Brighton and Hove charity workers fear 'economic homelessness' (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Brighton and Hove charity workers worried about benefit cuts
4:10pm Friday 10th February 2012 in News By Emily Walker, Chief Reporter
People could be forced into “economic homelessness” because of Government cuts in Brighton and Hove.
Charity workers fear that the Government’s controversial proposed ceiling on benefits will force families onto the streets.
More than 400 households in the city will be affected by the £26,000 cap, it has been revealed.
Andy Winter, chairman of Brighton Housing Trust, said: “For the first time in my lifetime we are going to see people who are going to become homeless not because of alcohol or drugs but because of economic hardship.
“This will be economic homelessness."
Ministers have previously refused to clarify how many people in Sussex would be affected by the decision to limit total benefits to £26,000 a year.
The city’s figures came to light as a result of Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas tabling a parliamentary question to Employment Minister Chris Grayling.
Mr Winter said he been concerned about the proposed cap’s effect on homeless levels in the city but having specific figures would make planning for the changes easier.
Ms Lucas described the numbers as “deeply alarming”.
She said: “At a time of increased joblessness, economic uncertainty and ever increasing living costs, the Government’s determination to slash benefits to meet targets rather than on the basis of genuine need is having a devastating effect on the most vulnerable in this city.”
Comments(57)
wexler53
says...
4:31pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
4:33pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Saddens me that this is the kind of Society many seem to want to create...
mand63
says...
4:34pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
4:43pm Fri 10 Feb 12
wexler53
says...
4:49pm Fri 10 Feb 12
end_homelessness
says...
4:50pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Artificial
says...
4:57pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
5:06pm Fri 10 Feb 12
£188 child benefit (a universal benefit paid to everyone)
£140 income support (for me to live on)
£560 child tax (for 3 children all pre-school age)
£500 per month towards my rent (which is actually £950 a month for 2 bed bungalow)
£200 council tax benefit
Totalling £1588 a month then if one deducts £450 that I have to pay towards my rent, £500 that goes straight from benefits to pay housing and £200 council tax the total amount that me and the kids live on is £400 per month
that is the money we have for food, clothing, travel costs and utility bills each month and if you multiply by 12 is a yearly amount of less than £5000
Unless I have made a massive error in my calculations which is a possibility maths never my strong point) this is vastly different to current figures being banded about and is much more typical of what most people on benefits live on
mand63
says...
5:13pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
5:16pm Fri 10 Feb 12
onedaytheleftwillburn
says...
5:23pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63 wrote:welcome to the real world, it amazes me how people nowadays in this country seem to feel that they are entitled to everything. Boo hoo I don't have a Gucci handbag and range rover like the Rooney's, how can I possibly survive and how dare you ask me to live within my means.
That is what many are having to do, myself excluded. Luckily I am not from Brighton and have family and friends in The Midlands who I plan to move closer to as cannot afford to live and work (sky high rental prices main problem) but for the people who are from the area that are going to have to move they may lose all their social support and family support networks which paradoxically likely to make them more dependent on benefits or state to help support them. Morally and ethically this deliberate social cleansing of the poor or low waged is wrong and there would be an outrage if it was being considered on any other grounds....
Saddens me that this is the kind of Society many seem to want to create...
Sarah Booker
says...
5:24pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63 wrote:I've removed the extras. There is a glitch in the system. Feel free to report duplicates and either myself or one of the news editors will remove it.
oops don't know why it posted my comment 3 times sorry everyone :(
mand63
says...
5:33pm Fri 10 Feb 12
n
yawn
Angryoldman
says...
5:41pm Fri 10 Feb 12
That makes over £24,000 a year with a cap of £ 26,000 leaving £2,000 for a family to live on for a year. £2,000 divided by 52 weeks = £38 a week to feed and cloth the family and pay for all other bills including transport.
The elephant in the room is disgustingly high rents in London and the south east.
The tenants are struggling while the greedy landlords are laughing all the way to the bank.
Rent controls are urgently needed in the UK.
The government moan about the ever increasing housing benefit bill yet they bring in something they like to call 'affordable rents' making social rents three or for hundred percent higher than they were a year ago then moan that the bill has risen.
They won't be happy until we're all in the work house riddled with TB.
Nasty greedy Tory toffs!
mand63
says...
5:52pm Fri 10 Feb 12
David Cameron, a low-paid worker and a benefit claimant are sitting round a table. There is a plate with ten biscuits on the table in front of them. David Cameron takes nine biscuits, turns to the low-paid worker and says "you want to watch out, that scrounger is after your biscuit".
Bladesboy Returns
says...
5:56pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Angryoldman wrote:The elephant in the room is the people who take more out of the system than they put in.
A typical monthly rent in London for a three bed house in the private sector is over £2000 a month.
That makes over £24,000 a year with a cap of £ 26,000 leaving £2,000 for a family to live on for a year. £2,000 divided by 52 weeks = £38 a week to feed and cloth the family and pay for all other bills including transport.
The elephant in the room is disgustingly high rents in London and the south east.
The tenants are struggling while the greedy landlords are laughing all the way to the bank.
Rent controls are urgently needed in the UK.
The government moan about the ever increasing housing benefit bill yet they bring in something they like to call 'affordable rents' making social rents three or for hundred percent higher than they were a year ago then moan that the bill has risen.
They won't be happy until we're all in the work house riddled with TB.
Nasty greedy Tory toffs!
Why, oh why do people like me work long hours to pay taxes to support people who don't bother. The sooner the cap is reduced to below £5K per annum the better for all of us..
Bladesboy Returns
says...
5:59pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Dirk Gently
says...
6:11pm Fri 10 Feb 12
AngryOldMan, a three-bedroom house is something of a luxury. If push came to shove, I'm sure the family would rather squeeze into a smaller house than go homeless (or hungry).
I do agree that rental costs are too high, though - and house prices in general, which is the root cause of all this mess.
mand63
says...
6:15pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
6:28pm Fri 10 Feb 12
derekfullwood
says...
8:13pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63 wrote:A good and obvious point. Divide the poor disabled etc and doff our caps to the rich tax avoiding -and evading - rich. It is sad that these divisive tactics work so well. Austerity measures are not necessary agenda are set by people who are not subject to them.
AngryOldman thanku for your comment glad to read that other people actually appreciate reality that many face and are not believing the hype....
David Cameron, a low-paid worker and a benefit claimant are sitting round a table. There is a plate with ten biscuits on the table in front of them. David Cameron takes nine biscuits, turns to the low-paid worker and says "you want to watch out, that scrounger is after your biscuit".
LoopyLouHove
says...
9:47pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63 wrote:The Local Housing Allowance in Brighton for a 2-bed property is £189.23 which equates to £819.99 per month therefore your figures cannot be accurate. Furthermore, if you are in receipt of Income Support you do not pay Council Tax. So yes, you have made a massive error in your calculations I would suggest you go to www.turn2us.org.uk for an accurate benefit calculation and stop spouting nonsense.
well I am a single mum on benefits with 3 children and each month I receive
£188 child benefit (a universal benefit paid to everyone)
£140 income support (for me to live on)
£560 child tax (for 3 children all pre-school age)
£500 per month towards my rent (which is actually £950 a month for 2 bed bungalow)
£200 council tax benefit
Totalling £1588 a month then if one deducts £450 that I have to pay towards my rent, £500 that goes straight from benefits to pay housing and £200 council tax the total amount that me and the kids live on is £400 per month
that is the money we have for food, clothing, travel costs and utility bills each month and if you multiply by 12 is a yearly amount of less than £5000
Unless I have made a massive error in my calculations which is a possibility maths never my strong point) this is vastly different to current figures being banded about and is much more typical of what most people on benefits live on
LoopyLouHove
says...
9:56pm Fri 10 Feb 12
mand63
says...
10:11pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
9:10am Sat 11 Feb 12
Where are the fathers of these single parents?
I work to support my family and those in the UK who are too ill to support themselves or when a parent has perhaps dies, not people who choose to have kids they have created without the relevant means to support them.
We have free contraception in the UK.
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
9:10am Sat 11 Feb 12
Where are the fathers of these single parents?
I work to support my family and those in the UK who are too ill to support themselves or when a parent has perhaps dies, not people who choose to have kids they have created without the relevant means to support them.
We have free contraception in the UK.
Morpheus
says...
9:24am Sat 11 Feb 12
mand63 wrote:I know somebody in employment on limited hours who only earns about £13,000 a year and then has to pay tax from this. Think yourself very lucky to receive the amount you get.
well I am a single mum on benefits with 3 children and each month I receive
£188 child benefit (a universal benefit paid to everyone)
£140 income support (for me to live on)
£560 child tax (for 3 children all pre-school age)
£500 per month towards my rent (which is actually £950 a month for 2 bed bungalow)
£200 council tax benefit
Totalling £1588 a month then if one deducts £450 that I have to pay towards my rent, £500 that goes straight from benefits to pay housing and £200 council tax the total amount that me and the kids live on is £400 per month
that is the money we have for food, clothing, travel costs and utility bills each month and if you multiply by 12 is a yearly amount of less than £5000
Unless I have made a massive error in my calculations which is a possibility maths never my strong point) this is vastly different to current figures being banded about and is much more typical of what most people on benefits live on
redwing
says...
11:03am Sat 11 Feb 12
But if the rich weren't continuing to rip the majority off there wouldn't be a problem.
Most people aren't having lots of children these days. And if there were socially useful jobs provided and low wages weren't endemic to this foul capitalist system, having a few children wouldn't be being suggested by you as a criminal activity.
Yes, we serfs expect a decent life. Deal with it.
Lucky7
says...
11:30am Sat 11 Feb 12
mand63
says...
11:58am Sat 11 Feb 12
We did try that for a while but because is on JSA he has to be available for work, and because the kids live with me and we live separately he could not claim benefits I receive as a single parent (income support and tax credits) So overall we were in the same financial situation with all of my wages going on housing costs and bills and no money left over to feed and clothe the kids...his JSA would also be stopped and his housing benefit on shared house he lives in which would mean he would become homeless again.
Also as someone who paid taxes for 20 years before going through a temporary period of difficulty which will be eased when my youngest starts school full-time in September and I move to a cheaper area, why is it you the ordinary taxpayer thats supporting me and my kids? Surely I paid enough into the pot so to speak to be entitles to support in MY hour of need?
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
12:01pm Sat 11 Feb 12
If two people make children, two people should continue to pay for them even if they no longer love each other.
The State is not here to fill the loveless gap with money. Having children is a responsibility not a right.
If two people make children and cannot work, they should be doing voluntary work in youth clubs etc and put something back into society which is supporting their children.
What on earth are these people doing all day if they are not working?
Every week The Argus has stories about yout clubs, music clubs, footy clubs closing due to lack of support, yet we have millions of pounds being paid to parents who aren't working.
We need cultural change about rights and rsponsibilities.
mand63
says...
12:05pm Sat 11 Feb 12
As I said earlier in one of my posts
I am a full-time mum of 3 young children, I work one day a week as a voluntary therapist with my local mental health Trust and now that my youngest is in preschool am in the process of applying to do 3 mornings a week as a volunteer in my local children's centre.
Lucky7
says...
12:09pm Sat 11 Feb 12
mand63
says...
12:18pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Lewesroadresident
says...
12:18pm Sat 11 Feb 12
If a couple with a child both work full time on minimum wage jobs they will receive tax credits to ensure they have enough to live a decent life. That means corporations are subsidised by the taxpayer so they can pay lower wages and make higher profits. Minimum wage is not enough to live on with rents what they are.
Higher minimum wages and rent control would lower the welfare bill enormously. The savings would enable tax cuts to reduce the impact on businesses of paying higher wages, thus reducing the role of the state. But this is a lot harder than simply demonising benefit claimants, so it won't happen.
Lewesroadresident
says...
12:27pm Sat 11 Feb 12
LoopyLouHove wrote:After you take out rental costs it's more like £250.00 a week for bills, food, clothes, school trips etc. Is that enough for 3 kids? I have none so I don't know. And that assumes no one ever needs to buy something like a washing machine on credit through an extortionate hire purchase agreement.
A single person with 3 dependent children and a 2-bedroom private-rent sector property is entitled to total benefits of £461.05 every week and full council tax benefit which is possibly another £20 per week. Is this seriously not enough money to live on??
Those complaining about supporting others through their taxes- I have no children- should I get massive tax rebates every year because I shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, child benefit, education? Or would that be a simplistic way of looking at it that would result in many people living on the streets and a society no one wants to be a part of?
We have to decide whether we are prepared to abandon people to their fate or support each other through the welfare state. Seems obvious to me.
Lewesroadresident
says...
12:36pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Bladesboy Returns wrote:Last point from me- Bladesboy, I'm fairly confident that no one who comments on stories on the Argus website makes a net contribution to 'the system', especially if you have children. You have to get quite high up the income scale before you put in more than you take out. It's generally only those in approximately the top 25% who actually contribute more than receive. The lower your income, the more you take out as a percentage. We all like to complain about paying tax, but most of us would have to pay far higher amounts to meet the cost of what we receive.
Angryoldman wrote: A typical monthly rent in London for a three bed house in the private sector is over £2000 a month. That makes over £24,000 a year with a cap of £ 26,000 leaving £2,000 for a family to live on for a year. £2,000 divided by 52 weeks = £38 a week to feed and cloth the family and pay for all other bills including transport. The elephant in the room is disgustingly high rents in London and the south east. The tenants are struggling while the greedy landlords are laughing all the way to the bank. Rent controls are urgently needed in the UK. The government moan about the ever increasing housing benefit bill yet they bring in something they like to call 'affordable rents' making social rents three or for hundred percent higher than they were a year ago then moan that the bill has risen. They won't be happy until we're all in the work house riddled with TB. Nasty greedy Tory toffs!The elephant in the room is the people who take more out of the system than they put in. Why, oh why do people like me work long hours to pay taxes to support people who don't bother. The sooner the cap is reduced to below £5K per annum the better for all of us..
moronslayer
says...
1:18pm Sat 11 Feb 12
MPs know all about multiple property ownership scams - did you know they are about four-times more likely to go to prison than the average adult in the UK? Rent will never be regulated in the private sector.
These same scumbags opposed the minimum wage - which has also recently been effectively removed.
Sadly, this seems to have resulted in many scroungers who aren't reponsible enough to use contraception having to spend increasing amounts of time and effort finding ways to bleed the welfare system, rather than really work harder. Amazingly, many of these same people vote for the same party as the people who put them where they are (because they get so easily mobilised by tories who simply need only pretend to have a hard stance on immigration and start stirring up resentment a few months before counting on such morons to vote tory again).
There are, of course, perfectly legitimate benefit claimants - and I'm proud to contribute to, and be part of a country that supports them.
There just seem to be too many greedy slumlords and too many work-shy scroungers for the system to continue unchanged.
Yes, the answer is contraception, fair rent, hard work for fair pay, payment of corporate tax, and honesty from benefit claimants and insider traders alike...hang on...I've seen it...it is the Land of the Cloud Cuckoo People.
We're doomed.
moronslayer
says...
1:37pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Should the excessive rent paid through housing benefit be considered a direct benefit to the scrounger, or is it an excessive payment to the said scroungers slumlord? You see, one of these will be in the 25% you consider as 'putting more in than they get out'.
I don't know about you suggestion about Argus commentators. I for one, have not received a small fraction back in what I have contributed, and that's absolutely fine - but your reasoning fails to take into account that we're over a trillion quid in the hole - so nobody actually appears to have put enough in the pot to support your claims. In fact, Chinese peasants living on less than $2 a day have probably made a larger net contribution to the UK economy than most of us for many years. Now, where's that cuckoo...
Lewesroadresident
says...
2:31pm Sat 11 Feb 12
moronslayer wrote:The only people who benefit from a high housing welfare bill are landlords. Claimants will receive help to pay rent if they need it, but they do not benefit directly from a standard 3 bed house costing £1k a month as opposed to £500.
Blast Lewesroadresident, you were doing so well. I like your reasoning but the economics are not nearly so clear cut as you suggest. Should the excessive rent paid through housing benefit be considered a direct benefit to the scrounger, or is it an excessive payment to the said scroungers slumlord? You see, one of these will be in the 25% you consider as 'putting more in than they get out'. I don't know about you suggestion about Argus commentators. I for one, have not received a small fraction back in what I have contributed, and that's absolutely fine - but your reasoning fails to take into account that we're over a trillion quid in the hole - so nobody actually appears to have put enough in the pot to support your claims. In fact, Chinese peasants living on less than $2 a day have probably made a larger net contribution to the UK economy than most of us for many years. Now, where's that cuckoo...
You're right about the black hole, but the point I was making is that on an individual basis wealthier people pay more in hard cash than they receive back from the state, especially if they educate their kids privately.
However, wealthier people tend to pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than those on lower incomes. That's why we need to stop all tax avoidance schemes.
moronslayer
says...
2:43pm Sat 11 Feb 12
onedaytheleftwillburn
says...
5:09pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
10:12pm Sat 11 Feb 12
You have child care available so I am astonished that the state doesn't make one of you work. The State is not here to support those who won't work and there is no reason why at least you or your ex doesn't work.
Bladesboy Returns
says...
7:13am Sun 12 Feb 12
HMRC, should have a simple holistic view of the total contributions made by individuals and perhaps some simple calculation could then be made to support people with short term blips in their lives. i.e. everyone has a max pot of £5K per annum benefits -subject to terms-, rather than the ridiculous level of £26K today, however those who have made a positive contribution over their adult life can then have access to additional funds on some sort of sliding scale arrangement (not given much thought to this, but maybe for every £10K cumulative put in they get access to a further £5K for a max of 6 months up to a cap of say £20K).
That takes care of the good guys and then we need an arrangement for people who have not yet managed to create a positive accumulation of tax. Again not much thought given, but maybe access to the max £5K pot -subject to terms- and the potential of further funds subject to need, where a minimum number of hours is being worked i.e. 55 hours per week, either paid, or voluntary (where paid less than 55 hours it would then need to be topped up with voluntary, which must be in an approved government led arrangement).
Benefits are those who do contribute get looked after and more work hours achieved to support the costs of welfare cases, reducing the tax burden.
Also, those who are prepared to move for work get favourable treatment within the benefit structure for a period of time.
People who need access to welfare have the choice of taking the minimum for no work (as it is at the moment) but can top up and where unpaid voluntary work being carried out, a shadow credit is made to their HMRC held tax pot for potential future use.
How does this sound?
voiceofthescoombe
says...
9:57am Sun 12 Feb 12
Bladesboy Returns
says...
11:45am Sun 12 Feb 12
Bladesboy Returns wrote:Didn't think it would be too popular as it means that people have to work for a living, thought it was worth putting out there just in case though!
mand63 makes a good point, which may have been lost as the thread has rolled on. She advises that she has contributed to the system for 20+ years and I agree with her that if you put in you should of course be allowed to take out in your time of need; isn't that someway towards what National Insurance payments are supposed to provide?
HMRC, should have a simple holistic view of the total contributions made by individuals and perhaps some simple calculation could then be made to support people with short term blips in their lives. i.e. everyone has a max pot of £5K per annum benefits -subject to terms-, rather than the ridiculous level of £26K today, however those who have made a positive contribution over their adult life can then have access to additional funds on some sort of sliding scale arrangement (not given much thought to this, but maybe for every £10K cumulative put in they get access to a further £5K for a max of 6 months up to a cap of say £20K).
That takes care of the good guys and then we need an arrangement for people who have not yet managed to create a positive accumulation of tax. Again not much thought given, but maybe access to the max £5K pot -subject to terms- and the potential of further funds subject to need, where a minimum number of hours is being worked i.e. 55 hours per week, either paid, or voluntary (where paid less than 55 hours it would then need to be topped up with voluntary, which must be in an approved government led arrangement).
Benefits are those who do contribute get looked after and more work hours achieved to support the costs of welfare cases, reducing the tax burden.
Also, those who are prepared to move for work get favourable treatment within the benefit structure for a period of time.
People who need access to welfare have the choice of taking the minimum for no work (as it is at the moment) but can top up and where unpaid voluntary work being carried out, a shadow credit is made to their HMRC held tax pot for potential future use.
How does this sound?
Bladesboy Returns
says...
4:35pm Sun 12 Feb 12
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the 400 affected in the story and put plans in place to prevent similar scenarios arising.
Then review and address the increasing numbers in the £24-£26K band and all the way down to zero; to say things are fundamentally wrong here is a massive understatement!
Once resolved we can then shed the thousands of jobs involved in repairing these broken homes and maybe build a society designed around success and not lowest common denominator failure.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Bladesboy Returns
says...
5:48pm Sun 12 Feb 12
If we reduce the annual subsidy incrementally by £10 units, when does the real problem arise?
That is the reality for those of us who don't enjoy the big hand outs
Zeta Function
says...
4:19am Mon 13 Feb 12
Amazing how some single men like to give lectures on family size, too.
Bladesboy Returns
says...
6:00pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Zeta Function
says...
8:40pm Mon 13 Feb 12
The most expensive transaction that has been recorded in Hampshire Court is 142. It sold for £198,000 on 13/03/2008.
The most recent house purchase in Hampshire Court was 142, which sold for £165,000 on 12/06/2009.
Many who could afford a flat in Hampshire Court in 1996 don't stand a chance now. They're forced to rent. The rents are so high people either are obliged to apply for LHA or go without housing.
Explaining this clearly in no way discredits people who don't see any problem in the astronomic rise in property prices between 1996 and 2008. Some of course would have benefited from this. Bought up properties which they now rent out.
Right wing reactionaries greet this extreme unfairness in how our society arranged as progress, in contrast to the values of the majority.
Bladesboy Returns
says...
8:53pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Zeta Function wrote:I suspect from your incoherent ramblings that you may not have a full grasp of the reality of modern times. Should this change your comments would be most welcome.
The property sale that has the lowest recorded price in Hampshire Court is 128, which sold for £25,000 on 03/06/1996.
The most expensive transaction that has been recorded in Hampshire Court is 142. It sold for £198,000 on 13/03/2008.
The most recent house purchase in Hampshire Court was 142, which sold for £165,000 on 12/06/2009.
Many who could afford a flat in Hampshire Court in 1996 don't stand a chance now. They're forced to rent. The rents are so high people either are obliged to apply for LHA or go without housing.
Explaining this clearly in no way discredits people who don't see any problem in the astronomic rise in property prices between 1996 and 2008. Some of course would have benefited from this. Bought up properties which they now rent out.
Right wing reactionaries greet this extreme unfairness in how our society arranged as progress, in contrast to the values of the majority.
Zeta Function
says...
9:15pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Zeta Function
says...
9:46pm Mon 13 Feb 12
The Euro Zone now faces decades of negative growth.
AmboGuy
says...
10:41am Tue 14 Feb 12
Zeta Function wrote:Hmm interesting point comrade, see you down the Cowley Club.
The property sale that has the lowest recorded price in Hampshire Court is 128, which sold for £25,000 on 03/06/1996.
The most expensive transaction that has been recorded in Hampshire Court is 142. It sold for £198,000 on 13/03/2008.
The most recent house purchase in Hampshire Court was 142, which sold for £165,000 on 12/06/2009.
Many who could afford a flat in Hampshire Court in 1996 don't stand a chance now. They're forced to rent. The rents are so high people either are obliged to apply for LHA or go without housing.
Explaining this clearly in no way discredits people who don't see any problem in the astronomic rise in property prices between 1996 and 2008. Some of course would have benefited from this. Bought up properties which they now rent out.
Right wing reactionaries greet this extreme unfairness in how our society arranged as progress, in contrast to the values of the majority.
Twittern Wanderer
says...
1:02pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Sarah Booker wrote:If we had a penny for everytime this month useless system glitches or the spell checker refuses to recognise words like... recognise... we would have... £1.83
mand63 wrote:I've removed the extras. There is a glitch in the system. Feel free to report duplicates and either myself or one of the news editors will remove it.
oops don't know why it posted my comment 3 times sorry everyone :(
onedaytheleftwillburn says...
4:23pm Fri 10 Feb 12