former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[reeko]

Hi James. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a company collecting on the street around east Dulwich station. They are called save the kids. There is a thread on the main page. They are not a registered company or charity, from the met website, they do not appear to have a collection permit. They have no web presence apart from a recent Twitter account. Is there anything else you can do to check if they are legit. I work for a charity and they are sending up a number of red flags. Would hate for people's charitable spirit to be abused.

[James Barber]

Hi reeks,

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll ask the council trading standards to investigate.

Hi buddug,

Yes I'm sure you've quoted me correctly if partially and out of the large context I gave.

Excuse my cynicism but you've indicated you're a journalist to ex.journalist and removing the context isn't very fair.

[buddug]

Well James, since you insist on continuing this, despite my agreeing to requests to get off your thread and the very kind get-out by reeko, this is the context in which you made your unbelievable statement:

"Except in understandable situations why should people be given a public susidy to have more bedrooms than they need when we have large numbers of people lving in extreme over crowding in council and privately rented properties?"

How on earth does the context mitigate what you said? The reality is that your party does not allow 'understandable situations' to have any bearing on cases - witness the blind man for God's sake who had to take his case to court to avoid a cut in his benefits. So stop pretending everything is hunky-dory. And why do you call benefits 'public subsidies'? And I have recently returned to being a full-time journalist after an 'interesting' break.

[reeko]

I offer no-one a get out, I am just not as blinkered as you buddug and I am capable of recognising the good that James does alongside the things I disagree with. I despise the bedroom tax, it is unfair and damaging to the most vulnerable. I do however agree with James, that it is not sustainable or fair to have people on social housing with spare bedrooms when there is overcrowding elsewhere. I just think how the coalition government have chosen to go about rectifying this stinks.

[PandG]

Hi James - sorry to hear about your accident today hope your ok?

Interesting to see that Sydenham High Street is getting a revamp (by LB Lewisham I think) new pavements and kerbs etc and looking good - sad Lordship Lane pavements are gruesome and, dare I say, possibly dangerous?

pandg

PS sad also that Landcroft Road resurfacing only went half way!

[buddug]

Reeko said: 'I do however agree with James, that it is not sustainable or fair to have people on social housing with spare bedrooms when there is overcrowding elsewhere.'

You may not have offered James a get-out, but it was a good way of getting this thread back on track. However, James did not take advantage of it. As to what you say above, is it fair that only people who have lost their jobs and the sick and disabled are forced to leave their council homes if they have the misfortune of having a spare room - e.g. because their children have grown up and left? Overcrowding is a separate matter. More social housing needs to be built asap to deal with that.

And think about it, one day you lose your job, or have a serious accident and you are left seriously disabled, both through no fault of your own. Due to this tax you have to immediately leave your home, possibly of many years and memories, or your benefits are cut to an unsustainable level. As if you don't have enough to cope with! It's horrible and cruel. Equally, if you have a mortgage, thanks to the LibDems' support of another 'reform', you immediately go into arrears and face losing your home, because since 2010 they've capped the interest support they give you at 3.64%. Most people's mortgage is more than that, as mine is, at 4.89%, because I thought I was being prudent going onto a fixed rate, where the rates are higher. Social security was meant to be a safety net for workers, so you wouldn't lose your home or face having to go to 'food banks'. Not any more.

I notice that James has had a minor, though I'm sure, upsetting accident today. I'm really glad he wasn't seriously hurt. But it just shows how life circumstances could change for anyone in the blink of an eye. There but for the Grace of God...

Get well soon, James. And now I'm outta here!

(Edited a thousand times because I'm an editor and can't help myself ...)

[reeko]

You didn't edit enough as I don't understand the first two sentences of your second paragraph.

As I said I don't support the bedroom tax and how it has been implemented is just cruel. However, if you you are on social housing and have one or more spare rooms (for whatever reason) and and a reasonable alternative can be found, then it is not unreasonable for the expectation to be that you should make room for others who need more space. As you will undoubtedly point out there is a major qualifier in that sentence, a qualifier that the coalition government have shamelessly overlooked.

[buddug]

If you don't understand the first two sentences Reeko, just read it again. I can't be held responsible for your illiteracy. What I meant is you may not have intended to get James's thread back on track, but the upshot was it would have - if James had not scuppered it by addressing himself to me yet again. But all that's irrelevant.

So, for all your hatred of the bedroom tax you still think it's fine for people who lose their jobs or become ill or disabled to lose their homes - nice. Lets hope you're never in that position.

[reeko]

We seem to be arguing different bits of the argument. You rightly highlight how cruel the bedroom tax and its indiscriminate implementation has been to the disabled and vulnerbale. But losing your job, or becoming disbaled does not result in spare rooms.

My point is if, as a society, we subsidise housing for the needy, as we absolutely should, then those families with spare rooms should be expected to move, within reason (i.e not to a shit hole in Birmingham), to make room for families who need more space. With the huge increases in life expectancy, I cannot see how a social housing system could be sustainable if families get to retain space, even after children have left home.

BTW: Not illiterate, still have no idea what you were trying to say about the thread and your subsequent explanation only muddied the waters further. As an editor, perhaps even you could see it is not your best work. "What I meant is you may not have intended to get James's thread back on track, but the upshot was it would have" Grammar red alert.

[buddug]

There is nothing wrong with my grammar, darling. As to the content of your post, I have nothing more to say. If you don't get it, you don't get it. If you live in a council flat with a spare room due to no fault of your own, and then you lose your job or become sick - then you have to leave your home immediately, or live on ?56 a week instead of the paltry ?71.

People in social housing who are not unemployed or disabled are not hounded for having a spare room due maybe to a child moving out to go to university or whatever.

And by the way, how can you be against the bedroom tax, yet support the bedroom tax? So your child leaves home - then you must leave your home of 20 years or so? Jesus. Talk about social engineering!

[reeko]

Social housing or no, we are all faced with the realities of changing family needs. I was fortunate enough to be able to buy my one bed flat ten years ago when it was just about affordable for me. Since then my family has grown and my flat is now uncomfortably cramped. I can't afford a bigger place in my community, if I need more space, I will have to move, away from my friends and family and amazing support network. It makes me sad (hence me clinging on) but that is life. With the exception of the vulnerable, I don't see why those in social housing should be immune from these pressures.

[buddug]

Aha. So you're just bitter about those who have lost their jobs or who become sick or disabled, having any help. You have these pressures, like most of us do, without experiencing disability, illness or unemployment on top of that. You poor bugger. Well, there you go. But God help you if you also lose your job or become disabled. You'll be sorry to learn you'll lose everything you've ever worked for.

What sickens me is why do you pretend to hate the bedroom tax, when you actually hate those most vulnerable in society affected by it? You are as much of a fraud as James is.

[bon3yard]

Shut up Reeko, you're a knob and you smell of wee and cheese.

[reeko]

There is no point in this. Assigning emotions to me like bitterness and hatred on such scant corespondence demonstrates that you are responding from an emotional rather than rational place, so debate is useless. This is the last from me on this thread, and as I am rational, I mean it.

I have stated clearly I believe social housing should be there to protect the needy. You choose to ignore this. I have stated that I disagree with the bedroom tax and in partular how it has been implemented in a way that penalises the most needy. You choose to ignore this. You have highlighted the plight of the disabled or those who have lost their jobs, but have not explained how this results in extra bedrooms. You have not explained how retention of space after children have left home is sustainable with the current demand for housing.

There are questions to be asked about how the system works and ignoring them will make things better for no-one.

[bon3yard]

...and, you live in Hackney. Why are you here anyway you fecking blow-in?

[buddug]

Bon3yard said: 'Shut up Reeko, you're a knob and you smell of wee and cheese.'

Whoahh! Steady on, old chap! I may well share your sentiments, but do have a care...

And as for you, Reeko. I'm afraid it is only a natural human response to feel compassionate and therefore emotional towards those less fortunate than ourselves. James's problem is he's also too rational, while also, like you, lacking in emotional intelligence. Rationality can only get you so far, as your posts have shown... or maybe you're only emotional towards your own situation...

[buddug]

Bon3yard said: 'Shut up Reeko, you're a knob and you smell of wee and cheese.'

Oh God, I love you Bon3yard!

[Pugwash]

if you attended the CAB lady's talk on Welfare Benefits on 10th September you will have been informed of the various appeals that have been successfully made with regards to exceptions re spare bedrooms. These appeals are on individual basis and several disabled people or those with disabled relatives/children have won their appeal against the tax.

THE CAB will assist anyone who feels they warrant an exception - for advice make contact with them directly

It is a government decision re the welfare reforms not local councillors so do not blame them as there is very little they can do about it regardless of their political colour

[reeko]

Bon3yard is a flagon of cider down, sitting beside me and will not be getting his oats for quite some time.

[buddug]

Pugwash said: 'It is a government decision re the welfare reforms not local councillors so do not blame them as there is very little they can do about it regardless of their political colour.'

Local LibDem councillors could all band together and say 'enough' to Clegg and tell him to leave the coalition as this has gone far enough, and that they are working on a local level picking up the pieces of the fallout from these policies. It would have a huge impact. But will they do that? Like hell they will. They have too much to lose.

And Pugwash, why the hell should disabled people, or the unemployed for that matter, have to take their cases to 'appeal'? Haven't they got enough on their plate without going through court cases for God's sake? Have you any idea what that's like?

[buddug]

Reeko, you're hardly rational saying you hate the bedroom tax and that it's unfair, and then in the same breath saying the unemployed and disabled should give up their homes if they happen at the time to have a spare bedroom for whatever reason. In fact, what you're saying is bonkers, frankly.

But really, I must knock this on the head. James has had a misfortune, and to be honest, probably feels pretty shaken up after the accident, so it's time for me to take my leave once and for all. And to wish him a speedy recovery.

At least we all know now - the LibDems, councillors as well as MPs, hate and resent the unemployed and disabled as much as the 'nasty party' Tories do. Unbelievable.

[Loz]

Buddug, you're coming over as a classic middle-class champagne lefty - all furious hand wringing and wild criticisms, but when challenged you show yourself as being completely unwilling of doing anything of any real value yourself.

Also, you deny stalking James, but the constant attacks on him have been going on for a few years now. It might not be stalking as such, but at the very least it comes across as a rather unhealthy obsession.

[EDLove]

I didn't get the impression that buddug was middle-classed. To the contrary, having read through the correspondence, he/she has handled themselves with very little class at all. The insults towards James (and anyone else who dares hold an alternative view) from both Buddug and Bon3yard (what was that all about?) are incredibly distasteful and have only served to diminish any valid points Buddug was trying to make. I'm surprised that any rational adult could feel that it is acceptable to 'debate' in this way.

In a wider context, the level of personal attacks taking place on this forum is dreadful. I know I am not alone in feeling wary of posting a message for fear of being hit by a barrage of abuse from certain prolific individuals.

[HelBel65]

Everything EDLove said!

EDLove Wrote:

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

> I didn't get the impression that buddug was

> middle-classed. To the contrary, having read

> through the correspondence, he/she has handled

> themselves with very little class at all. The

> insults towards James (and anyone else who dares

> hold an alternative view) from both Buddug and

> Bon3yard (what was that all about?) are incredibly

> distasteful and have only served to diminish any

> valid points Buddug was trying to make. I'm

> surprised that any rational adult could feel that

> it is acceptable to 'debate' in this way.

>

> In a wider context, the level of personal attacks

> taking place on this forum is dreadful. I know I

> am not alone in feeling wary of posting a message

> for fear of being hit by a barrage of abuse from

> certain prolific individuals.

[James Barber]

It is sad that when canvassing for every person who says to me they post o nthis forum, 9 say they feel too intimidated to post.

For the record. The 'bedroom tax', which is a reduction in housing benefit for surplus spare bedrooms, was first introduced by Labour with respect to housing benefit related to privately rented accomodation. I don't recall buddug asking pointed questions of Labour councillors then.

The tory part of the coalition have extended it to publicly owned accomodation. Lib Dems obtained a number of concessions related to armed force, disabled children, pensioners and I'm pleased to see the courts are extending these exemptions - most recent was far reaching about where a bedroom wasnt used as a bedroom but for medical purposes for a disabled adult.

But the principal of encouraging people in publicly subsidised accomodation with spare bedrooms to move to smaller homes making way to those with terrible overcrowding seems reasonable to me. The nudge is a 14% reduction in housing benefit for 1 spare bedroom. If someone is living in a Southwark council home the 14% would equate to sround ?12pw which is a lot of money to someone on benefits. But renting home for ?92pw is something many can only dream about.

The rules do allow a spare bedroom to be rented out for upto ?80pw tax free without loss of benefits.

Locally this is compounded by the council targetting the sell-off of 1 and 2 bedroom council properties. Exactly the property sizes so many are now looking to move into from larger properties that so many others need due to overcrowding.