Germany in state of siege!!!

by Guest Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:06 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249667/Germany-state-SIEGE-Merkel-cheered-opened-floodgates-migrants-gangs-men-roaming-streets-young-German-women-told-cover-mood-s-changing.html

[*]Thousands of economic migrants are posing as refugees to reach Europe
[*]David Cameron said this week that Europe must said failed asylum claimants back to their countries
[*]Demands for Germany's 'open doors and windows' policy to be scrapped
[*]Women said rape and child abuse were rife in Giessen's refugee camp

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:58 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yes I said a reliable source.
This is a media report which is based on hearsay.
It goes off a third hand source, did you not know?

Where is your proof that she was given the place because she was a single mother with two children?

No one has PROOF. We can only go by what's been reported!!!

I tell you this over and over again about everything you discuss:

UNLESS YOU WERE THERE AND SAW IT OR HEARD IT, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT KNOW!

The evidence is above for you, try reading.
Its a Muncipality property.
Stop being a dummy and follow the thread

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:59 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd just like to point out again that if any of the issues being discussed here were being done by Germans, the right wingers wouldn't even notice. The only reason this is somehow a "siege" in their view is because it involves Muslims.

I don't really care what religion they are, unless their religion goes against the culture of Germany. I haven't used the word "siege" either. However, the number of them is rather large, or hadn't you noticed?

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:59 pm

Cuchulain wrote:How is social housing financed?
It is very difficult to give a comprehensive picture of the financial mechanisms for social housing provision because municipalities and provinces have a great deal of responsibility for housing policy and therefore there are no centralised records and because funding programmes have evolved over time. In general, public subsidies (grants or tax relief) cover the gap between the perceived rent and cost rent. Public subsidies decrease progressively and at the same time the rent increases. At the end of the amortization period (typically 20 to 40 years for dwellings newly built with public subsidies, and 12-20 years for renovated dwellings) the dwelling can be let or sold at market rates. In practice though, municipally owned companies often continue to operate the units as de facto social housing in terms of rents and access. Housing allowances are also available for people below certain income ceilings, notwithstanding whether they rent or own their house.

Who can access social housing?
The target groups are defined by the legislation as households who cannot secure themselves with an adequate accommodation and need support. The policy supports in particular low-income households as well as families and other households with children, single parents, pregnant women, elderly, homeless and other needy persons.

http://www.housingeurope.eu/resource-107/social-housing-in-europe

So she really is no longer ticking the boxes from the little knowledge we know to qualify now for such housing. As seen the rent generally stays also cheap. Which she argues she pays the market rate, which could again mean what is the rate for social housing. Not only that the Muncipality claim dispute what she has said. Anyhow this is a Muncipality property which is meant for the above criteria. Which to me she really no loner qualifies for.

German Nurse salaries:

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Nurse-l-German,-VA.html

As seen this Nurse no longer qualifies for such housing.
She is thus being selfish denying this for others, when she herself benefitted from such housing.
So the Muncipality has every right to terminate the contract with as seen adequate notice

So all the claims top nationality are a smoke screen for bigoted views of refugees.
They are there to assit people in need,
.The refugees are in need.

For Eddie to digest

Doh

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:02 pm

Also, the news article uses the word "siege". You like people to use the same wording as the articles they're linking to Ben - when it suits you of course.

by eddie Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:03 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd just like to point out again that if any of the issues being discussed here were being done by Germans, the right wingers wouldn't even notice. The only reason this is somehow a "siege" in their view is because it involves Muslims.

Of course it is and its history repeating itself all over again.

It wouldn't have made the news so that's hardly a fair comment and yes, actually, I would comment because it is something that I happen to know alot about in the UK.

I fought my local council and won. I know the policies on housing.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:05 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Of course it is and its history repeating itself all over again.

It wouldn't have made the news so that's hardly a fair comment and yes, actually, I would comment because it is something that I happen to know alot about in the UK.

I fought my local council and won. I know the policies on housing.

If Ben can find an article where a Syrian in Syria was evicted to make room for a German, I'd be happy to comment.

by eddie Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:05 pm

Didge in the UK single men also qualify - especially if they've removed themselves from the family home and have children.

That article doesnt cover everybody.

No need to be so obtuse either.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:07 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Of course it is and its history repeating itself all over again.

It wouldn't have made the news so that's hardly a fair comment and yes, actually, I would comment because it is something that I happen to know alot about in the UK.

I fought my local council and won. I know the policies on housing.

Well you know doubt had good cause.
She once did when she filled the requirements to have such housing.
Now her children have grown up, she no longer fills those requirements for that housing and its ethically and morally wrong for her to stay when it can be sued for others, who do meet that requirement.
She is being selfish, when that is for those who need it:

Who can access social housing?
The target groups are defined by the legislation as households who cannot secure themselves with an adequate accommodation and need support. The policy supports in particular low-income households as well as families and other households with children, single parents, pregnant women, elderly, homeless and other needy persons.

Like I said, none of you would have battered an eyelid if this had been a Homeless German single mum with two children. Its nothing short of bigotry against humans based either on their religion on ethnicity.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:10 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, regardless of who is at fault, I agree that too much is made of the gym comment. It was just a figure of speech.

The real point is, the whole thing is none of yours or my business. It's a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. The landlord is within his rights, and a bunch of you feel sorry for the tenant. But the truth is, it's not your concern. How would you like a bunch of officious Englishmen sticking their nose into your business? It's called privity of contract for a reason. Next you'll be looking after whether she flushed, or if she lets dishes accumulate in the sink.

Now, I understand it's not that you care so much for her as you want to maximize the pain for a bunch of Muslims. If you advocate for her, in her plight, you bring criticism down on the Syrians who are in a bad way themselves. It's a form of adverse argument...pitting one victim against another.

But whenever I hear a form of adverse argument, I ask, why not take care of both? All of your moral cluck-clucking should be focused on the German state not putting enough resources into the solution. It's simple: provide enough housing for both the nurse and the Syrian refugees.

Well really Quill, if we only talked about things on this forum which were our business, we wouldn't talk about much would we?

I'm looking at the wider picture - the concept of prioritising non-citizens over citizens. I think that could apply to any country, including the UK.

I too am looking at the wider picture. I can't help but point out that you are sticking your nose into something that is none of your business; in the wider picture this begs the obvious question: why? You wouldn't care if the adverse party affected were not Muslims.

I'm just housecleaning and putting things back in their proper places.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:10 pm

eddie wrote:Didge in the UK single men also qualify - especially if they've removed themselves from the family home and have children.

That article doesnt cover everybody.

No need to be so obtuse either.

You were the one shouting love.
Look what disgusts me is all the fake reasons here given, when Ben is right, this is about who the people are that may obtain this property, whether Muslim or non-German.
Like I say she no longer meets the requirement to remain in this property. She has a good job and salary, so why should she stay when such properties are there to support those in need.
She no longer meets those needs, as her children are grown up.
To me she is being utterly selfish to a situation she once looked to help her and now deny to others.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well really Quill, if we only talked about things on this forum which were our business, we wouldn't talk about much would we?

I'm looking at the wider picture - the concept of prioritising non-citizens over citizens. I think that could apply to any country, including the UK.

I too am looking at the wider picture. I can't help but point out that you are sticking your nose into something that is none of your business; in the wider picture this begs the obvious question: why? You wouldn't care if the adverse party affected were not Muslims.

I'm just housecleaning and putting things back in their proper places.

Well then so are you sticking your nose into something that's not your business, so butt out.

How do you know the women being evicted aren't Muslims?

by eddie Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:12 pm

No didge. If you read back I said its wrong to exist her out of her home for refugees (or anyone actually!)

But I then stated, if the property was too big ie it was bigger than her needs, and she'd received prior warning and been told she had to move to a smaller property, then that would be fair and just.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I hadn't considered the size of her property before, which is why I was the first one to bring it up?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd just like to point out again that if any of the issues being discussed here were being done by Germans, the right wingers wouldn't even notice. The only reason this is somehow a "siege" in their view is because it involves Muslims.

I don't really care what religion they are, unless their religion goes against the culture of Germany. I haven't used the word "siege" either. However, the number of them is rather large, or hadn't you noticed?

But the fact is, Ben is right on. You just keenly avoided all the symbols, so you couldn't be accused. Still, you wouldn't give a rat's ass about this nurse were not the Syrian Muslims at issue.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't really care what religion they are, unless their religion goes against the culture of Germany. I haven't used the word "siege" either. However, the number of them is rather large, or hadn't you noticed?

But the fact is, Ben is right on. You just keenly avoided all the symbols, so you couldn't be accused. Still, you wouldn't give a rat's ass about this nurse were not the Syrian Muslims at issue.

How do you that the refugees they want to move in are Syrian Muslims?

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:16 pm

eddie wrote:No didge. If you read back I said its wrong to exist her out of her home for refugees (or anyone actually!)

But I then stated, if the property was too big ie it was bigger than her needs, and she'd received prior warning and been told she had to move to a smaller property, then that would be fair and just.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I hadn't considered the size of her property before, which is why I was the first one to bring it up?

I do not see anything wrong here. As her children are grown up, why should seh retain a property meant for those who need such help, as seen above?
She is the one actually being unfair when she only obtained this property because she once was in need and met those requirements.
You are defending a woman who once met the requirements for housing meant for those in need.
She no longer is entittled to such a property which is meant for those in need.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I too am looking at the wider picture. I can't help but point out that you are sticking your nose into something that is none of your business; in the wider picture this begs the obvious question: why? You wouldn't care if the adverse party affected were not Muslims.

I'm just housecleaning and putting things back in their proper places.

Well then so are you sticking your nose into something that's not your business, so butt out.

How do you know the women being evicted aren't Muslims?

Butt out??? Just because I'm winning this debate? Dream on, sister.

I don't need to know what religion the woman is; the adverse parties are Muslim, and that's what motivates you. Once that is clearly understood, we can see that this is a specious debate. No one cares about this woman...she's but a pawn in the greater argument against Muslims.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But the fact is, Ben is right on. You just keenly avoided all the symbols, so you couldn't be accused. Still, you wouldn't give a rat's ass about this nurse were not the Syrian Muslims at issue.

How do you that the refugees they want to move in are Syrian Muslims?

Because you are adverse. If they aren't Syrians, they are none the less Muslims. And that's what motivates you.

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, the news article uses the word "siege". You like people to use the same wording as the articles they're linking to Ben - when it suits you of course.

I can still take issue with the appropriateness of the word. You don't strike me as one who thinks the media is above criticism ...

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Are we under siege? Smile

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then so are you sticking your nose into something that's not your business, so butt out.

How do you know the women being evicted aren't Muslims?

Butt out??? Just because I'm winning this debate? Dream on, sister.

I don't need to know what religion the woman is; the adverse parties are Muslim, and that's what motivates you. Once that is clearly understood, we can see that this is a specious debate. No one cares about this woman...she's but a pawn in the greater argument against Muslims.

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:23 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, the news article uses the word "siege". You like people to use the same wording as the articles they're linking to Ben - when it suits you of course.

I can still take issue with the appropriateness of the word. You don't strike me as one who thinks the media is above criticism ...

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Are we under siege?

You don't usually criticise news media article titles ...

Strange that.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

How do you that the refugees they want to move in are Syrian Muslims?

Because you are adverse. If they aren't Syrians, they are none the less Muslims. And that's what motivates you.

How do you know they're Muslims?

You and Ben sure like to put words into people's mouths. No wonder you get on so well.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Butt out??? Just because I'm winning this debate? Dream on, sister.

I don't need to know what religion the woman is; the adverse parties are Muslim, and that's what motivates you. Once that is clearly understood, we can see that this is a specious debate. No one cares about this woman...she's but a pawn in the greater argument against Muslims.

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

Well, neither of us are on the scene. But these appear from reports to be the refugees from the conflict going on in Syria. They may be Syrians, or they may be others. I'm pretty confident they are Muslim, because that's what most Middle Easterners are. There could be Christians, however...a very few, I would think.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

Well, neither of us are on the scene. But these appear from reports to be the refugees from the conflict going on in Syria. They may be Syrians, or they may be others. I'm pretty confident they are Muslim, because that's what most Middle Easterners are. There could be Christians, however...a very few, I would think.

You haven't read the reports about Christian refugees being involved in fights or being assaulted by Muslim ones then.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Just because I'm winning this debate?

You do have a habit of forgetting what you've said.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Just because I'm winning this debate?

You do have a habit of forgetting what you've said.

Notice that it was a question?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Well, neither of us are on the scene. But these appear from reports to be the refugees from the conflict going on in Syria. They may be Syrians, or they may be others. I'm pretty confident they are Muslim, because that's what most Middle Easterners are. There could be Christians, however...a very few, I would think.

You haven't read the reports about Christian refugees being involved in fights or being assaulted by Muslim ones then.

It's a question of magnitude. I know there are a few Lebanese Christians in the region, but I don't think they are that heavily involved in the war.

But we are having a bit of mission creep here. We were talking about your adversity to European displacements owing to the refugees. Are you now claiming they are Christians? The facts I have received are all to the contrary.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You haven't read the reports about Christian refugees being involved in fights or being assaulted by Muslim ones then.

It's a question of magnitude. I know there are a few Lebanese Christians in the region, but I don't think they are that heavily involved in the war.

But we are having a bit of mission creep here. We were talking about your adversity to European displacements owing to the refugees. Are you now claiming they are Christians? The facts I have received are all to the contrary.

I'm not claiming anything. You, on the other hand, are claiming that they're Muslims, and you previously claimed that they were Syrian Muslims.

I didn't mention European displacements, I said that I didn't think citizens of a country should be placed second to non-citizens.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Raggamuffin wrote:How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

Well, neither of us are on the scene. But these appear from reports to be the refugees from the conflict going on in Syria. They may be Syrians, or they may be others. I'm pretty confident they are Muslim, because that's what most Middle Easterners are. There could be Christians, however...a very few, I would think.

being on the scene hasnt stopped you from giving commentary before quill

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, the news article uses the word "siege". You like people to use the same wording as the articles they're linking to Ben - when it suits you of course.

I can still take issue with the appropriateness of the word. You don't strike me as one who thinks the media is above criticism ...

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Are we under siege?

You don't usually criticise news media article titles ...

Strange that.

I criticize the Daily Heil all the time. Smile

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:12 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I know...I was taking stock of your belief that I am winning, and wish that it weren't so. The context is yours.

Well, neither of us are on the scene. But these appear from reports to be the refugees from the conflict going on in Syria. They may be Syrians, or they may be others. I'm pretty confident they are Muslim, because that's what most Middle Easterners are. There could be Christians, however...a very few, I would think.

being on the scene hasnt stopped you from giving commentary before quill

Nor, not being there. But you will admit if you are not a percipient witness you are at a disadvantage. You must depend upon the accounts of others

This the case with Raggs and I as we discuss the refugee situation in Europe.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:18 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

I said reliable socurces
Like for example actual German socurces like social housing and council properties in Germany.
I am sure you can use google translate.
So your claim is groundless.

You don't seem to have a problem quoting from The Telegraph yourself. Why do you do that if you don't consider it to be reliable?

by eddie Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then so are you sticking your nose into something that's not your business, so butt out.

How do you know the women being evicted aren't Muslims?

Butt out??? Just because I'm winning this debate? Dream on, sister.

I don't need to know what religion the woman is; the adverse parties are Muslim, and that's what motivates you. Once that is clearly understood, we can see that this is a specious debate. No one cares about this woman...she's but a pawn in the greater argument against Muslims.

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

They're not!

Did anyone bother to watch the panorama programme???

The interviewer spoke to loads of people who weren't even fleeing Syria.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:19 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're not winning anything, and you haven't actually debated anything.

How do you know that all the refugees are Muslims? You've surely read that they are not.

They're not!

Did anyone bother to watch the panorama programme???

The interviewer spoke to loads of people who weren't even fleeing Syria.

It's just Quill trying to make out this is a Muslim-bashing thread. Ben is as well.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:27 pm

Are we perhaps talking about different things?

Ben and I are talking about Germany, and the thousands of refugees emigrating from the Middle East to there.

You guys are talking about Christians and perhaps some other refugee migration???

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:28 pm

I really think that Quill forgets what he's posted about ten seconds after he's posted it.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I really think that Quill forgets what he's posted about ten seconds after he's posted it.

I think what your problem is, is that you don't have a disciplined mind. Consequently, you don't have a linear direction in your arguments.

Raggs, honestly, you see something tangential in a post--some word or symbol that triggers a kind of randomness about your cognitive meanderings--and you make that the mark of your next point. Of course, no one else was shooting at that mark, so no one else gets what you mean, or meant. It's a lack of concentration, and you can practice overcoming it if you wish.

In the meantime, you can see how much time we waste either following, or clarifying your meanderings of mind. As much as I can, I simply try to pull the conversation back on course. And I guess it looks like I am ignoring certain things; but really, I'm pursuing a disciplined line of reasoning, and resisting the pull of antagonisms, argument and the meanderings of your thought process.

Concentration is the key to overcoming your lack of intellectual discipline. Tommy or smells...I wouldn't even bother. But you have the skills, should you chose to develop them.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:47 pm

Quill, you need to discipline your mind into remembering what you posted earlier on in the thread, and then remember how it developed into a discussion about the religion of the refugees. You can't seem to follow the train of your own thoughts for five minutes.

by eddie Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:49 pm

You just described didge actually; he reads one word or section and jumps on that.

Perhaps we all do it sometimes. I just did lol!

by Original Quill Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you need to discipline your mind into remembering what you posted earlier on in the thread, and then remember how it developed into a discussion about the religion of the refugees. You can't seem to follow the train of your own thoughts for five minutes.

You follow the meaning, not the lone symbol. If the conversation went elsewhere, then spend some effort making the connection. Context is important.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I said reliable socurces
Like for example actual German socurces like social housing and council properties in Germany.
I am sure you can use google translate.
So your claim is groundless.

You don't seem to have a problem quoting from The Telegraph yourself. Why do you do that if you don't consider it to be reliable?

Yes i do quote from the Telegraph but I never said it was reliable.

Talk about trying to worm your way out of the fact I actually presented something way more reliable

So are you actually going to answer my question now?

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you need to discipline your mind into remembering what you posted earlier on in the thread, and then remember how it developed into a discussion about the religion of the refugees. You can't seem to follow the train of your own thoughts for five minutes.

You follow the meaning, not the lone symbol. If the conversation went elsewhere, then spend some effort making the connection. Context is important.

Do I need to remind you?

You said that I was only bothered about this nurse because the refugees were Syrian Muslims, or just Muslims. My point was that they weren't necessarily Syrian or Muslims, so therefore, your argument failed.

Read back and then understand the conversation.

You also keep missing the point I've made a couple of times that it's the issue of putting non-citizens above citizens which I've been talking about.

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:53 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't seem to have a problem quoting from The Telegraph yourself. Why do you do that if you don't consider it to be reliable?

Yes i do quote from the Telegraph but I never said it was reliable.

Talk about trying to worm your way out of the fact I actually presented something way more reliable

So are you actually going to answer my question now?

I answered it ages ago. It's not my fault if you have a short attention span.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yes i do quote from the Telegraph but I never said it was reliable.

Talk about trying to worm your way out of the fact I actually presented something way more reliable

So are you actually going to answer my question now?

I answered it ages ago. It's not my fault if you have a short attention span.

So you agree she has no right to remain in a property that is meant for people who are in need of such social housing? That for example those homeless are in more need.
She once had a great need, but this went after her kids grew up and left.
Not only that she has a good wage

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:00 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I answered it ages ago. It's not my fault if you have a short attention span.

So you agree she has no right to remain in a property that is meant for people who are in need of such social housing? That for example those homeless are in more need.
She once had a great need, but this went after her kids grew up and left.
Not only that she has a good wage

If the flat is large for one person, and if she is paying less than market rates, and the flat is supposed to be for social housing, then I would have no problem with her being moved so that other German citizens with more family members who need social housing could move in. I do not think a German citizen should be moved out so that non-citizens can move in.

According to news reports, it is not social housing, and she does not pay less than market rates though.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So you agree she has no right to remain in a property that is meant for people who are in need of such social housing? That for example those homeless are in more need.
She once had a great need, but this went after her kids grew up and left.
Not only that she has a good wage

If the flat is large for one person, and if she is paying less than market rates, and the flat is supposed to be for social housing, then I would have no problem with her being moved so that other German citizens with more family members who need social housing could move in. I do not think a German citizen should be moved out so that non-citizens can move in.

According to news reports, it is not social housing, and she does not pay less than market rates though.

Gibberish

Its social housing meant for people with needs.
She no longer meets those requirements as she has a good wage and her children have grown up and left home. So she is denying a large place to those who are in need. She forgets she obtained the place based on how she once also met those needs
Its owned by the Municipality, which means its social housing

Doh

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:06 pm

then of course is the cost

10 BILLION euro for germany THIS YEAR

what of next year
and the one after....

yes we are aware of the "economic benefits" argument....BUT thats a (very) long term thing

expect germay's unemployment figures to double (at least) and the wages of its people to be destroyed as cheaper "immigrant labour takes over" (but do not expct prices of food/housing to fall, the greedy 1%ers will want to keep the extra....)

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:08 pm

victorismyhero wrote:then of course is the cost

10 BILLION euro for germany THIS YEAR

what of next year
and the one after....

yes we are aware of the "economic benefits" argument....BUT thats a (very) long term thing

expect germay's unemployment figures to double (at least) and the wages of its people to be destroyed as cheaper "immigrant labour takes over" (but do not expct prices of food/housing to fall, the greedy 1%ers will want to keep the extra....)

What has it got to do with you Victor how the Germans spend their money?
Again are you trying to quantify a cost to helping save human lives?
So are you saying that humans have a price tag?
Again you go off other problems to deny helping people.
Do you know what is the worst part about all your posts, is that not once do you offer sensible alternatives to help these people. You instead argue at every turn to deny them. That speaks volumes to me this has everything to do with your pessimistic views you have of Muslims

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:09 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If the flat is large for one person, and if she is paying less than market rates, and the flat is supposed to be for social housing, then I would have no problem with her being moved so that other German citizens with more family members who need social housing could move in. I do not think a German citizen should be moved out so that non-citizens can move in.

According to news reports, it is not social housing, and she does not pay less than market rates though.

Gibberish

Its social housing meant for people with needs.
She no longer meets those requirements as she has a good wage and her children have grown up and left home. So she is denying a large place to those who are in need. She forgets she obtained the place based on how she once also met those needs
Its owned by the Municipality, which means its social housing

Doh

I've given my opinion. Take it or leave it - I don't really care.

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:09 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If the flat is large for one person, and if she is paying less than market rates, and the flat is supposed to be for social housing, then I would have no problem with her being moved so that other German citizens with more family members who need social housing could move in. I do not think a German citizen should be moved out so that non-citizens can move in.

According to news reports, it is not social housing, and she does not pay less than market rates though.

Gibberish

Its social housing meant for people with needs.
She no longer meets those requirements as she has a good wage and her children have grown up and left home. So she is denying a large place to those who are in need. She forgets she obtained the place based on how she once also met those needs
Its owned by the Municipality, which means its social housing

Doh

of course didge misses the point entirely.....yet again

what this instance shows is that in reality NO person in "council accomodation " in germany is now safe in their home

any one of them can now be kicked out onto the street in favour of an immigrant.....

by Guest Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

being on the scene hasnt stopped you from giving commentary before quill

Nor, not being there. But you will admit if you are not a percipient witness you are at a disadvantage. You must depend upon the accounts of others

This the case with Raggs and I as we discuss the refugee situation in Europe.

well since that is the case you will admit that interent access aside, rags and ME are better percipient witnesses than yourself being as you are not only geographically disadvantaged but culturally as well

by Sponsored content