Graham Burgess is awaiting confirmation from Brighton and Hove City Council that he won't have to move
A man who faced eviction
from the home he has lived
in for more than 50 years is
now likely to be able to stay, experts claim.
Graham Burgess, 57, was
told earlier this year he was
being booted out of his council
house in Chelwood Close,
Brighton, just weeks after the
death of his father.
He has lived there since 1957,
apart from a short period living
in Newick, near Lewes, in the
1990s.
Brighton and Hove City
Council claimed the twobedroom
property was underoccupied
with just one person
living there and said its tenancy
could not be transferred
from Mr Burgess's father to
him.
After The Argus highlighted
his plight and following the
intervention of an expert on
council house tenancy, it
appears Mr Burgess will be able
to stay.
Under council rules tenancy
of its properties cannot be
passed between family members
more than once.
advertisement
The council claimed the tenancy
of Mr Burgess's home had
been passed from his mother to
his father when she died -
therefore making a transfer
between Mr Burgess and his
father against the rules. But Mr
Burgess maintained that his
parents had a joint tenancy
and, therefore, his taking
over of the tenancy was only
the first time it has been
transferred.
Stuart Gover, of Brighton
and Hove Council Leaseholders
Independent Forum, said: "The
discussions I have had with
senior figures at the council
have been very productive and
it appears they now accept the
tenancy has only been transferred
once.
"I would be absolutely
amazed if, following the talks
I've had on Graham's behalf, he
is forced out.
"He has a legitimate right to
be in the home and the council
now appears to accept that."
Mr Burgess said: "I've not
had any confirmation in
writing but I understand the
council is using some common
sense and that I'm due to have
the decision confirmed soon."
The council sent Mr Burgess
a letter, dated May 2, warning
him because he was a single
man of working age, he was
viewed as a low priority on its
housing list.
Council housing officer, Tim
Huntley, added: "As a consequence
I must advise you you
will not have an ongoing
entitlement to remain at
Chelwood Close."
The letter said he would have
to vacate by June 2.
Brighton and Hove City
Council was unable to confirm
whether Mr Burgess would be
allowed to stay.
Both his ward councillors,
Geoffrey Theobald and Brian
Pigeon have previously said
they support his bid to stay in
his home.
Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who'd kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more 'deserving' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like 'vote farming' to me!
Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who'd kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more 'deserving' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like 'vote farming' to me!
Posted by: David, Haywards Heath on 2:49pm Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Rick H[/bold] wrote:
Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who'd kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more 'deserving' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like 'vote farming' to me![/quote] Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say [bold]'deserving' family[/bold]
You wouldn't be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?
Rick H wrote:
Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who'd kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more 'deserving' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like 'vote farming' to me!
Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say 'deserving' family
You wouldn't be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?
Flamin right. Evict them all, why hasnt he got a job a renting a flat or bedsit like the rest of us? why should we pay for him to have a big house?
It would be fair if the council evicted him and used the house for a family, but this guy shuld be given a room or bedsit by the council
Flamin right. Evict them all, why hasnt he got a job a renting a flat or bedsit like the rest of us? why should we pay for him to have a big house?
It would be fair if the council evicted him and used the house for a family, but this guy shuld be given a room or bedsit by the council
Posted by: rent-a-goose, brighton on 3:16pm Fri 9 May 08
The council hate it when stuff like this happens,they send letters like 'you must do this' 'you must do that' and most people just follow orders,thinking it must be right because its the council ..but the councils run like a ruthless sales business,and they will try to screw you over and bend the rules wherever they can,hoping that your just the average poor vulnerable type that doesnt know any better or how to get help,or would rather avoid the nervous breakdown from the endless forms from hell and days spent in cues and waiting(to die) rooms.
With this old guy,i think he should be in a place with one bedroom or a bedsit,thats what the majority that are claiming benefits have to put up with,why should he be any different? ..and people who are really skint/homeless and ask for help will be lucky to get a tiny dirty bedsit in Whitehawk these days.
The council hate it when stuff like this happens,they send letters like 'you must do this' 'you must do that' and most people just follow orders,thinking it must be right because its the council ..but the councils run like a ruthless sales business,and they will try to screw you over and bend the rules wherever they can,hoping that your just the average poor vulnerable type that doesnt know any better or how to get help,or would rather avoid the nervous breakdown from the endless forms from hell and days spent in cues and waiting(to die) rooms.
With this old guy,i think he should be in a place with one bedroom or a bedsit,thats what the majority that are claiming benefits have to put up with,why should he be any different? ..and people who are really skint/homeless and ask for help will be lucky to get a tiny dirty bedsit in Whitehawk these days.
Posted by: Bob, HoveActually on 7:28pm Fri 9 May 08
Leaseholders have the right to 'sack' there managing agent, such as a Housing Association. Do Council tenants have the same rights and if not why not? Anyone know?
If tenants had the right to sack Council as a landlord, council would have to pull its socks up and raise its game.
Leaseholders have the right to 'sack' there managing agent, such as a Housing Association. Do Council tenants have the same rights and if not why not? Anyone know?
If tenants had the right to sack Council as a landlord, council would have to pull its socks up and raise its game.
[quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Rick H[/bold] wrote: Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who\'d kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more \'deserving\' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like \'vote farming\' to me![/quote] Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say [bold]\'deserving\' family[/bold] You wouldn\'t be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?[/quote] Erm...with a name like Rick, which is normally a contraction of either Richard or Ricky, I think it would be a rather large miracle if I was a 'mother' of any sort, let alone one of half my age!! And at the end of the day, who is more 'deserving' of a two-bed house/flat - a single mother with child (who will no doubt grow up and need a room of their own) or a single man who moved out when he got married and then moved back when he got divorced. Good job you can neither vote for or have a say in the running of B&H council as I would suggest your priorities are as narrow as your mind, given the stereotypical images your 'argument' relies upon - have a nice weekend!
David wrote:
Rick H wrote: Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who\'d kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more \'deserving\' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like \'vote farming\' to me!
Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say \'deserving\' family You wouldn\'t be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?
Erm...with a name like Rick, which is normally a contraction of either Richard or Ricky, I think it would be a rather large miracle if I was a 'mother' of any sort, let alone one of half my age!! And at the end of the day, who is more 'deserving' of a two-bed house/flat - a single mother with child (who will no doubt grow up and need a room of their own) or a single man who moved out when he got married and then moved back when he got divorced. Good job you can neither vote for or have a say in the running of B&H council as I would suggest your priorities are as narrow as your mind, given the stereotypical images your 'argument' relies upon - have a nice weekend!
[quote][bold]Rick H[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Rick H[/bold] wrote: Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who\'d kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more \'deserving\' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like \'vote farming\' to me![/quote] Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say [bold]\'deserving\' family[/bold] You wouldn\'t be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?[/quote] Erm...with a name like Rick, which is normally a contraction of either Richard or Ricky, I think it would be a rather large miracle if I was a 'mother' of any sort, let alone one of half my age!! And at the end of the day, who is more 'deserving' of a two-bed house/flat - a single mother with child (who will no doubt grow up and need a room of their own) or a single man who moved out when he got married and then moved back when he got divorced. Good job you can neither vote for or have a say in the running of B&H council as I would suggest your priorities are as narrow as your mind, given the stereotypical images your 'argument' relies upon - have a nice weekend![/quote] Well said Rick H
Rick H wrote:
David wrote:
Rick H wrote: Whilst this may seem to be a fair outcome on the face of it, it still appears to be a little unfair that a single person will be allowed to stay in a 2-bed flat when there are many families on the waiting list who\'d kill for such a property. Surely a better resolution would be to give Mr Burgess a smaller property ie a one-bed in the area/estate as soon as one becomes free and let a more \'deserving\' family have what is, essentially, a family home. And as for the councillors, well that just souonds like \'vote farming\' to me!
Someone who has lived there for 50 years or as you say \'deserving\' family You wouldn\'t be an unmarried mother of say 18 or 19 would you?
Erm...with a name like Rick, which is normally a contraction of either Richard or Ricky, I think it would be a rather large miracle if I was a 'mother' of any sort, let alone one of half my age!! And at the end of the day, who is more 'deserving' of a two-bed house/flat - a single mother with child (who will no doubt grow up and need a room of their own) or a single man who moved out when he got married and then moved back when he got divorced. Good job you can neither vote for or have a say in the running of B&H council as I would suggest your priorities are as narrow as your mind, given the stereotypical images your 'argument' relies upon - have a nice weekend!
Posted by: zzzzz, brighton on 10:13pm Fri 9 May 08
and why should he not keep the house?
the understanding with all tenants has always been that you can pass on once.
I'm sure the neighbours would rather have him stay on than move in a chav family from hell with their 7 kids and a rottweiller
and why should he not keep the house?
the understanding with all tenants has always been that you can pass on once.
I'm sure the neighbours would rather have him stay on than move in a chav family from hell with their 7 kids and a rottweiller
Kick him out!Lets get a single tart in, whos got a few chavs. It will bring a bit of life to the estate.Lets have another Whitehawk on our doorstep.Its a sin to have only one person in that place, when it will hold about ten.
Kick him out!Lets get a single tart in, whos got a few chavs. It will bring a bit of life to the estate.Lets have another Whitehawk on our doorstep.Its a sin to have only one person in that place, when it will hold about ten.
Posted by: Woodingdean Geoff, Woodingdean of course on 8:04am Sat 10 May 08
Rent a goose and you fred, why you keep attacking Whitehawk in the manner you are?
Allow me to put you right.There's 1000s of nice ordinary honest hard working people living there that don't need comment's the like of what your implying posting on this page. Have a nice goosy day you two!!!
Rent a goose and you fred, why you keep attacking Whitehawk in the manner you are?
Allow me to put you right.There's 1000s of nice ordinary honest hard working people living there that don't need comment's the like of what your implying posting on this page. Have a nice goosy day you two!!!
Surely the point of this issue is not someone's social class, maritial status or, even, ethnicity. What it is is the ethical issue summarised by 'Is it ethically or morally correct for a single man to be occupying a family home - which is owned by B&H council for social housing - when there are many families living in poor conditions waiting for such a home?' And this is very much an example of someone not getting their own way and using a hostile media to force policy u-turns - shame on both the Argus and Mr Burgess for denying a family a decent home to live in - this issue couold have be solved so easily and now there's almost no way Mr B can be moved withouot running a squealing to the media again.
Surely the point of this issue is not someone's social class, maritial status or, even, ethnicity. What it is is the ethical issue summarised by 'Is it ethically or morally correct for a single man to be occupying a family home - which is owned by B&H council for social housing - when there are many families living in poor conditions waiting for such a home?' And this is very much an example of someone not getting their own way and using a hostile media to force policy u-turns - shame on both the Argus and Mr Burgess for denying a family a decent home to live in - this issue couold have be solved so easily and now there's almost no way Mr B can be moved withouot running a squealing to the media again.
No one is any more deserving than anyone.
If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem.
Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house.
If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
These people make me sick.
No one is any more deserving than anyone.
If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem.
Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house.
If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Posted by: Maria Maxi, Brighton Central on 12:25pm Sat 10 May 08
They may have had jobs when they had the children and dog and been able to support them but their circumstances may have changed like illness or losing their jobs
dick
They may have had jobs when they had the children and dog and been able to support them but their circumstances may have changed like illness or losing their jobs
Posted by: Scott, Brighton on 12:52pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Maria Maxi[/bold] wrote:
They may have had jobs when they had the children and dog and been able to support them but their circumstances may have changed like illness or losing their jobs
dick
[/quote] Unlikely.
More likely never worked in their lazy, pointless lives.
The welfare state wont last for ever. When these parasites realise they will have to get off their lazy fat backsides and do some work, they are in for a shock.
Why should we subsidise their lives?
Maria Maxi wrote:
They may have had jobs when they had the children and dog and been able to support them but their circumstances may have changed like illness or losing their jobs
dick
Unlikely.
More likely never worked in their lazy, pointless lives.
The welfare state wont last for ever. When these parasites realise they will have to get off their lazy fat backsides and do some work, they are in for a shock.
Posted by: Kathleen McMullen, Hove on 1:17pm Sat 10 May 08
If the council has breached its own rules the organisation to contact is the Local Authority Ombudsman. Its seems the tenant has proved the transfer to him is the first and only transfer.
And why are people surprised by someone living in one place all their lives? It's called social stability. What the council should do is convert some of the flats in the tower blocks for the over fifties, into family flats, so the SOCIAL BALANCE is more evenly distributed.
If the council has breached its own rules the organisation to contact is the Local Authority Ombudsman. Its seems the tenant has proved the transfer to him is the first and only transfer.
And why are people surprised by someone living in one place all their lives? It's called social stability. What the council should do is convert some of the flats in the tower blocks for the over fifties, into family flats, so the SOCIAL BALANCE is more evenly distributed.
Posted by: Dave Hater, Hove on 3:16pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote:
No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick. [/quote] That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like [bold]you[/bold] who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.
Dave wrote:
No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick.
That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like you who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.
[quote][bold]Dave Hater[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote:
No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick. [/quote] That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like [bold]you[/bold] who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.[/quote] Are you a scrounger as well who worries when you learn of the growing resentment of those who subsidise your idol existence?
Dave Hater wrote:
Dave wrote:
No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick.
That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like you who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.
Are you a scrounger as well who worries when you learn of the growing resentment of those who subsidise your idol existence?
Posted by: Dave Hater, Hove on 3:26pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Liz[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dave Hater[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote: No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick. [/quote] That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like [bold]you[/bold] who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.[/quote] Are you a scrounger as well who worries when you learn of the growing resentment of those who subsidise your idol existence?[/quote] I think you really mean 'idle' rather than 'idol'. But then again, that's a university education and a very good career for you(thank you very much). And last time I looked Liz, for your information, my salary was around 5 times the national average - barely makes me a scrounger, does it now (and makes my tax bill probably much higher than what most people earn). And whilst we're on the subject, I've never claimed any sort of benefit in my life but recognise and agree that my taxes will be used to support those who are unable to support themselves - the underlying principle of the welfare state. Like Dave, I hope you never have to rely on the help of others - or would you prefer to be dragged into a field and shot, like some old mare, when your usefulness is deemed over or that you are judged by your peers to be a 'drain' or a scrounger. Got any black shirts to iron and jackboots to polish today?
Liz wrote:
Dave Hater wrote:
Dave wrote: No one is any more deserving than anyone. If people weren't as stupid as to have kids when they cannot house or support them, themselves, they wouldn't be a problem. Oh I forgot, the UK is the home of the scrounger. Gimme benefits, gimme council house. If these families are in poor condition and without any money, WHY DO THEY HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? These people make me sick.
That, of course, is at odds with the generally accepted hallmark of a modern and civilised society being that it (the society) organises itsefl to look after and provide for the weakest of its members! And sadly, all the arguments have focussed on the stereotypical 'single,young mother who has child to get council flat'. What about the married couple with a young child - the 'traditional' family unit that is espoused as the 'highest' order of family unit in Western society? Are they less deserving than this guy? What about the same couple but this time they have a disbabled child? Given your attitude, I hope you never end up having to rely upon others for support, financial or otherwise. Or maybe your solution would be to vet people, including their income, job security, career prospects, potential criminality, genetic make-up, social status etc etc, before allowing them to 'breed'. Its people like you who make me sick - misanthropic (a big word, go look it up) knee-jerking narrow-minded bigots, one and all.
Are you a scrounger as well who worries when you learn of the growing resentment of those who subsidise your idol existence?
I think you really mean 'idle' rather than 'idol'. But then again, that's a university education and a very good career for you(thank you very much). And last time I looked Liz, for your information, my salary was around 5 times the national average - barely makes me a scrounger, does it now (and makes my tax bill probably much higher than what most people earn). And whilst we're on the subject, I've never claimed any sort of benefit in my life but recognise and agree that my taxes will be used to support those who are unable to support themselves - the underlying principle of the welfare state. Like Dave, I hope you never have to rely on the help of others - or would you prefer to be dragged into a field and shot, like some old mare, when your usefulness is deemed over or that you are judged by your peers to be a 'drain' or a scrounger. Got any black shirts to iron and jackboots to polish today?
Posted by: Family, In a Bedsit on 9:41pm Sat 10 May 08
I would seriously advise one of the many poor families who've had a bad run of luck and ended up in one of the city's grotty little B+B's or bedsits,to pester the Argus until they run a story called 'One man gets 2 bed house,while our family gets a squalid little bedsit!' ..Its only fair for them to do this isnt it?
I would seriously advise one of the many poor families who've had a bad run of luck and ended up in one of the city's grotty little B+B's or bedsits,to pester the Argus until they run a story called 'One man gets 2 bed house,while our family gets a squalid little bedsit!' ..Its only fair for them to do this isnt it?
Posted by: Mr & Mrs Right, Brighton on 11:47pm Sat 10 May 08
Typical. Kick the englishman out and the council will probably house the foreign scum that is plaging our sacred shores. Such as muslims poles and celts.
Typical. Kick the englishman out and the council will probably house the foreign scum that is plaging our sacred shores. Such as muslims poles and celts.
Posted by: rent-a-goose, BTON on 4:53pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote][bold]Mr & Mrs Right[/bold] wrote:
Typical. Kick the englishman out and the council will probably house the foreign scum that is plaging our sacred shores. Such as muslims poles and celts.[/quote] do i detect a hint of racism hidden amongst your cleverly chosen words ?
Mr & Mrs Right wrote:
Typical. Kick the englishman out and the council will probably house the foreign scum that is plaging our sacred shores. Such as muslims poles and celts.
do i detect a hint of racism hidden amongst your cleverly chosen words ?
Posted by: Dave Hater, Hove on 8:19pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote][bold]FRED[/bold] wrote:
Well,well,"dave hater"youve just got to be a Lib Dem. Good luck with the silly dreams. [/quote] So Fred, you think you can tell someone's political leanings just by reading 2 posts on a single subject? I can assure you that I'm neither so shallow nor so stupid as to affiliate myself to a party that has no hope, no policies nor any future. Have a good week.
FRED wrote:
Well,well,"dave hater"youve just got to be a Lib Dem. Good luck with the silly dreams.
So Fred, you think you can tell someone's political leanings just by reading 2 posts on a single subject? I can assure you that I'm neither so shallow nor so stupid as to affiliate myself to a party that has no hope, no policies nor any future. Have a good week.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
