Neat summary of the EDF fave topics - The Times today (Lounged)

[Maurice]

I can agree with all of that. Alan you're right. Not sure what the law degree encompasses - Open Uni won't cut mustard for those contracts but others should open the doors to riches. Big difference of course between a law degree and a trained lawyer.

Yes downsouth, I agree re: the means and the means testing. I once attended a gov't meeting where a member of the public complained that she and her son downstairs paid less tax than her daughter and her new baby, who had just moved upstairs to a two bedroom.

I could only thing 'a family of four with five bedrooms'.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I love council housing.

My grandad fought for it and was a Labour councillor and Alderman of Liverpool for years. So was my Dad.

You are not means tested for council accomodation.

Everyone has a right to it, even you Maurice, but you get priority if you are homeless, are overcrowded, disabled. have kids etc.

Now that people have been buying up council properties for the last 20 odd years and hardly any have been built to replace them, there is a lot of competition to get one and a lot of acrimony directed at those who manage to become a council tenant.

Far from you subsidising council housing, the rents are collected by central government and handed out in various proportions to the councils and privately run housing associations as incentives to try to compete with the more efficient public housing sector. Some is kept by the Treasury. The money from the sale of council housing is also held by the Treasury and cannot be used to build new council housing. So in fact it is the tenants of council housing subsidising you, not the other way around.

By restricting the number of council properties with realistic rents, all you lovely people who are already on the private housing ladder, have seen your house prices go up and up and up and the private rental market has also gone through the roof, especially the smart ones who call their houses hostels, and charge ?350 per room per person to the council to house all the homeless people on their lists ... who can't get a council place.

If Central government hadn't tied the hands of the councils to give their landlord and property developer friends a leg up, the councils would have been able to build more properties, fix up the ones they have, and none of you lot would have bothered moving to East Dulwich, because property would still be seen as somewhere you live, rather than an exchangable commodity.

So you see, your arse was subsidised by us, take off our handcuffs, and we will outcompete you again.

Also, If there weren't any council tenants around here, how would you get your babies looked after, your toilets cleaned, your lawns mowed, your cars fixed, your hair cut and all the other things you pay people like me to do for you.

I could have bought my 4 bed flat in Elephant for ?15,000 in 1998, but I didn't because I felt like that would be theft. It is now valued at ?300,000 but I still feel like I did the right thing, as I was able to move to a 3 bed house when my 2 eldest kids left home.

One last thing, I studied law because I am interested in politics not money, and law is the rules to the system I want to fight. I have no wish to take the dull-as-fu(k LPC, join the restrictive Law Society or become a wage slave. My freedom is way too important to me for that, and the law degree was at Westminster Uni, not the Open Uni. It was full-time, I worked part-time as a fitness instructor, was chair of my tenants association, sat on our safer neighbourhood police panel and looked after my kids and still got a 2:1. So stop being a patronising tw@t.

[Spangles30]

You sound fab Chavvy, and have argued your case well. I personally think that there should be a mix of council tenants, so that estates aren't full of ne'er do wells. I used to live on such an estate near Loughborough Junction, so I have experienced life in posh and salubrious parts of town, and rather less salubrious parts. I very much valued the time I spent on the council estate as it gave me an insight as to how horrible life can be, esp. for kids on estates like the one I was on.

There are some really nasty ar@ses on this forum, who need to respect other people's viewpoints. I have not been nasty once on here, just possibly expressed opinions which not everyone holds. Well, tough.

[peckhamboy]

Quote: "I could have bought my 4 bed flat in Elephant for ?15,000 in 2000, but I didn't because I felt like that would be theft. It is now valued at ?300,000"

?300k for a flat in Elephant? Now, that is theft...

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

"?300k for a flat in Elephant? Now, that is theft." - I think that was the value of the 2 bed next door tho about 4 years ago, so probably more now but I totally agree!!

[downsouth]

CWALD - don't disagree with much of what you say, you have made some well argued comments that are obviously held strongly. my concern is the abuse of the system which means that a single man will never in a million years (certainly not 100) get a council flat unless there are some real issues in his life. I believe it is indirect discrimination that this is the case. There are many issues that I have against council housing but not out of first principles but more in the application and their ability tp stoke hositility in communities.

I'm glad you're proud of your status, and why ever not shouldn't you be, it is your life and your choice.

I don't agree that you have somehow subsidised my life, in fact I was paying rent for 10 years at exorbitant amounts when I could least afford it because of the choking off of council properties by the colonisation of social housing by certain groups.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Downsouth - I agree with you, but the villains are not the councils, who have a statutory duty to house the homeless and vulnerable in a dwindling housing stock which makes it much more difficult for less vulnerable people to get a tenancy.

Central government are happy when we blame each other for our woes. Divide and conquer, but we need to lift our eyes a little higher to see who is really to blame.

[Spangles30]

I delighted in living in my Loughborough Junction council flat, but to be honest barely anyone spoke English in the entire block. And very few were indigenous people who were housed there - apart from me. Perhaps charity begins at home?

[Asset]

Spangles,

Hmmm, Nasty arses? was that your first go at being nasty then? I'm assuming it was aimed at me. However the argument that we should respect your viewpoint doens't really wash. Shall we respect Robert Mugabe's viewpoints or the courts in Iran that have just sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery, should we? should we? Shall we respect the Burmese junta's viewpoints? Shall we respect the viewpoints of people who like to beat up gays? Shall we respect the viewpoints of people who think that IVF shouldn't be allowed unless you've had cancer beacause having children is a privilege and too bad if you can't? Err no personally. Normally I can be a bit more considered in my posts, but quite frankly after reading what you said that was how I felt at the time. Awfully sorry if I offended you.

[Spangles30]

Asset, there are too many unwanted kids as it is. Just adopt. Your analogies are frankly pathetic. They speak more about your lack of argument. My views are based on the fact that we also live in an overpopulated world. I accept your apology, however. How are the quadruplets doing?

[talfourd]

I'm in with Asset, I don't really think you can beg for tolerance when preaching your sanctimonious opinions on this forum, how can you realistically expect this to not upset some people? What would you expect people to think and say if you were preaching the pros of ethnic cleansing, even if you weren't "being nasty" in your delivery, only your content? Your neo conservatist fascism, backed up with a dubious half-hearted religious veneer was extremely offensive. I think this should be the end of the matter.

Apologies to other forum users for my strong feelings on this matter.

[Spangles30]

Beg for tolerance? Sanctimonious? What the f@ck are you on about? And again, your analogies are pathetic. I was asked my opinion, didn't give it voluntarily, and if you didn't like it? Do I care? In short, No.

[Spangles30]

So what if I am against it (IVF)? It is not an illness to be infertile. So anaolgies with kidney transplants etc. are equally as invalid. The IVF procedure involves giving huge amounts of artificial hormones and has a great potential for harming unborn babies. Just check out the medical books (and I should know) and you will see the research is overwhelming. Is it fair to bring a child into the world who has a higher incidence of illness because they were conceived in this way? No, it is selfish.

It must be heartbreaking to find you can't have children, but it is also hard to deal with broodiness when you have kids.

So many messed-up kids stay in troubled families until they are unadoptable; infant adoption would be so much better for them, and for childless couples.

[katgod]

-- moved topic --

[SeanMacGabhann]

Moved to the Lounge as it has been off-topic for quite a while

[Asset]

So our arguments are weak? Your argument that one should adopt due to too many unwanted children surely carries over to natural conception too. How many kids have you adopted?

So what if you are against it? Fair enough. It's the reasons you are against it that are slightly bizarre.

However you have now intimated that you are a medical expert so we should bow to your superior knowledge I suppose.

[SeanMacGabhann]

As to what the thread has turned into - hmm social housing OR IVF?

(I have just typed opinions on both but have just removed them until I find a better way of expressing it - I don't want to fan any further flames)

Next...

[Keef]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As to what the thread has turned into - hmm social

> housing OR IVF?

>

> (I have just typed opinions on both but have just

> removed them until I find a better way of

> expressing it - I don't want to fan any further

> flames)

>

> Next...

Yeah I was all ready to jump in to the council housing bit, then read back from the start and now I'm confused.

I do want to say though that despite the fact I completely disagree with Spangles viewpoint, I don't think she's been nasty. I disagree with her, but I'll sleep well tonight knowing that she has her opinions... I won't be so restfull over courts in Iran or Robert Mugabe!

Anyway, I'll shut up and go back to the football thread, I know what I'm talking about there.

[Maurice]

Wow. All over the map.

Should Council tenants be allowed IVF?

[*Bob*]

A good few council tenants don't seem to be lacking in the fertility department..

[Bellenden Belle]

I think this is becoming a really awful thread to read. But its interesting how two very controversial points have been argued on here. CWALD has argued her corner on social housing with poise and even if I disagree with some of her points I absolutely respect her eloquence and her willingness to engage us with her arguments.

Spangles on the other hand has laced each posting with a tone that shows absolute contempt for many of us and she clearly has real issues with East Dulwich in general and deeply held prejudices about many who live here.

Ultimately this is a community forum. Communities can comfortably hold many different beliefs and ways of life - its what makes them alive and vibrant. But there has to be a starting point of respect for everyone as individuals first. Instead Spangles I think you see everyone on this forum as a mass gathering of some concept you hate. A belief you can continue to hold as you battle against us in cyberspace.

In the end a fight on a forum can get the adrenlin going and can be quite satisfying in the short term. But learning to be part of a community can be far more rewarding - a thought you might like to carry with you to Forest Hill.

I think Catholics have a similar phrase - love thy neighbour?

[Maurice]

I believe success in the one topic provides you more space in the other.

[Maurice]

Yes. Let's all be more Catholic.

[talfourd]

Nicely summed up Asset, quite how have you striven to ease world over-population?

Spangle, it was your variable religious logic that was grossly offensive to my intellegence. That there were circumstances where you deemed it appropriate to resort to IVF, despite the selfishness of wishing to bear a child with hightened risks to it, e.g. if you were unlucky enough to have had cancer. I freely acknowledge that you are entitled to have your own opinion, I happen to disagree with it, and your sense of conceited piety, but think what you will and let us end this subject once and for all.

[Ganapati]

Spangles, you're not showing much respect either to those of opposing opinion. When you ask Asset how her quadruplets are doing any idiot can read the contempt that you have both for her and for those going down that path. If we're just disagreeing then do we need the contempt?

You say that infertility is not an illness, well, yes it is, especially if that infertility were caused by cancer. Speaking of cancer, should couples with a history of cancer in their families be banned from having children? It's a crap shoot if they end up getting it, but there is an increased likelihood of getting it (just as its a crap shoot whether IVF born babies will have health problems.)

As for your comment about "charity begins at home"...and talk about the indigenous population...well, it seems to me that you of all people should be all over IVF. As I said before Western populations are in decline. If you don't count *immigration*, many countries fertility rate do not meet their population's replacement rate (births replacing deaths)--this includes the UK. All over Europe, governments are scratching their heads on how to shore up their "indigenous" populations--and guess what, paying for IVF is their answer. They pay for 6 cycles in Denmark--and they've proven their that IVF intervention has helped stablize their population. So what's it going to be more *indigenous* babies with IVF or immigrant babies, a la Madonna, and Angelina? As you say, charity should begin at home...

So should we now steer this thread toward pro-anti immigrantion? How about it, just for a laugh? :))