problem and the decent folk shouldn't have to put up with them within 10 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrietta Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 ..scum.. idiots.. the council's problem.. decent folk Yes, but these are still people who still need somewhere to live - what do you propose, shove them in a hessian sack out ont'moors?? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The council, being the landlord, is ultimately responsible for the type of people who they knowingly rent property to. If the council insist that a family of 'known' dregs be housed on a certain road, amongst decent people, then the council are responsible for them being there, and the standards on that road going downhill. It may be a bit of a problem for the council what to do with these scum, but it certainly doesn't help the decent folk, who couldn't give a monkeys what happens to the scum, when they are moved onto decent areas to drag them down to their subhuman levels. Irrespective of how much difficulty these idiots pose for the council, they still remain the council's problem and the decent folk shouldn't have to put up with them within 10 miles. I agree with you about decent families having to put up with 'tenants from hell', but you don't seem to accept that the government make the rules and councils are bound by them. Over the last 30 years less and less 'good families' have chosen council housing, so the problems become concentrated - I don't think thats so difficult to understand? 20/30 years ago there weren't teams working in housing specifically to deal with anti social behaviour - local police and the community kept things in check. What is happening on estates is a reflection of what is happening in society - there are threads on here about vandalism, bad behaviour on public transport, muggings, bad parenting, and neighbour nuisance. Can I just stress, the council don't look at an area and think - there are nice people there, lets put a real low life family in the middle just to upset everyone! It all comes down to the people that have to be rehoused, and where there is available housing. Lastly, as Henrietta says - where do you propose 'these people' live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Low Edges.. another example of an estate that in its beginnings, was desirable and not easy to move onto.. then the council began using it as a sink estate! . Places become 'sink' estates because of concentrations of problems. The council doesn't suddenly make a decision that its not worth bothering about. If the majority of people who have good jobs, are responsible parents and look after their homes don't want council housing - it means that there will a higher percentage of people without jobs, in dysfunctional families and with a range of social problems living in social housing. All the 'decent' tenants living there feel they are being dumped on. But as you state in a later post, where should 'bad' tenants be rehoused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krooner Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Yes, but these are still people who still need somewhere to live - what do you propose, shove them in a hessian sack out ont'moors?? . Hmm. Now that's an idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.