Germany in state of siege!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:They're having to publish the constitution in Arabic now to point out that men and women are equal, and that homosexuality is fine, and that anti-semitism is not tolerated in Germany.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/europe-migrants-germany-constitution-idINKCN0RU13020150930

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They're having to publish the constitution in Arabic now to point out that men and women are equal, and that homosexuality is fine, and that anti-semitism is not tolerated in Germany.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/europe-migrants-germany-constitution-idINKCN0RU13020150930

Funny how male superiority, straight superiority and ethnic/religious bigotry are so often defended and promoted by the right ...

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:well, as didge says she will have to adapt...after all she doesnt count the filthy privilidged native...

Yes societies adapt.


and in this case it seems we are going to have to adapt to "council tennats" being MALICIOUSLY evicted to suit the political agenda of the lefty's
there is no other explanation for this particular case
from the article....

" Mario Schlafke, the mayor of Eschbach, says the town had no choice but to ask Ms Keller to leave.

“The council hasn’t taken a frivolous decision,” he told Welt newspaper. “The alternative would have been to set up beds in the gym.”

so they DO have an alternative


THEN there is this which is very telling......

"The town of just 2,400 people is under pressure to find space for refugees, and Ms Keller’s flat is one of only two owned by the local municipality. It is not social housing and Ms Keller is a rent-paying tenant.
So we are forced to ask....is tghis the next "adaption...council tennants being forcibly eveicted to make way for "refugees"

It also seems that there is going to be no "help" and that the politicos are quite prepared to lie to cover their asses......

"The municipality says it has offered to help Ms Keller find new accommodation, a claim she denies."

I wonder how long it will be until social housing landlords are bribed by the promise of higher rents from the councils to evict THEIR tennants in favour of these interlopers...???


They have adpated to women having the vote many people threw their dummies out over and were against this. They adapted to the end of criminalizing homosexuality, even adpating for them to be allowed equal rights to marry. She is been sadly to ask to move from a place she does not own. She may even have a legal case, but spare me what you understand about adpating.

you clearly understand little enough...all those things you waffled on about there are irrelevaent and in any case totally different animals....

Anyway not going to get drawn into the same arguments as last night


No i wouldnt want to in your position....you embarassed your self quite enough....gods teeth man even your lefty lovies turned on you...EVEN Sassy....and she , bless her has trotsky tatooed on the inside of her eyelids

Have a good evening Victor, all the best mate

Off out for the night

Raggamuffin wrote:It's ridiculous. So this woman has to move out so that a refugee or two don't have to sleep in a gym.

If she can find another flat, so can the people who are chucking her out - and then put the refugee or two in there. If she can't, well she'll just have to sleep in the gym I guess while someone else has her bed.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's ridiculous. So this woman has to move out so that a refugee or two don't have to sleep in a gym.

If she can find another flat, so can the people who are chucking her out - and then put the refugee or two in there. If she can't, well she'll just have to sleep in the gym I guess while someone else has her bed.

victorismyhero wrote:and in this case it seems we are going to have to adapt to "council tennats" being MALICIOUSLY evicted to suit the political agenda of the lefty's
there is no other explanation for this particular case
from the article....  " Mario Schlafke, the mayor of Eschbach, says the town had no choice but to ask Ms Keller to leave.

“The council hasn’t taken a frivolous decision,” he told Welt newspaper. “The alternative would have been to set up beds in the gym

so they DO have an alternative
You call that an alternative Elmer Fudd?
Odd I do not see that as anything but temporary do you?
You see your ability to rationalize has become dampened of late, based on all your nagative poor ridiculous hateful reasons to deny refugees, none of which asked for the decision made here


THEN there is this which is very telling......

"The town of just 2,400 people is under pressure to find space for refugees, and Ms Keller’s flat is one of only two owned by the local municipality. It is not social housing and Ms Keller is a rent-paying tenant.
So we are forced to ask....is tghis the next "adaption...council tennants being forcibly eveicted to make way for "refugees" It also seems that there is going to be no "help" and that the politicos are quite prepared to lie to cover their asses.....

So she is just a tennat then, which means she is just under lease to rent the property and any lease that comes up for renewal can be denied. They did not even have to give a reason, which you sadly fogot to think about here. That was a tad of a clanger by you Victor. Now at the end of the day I am sorry she has been asked to move but that is out of her hands as its down to those who own the flat, where the clear intention is to adpat the place into a refugee centre. She no doubt got this reduced place when she was raising children, but now they are grown up. I mean lets face it this happens daily where leases are not renewed for a number of reasons, but do any of you bat a eyelid over any of this?
No most of you could not give a shit until the dreaded word 'refugees' is mentioned. This is why the arguments clearly stem from an anti refugee feeling. That is why I do not buy your arguments Victor, because they are quite ridiculous, pathetic, hypocritical stemming from an utter por prejudice you have.

"The municipality says it has offered to help Ms Keller find new accommodation, a claim she denies."I wonder how long it will be until social housing landlords are bribed by the promise of higher rents from the councils to evict THEIR tennants in favour of these interlopers...???
I wonder how many times you will continue to make the most absurd ridiculous claims based off two incidents? 100? a 1,000? At the end of the day like I say its a shame she has been given notice but this is a daily occurance world over and its down to those who own the properties. Now I would certainly be very much at issue if she still had children she was rasing there, but again they are grown up. The fact of the matter is like I say she has sold her story to the paper which normally brings out the most outrage when people do from some posters on here and is milking it for everything she has got. Who can blame her, as this will ensure she gets extra money to help her move

you clearly understand little enough...all those things you waffled on about there are irrelevaent and in any case totally different animals...
Becuase you say they are irrelevant? I do not think so.
You just have the most backward bigoted views at times and its not something else driving this as you poorly claim, its all down to you getting so worked up where you would not even do the same to countless having their lease terminated. This is what really is the crunch of this debate, where nobody does bat an eyelid to this happenning every day. The fact of the matter is I had no doubt such stories would be sensationalized, whiich the anti refugee brigade would jump on at a moments notice. I mean seriously, two people facing eviction after hundreds of thousands have come. 2 people out of over 80 million Germans. It just further shows how you look to blow something out of all proportions. You are using the plight of two people who sadly having been given a rough deal over nothing they did. Neither did the refugees decide, but a couple of people in authority. So if you wish to whinge and moan, direct your anger at them, but spare me your fake outrage, as you are just using this as a stick to beat the refugees with

]No i wouldnt want to in your position....you embarassed your self quite enough....gods teeth man even your lefty lovies turned on you...EVEN Sassy....and she , bless her has trotsky tatooed on the inside of her eyelids        

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's ridiculous. So this woman has to move out so that a refugee or two don't have to sleep in a gym.

If she can find another flat, so can the people who are chucking her out - and then put the refugee or two in there. If she can't, well she'll just have to sleep in the gym I guess while someone else has her bed.

I think the gym metaphor was hyperbole.  I think that Mayor Schlafke is trying to say it was a more solid, lasting solution given the way things were.

and I think you are talking bollox as usual....the gym is real...not a metaphor

Raggs, I get the feeling that your arguments are crocodile tears, and, that your extraordinary concern for her—which some would call socialism—is merely a convenience of argument.  Knowing you, I don’t think you would advance such care and concern for her was it not that she is a victim in a scenario involving a ‘superior’ villain.  That is, if she was just someone being evicted by some landlord, you would be right there defending the property rights of the property owner.  Your xenophobia for Muslims is greater than your feelings for the underdog.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:and in this case it seems we are going to have to adapt to "council tennats" being MALICIOUSLY evicted to suit the political agenda of the lefty's
there is no other explanation for this particular case
from the article....  " Mario Schlafke, the mayor of Eschbach, says the town had no choice but to ask Ms Keller to leave.

“The council hasn’t taken a frivolous decision,” he told Welt newspaper. “The alternative would have been to set up beds in the gym

so they DO have an alternative
You call that an altfernative Elmer Fudd?

irrelevent waffle

Odd I do not see that as anything but temporary do you?

true it would be temporary.....but the local authority can adapt can it not...and build more housing during that "temporary period" (hint ...pre fabbed housing takes 3 days to put up and make habitable )

You see yourt ability to rationalie has become dampened of late, based on all your nagative poor ridiculous hateful reasons to deny refugees, none of which asked for the decision made here

so instead you deny this woman then???...you were proved wrong yesterday and you are still wrong today....


THEN there is this which is very telling......

"The town of just 2,400 people is under pressure to find space for refugees, and Ms Keller’s flat is one of only two owned by the local municipality. It is not social housing and Ms Keller is a rent-paying tenant.
So we are forced to ask....is tghis the next "adaption...council tennants being forcibly eveicted to make way for "refugees" It also seems that there is going to be no "help" and that the politicos are quite prepared to lie to cover their asses.....

So she is just a tennat then, which means she is just under lease to rent the property and any lease that comes up for renewal can be denied. "has it come up for renewal...or is that just YOUR excuse They did not even have to give a reason, which you sadly fogot to think about here. That was a tad of a clanger by you Victor. Now at the end of the day I am sorry she has been asked to move but that is out of her hands as its down to those who own the flat, where the clear intention is to adpat the place into a refugee centre. She no doubt got this reduced place when she was raing children, but now they are grown up. I mean lets face it this happens daily where leases are not renewed for a number of reasons, but do any of you bat a eyelid over any of this?
No most of you could not give a shitr until the dreaded word 'refugees' is mentioned. This is why the arguments clearly stem from an anti refugee feeling. That is why I do not buy your arguments Victor, because they are quite ridiculous, pathetic, hypocritical stemming from an utter por prejudice you have.

"The municipality says it has offered to help Ms Keller find new accommodation, a claim she denies."I wonder how long it will be until social housing landlords are bribed by the promise of higher rents from the councils to evict THEIR tennants in favour of these interlopers...???
I wonder how many times you will continue to make the most absurd ridiculous is it...see below.... claims based off two incidents? 100? a 1,000?if it gets to 1000, I think we mmay safely say I was right all along At the end of the day like I say its a shame she has been given notice but this is a daily occurance world over and its down to those who own the properties. Now I would certainly be very much at issue if she still had children she was rasing there, but again they are grown up. The fact of the matter is like I say she has sold her story to the paper has she "sold her story...or is that just your "opinion" and a good excuse to deny one MORE ....like i said there could be half a million and you would just dismiss them one by one.... which normally brings out the most outrage when people do from some posters on here and is milking it for everything she has got. Who can blame her, as this will ensure she gets extra money to help her move

you clearly understand little enough...all those things you waffled on about there are irrelevaent and in any case totally different animals...
Becuase you say they are irrelevant? I do not think so.
and what about the irelevent waffle above from you.....?
Yes they ARE irrelevent...becasue they are different subjects entirely

You just have the most backward bigoted views at times and its not something else driving this as you poorly claim, its all down to you getting so worked up where you would not even do the same to countless having their lease terminated. This is what really is the crunch of this debate, where nobody does bat an eyelid to this happenning every day. The fact of the matter is I had no doubt such stories would be sensationalized, whiich the anti refugee brigade would jump on at a moments notice. I mean seriously, two people facing eviction after hundreds of thousands have come. 2 people out of over 80 million Germans. It just further shows how you look to blow something out of all proportions. You are using the plight of two people who sadly having been given a rough deal over nothing they did. Neither did the refugees decide, but a couple of people in authority. So if you wish to whinge and moan, direct your anger at them, but spare me your fake outrage, as you are just using this as a stick to beat the refugees with

no Im not....you are deliberatly conflating my ire towards the treatment of these women with antipathy to the refugees in order to justify the actions of these "officials"
have i said any refugees should be punished...NO...what I HAVE said is that if the gym is ALL that is available then they should be grateful for that in the short term...AND the fat ass lazy mayor should get off his ass, sell his limmo and build some housing in short order....

see unlike you....I dont play the numbers game...

]No i wouldnt want to in your position....you embarassed your self quite enough....gods teeth man even your lefty lovies turned on you...EVEN Sassy....and she , bless her has trotsky tatooed on the inside of her eyelids        

And then you end like a complete wally, I am not even a lefty, blimey you are getting as bad as the dalek calling anyone that differs to you a lefty, when I have more right wing views than you do. That has to be the most ridiclous thing you can ever lay claim to me based on the views we differ on. So if anything your views are far more to the left than mine. So If I am a lefty, that would make in line to succeed Stalin. lol

too true you aint a lefty......you are in reality the negative image of national socialism (as opoposed to nazism, which was in reality the "cult of hitler". Just as Stalinism was the "cult of stalin...NOT socialism)

see you dont give a shite about social justice or protecting the underdog if hes "one of your own"

yet you would pauper everyone to look after the world and its dog AND the dogs fleas....

you ARE fiscally right and socially left...internationalist even to the well being of your own...

thus you ARE a "liberalist" and hence part of that awful animal the LLA....and incidently put you in the same bed as the lefties on some issues....
for a supposed R/W er you have strange bedfellows....

now me...

I am fiscally left and socially right......

eddie wrote:Something that's not entirely clear to me here...

The woman loves alone yes? So therefore, has a one-bedroom property as is the only entitlement that she would have.

They aren't evicting her for a needy "family", then, they must be evicting her for a single person...?

eddie wrote:Something that's not entirely clear to me here...

The woman loves alone yes?
NO, she has her rabbit (rampant type)



So therefore, has a one-bedroom property as is the only entitlement that she would have.

They aren't evicting her for a needy "family", then, they must be evicting her for a single person...?

victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think the gym metaphor was hyperbole.  I think that Mayor Schlafke is trying to say it was a more solid, lasting solution given the way things were.

and I think you are talking bollox as usual....the gym is real...not a metaphor

Raggs, I get the feeling that your arguments are crocodile tears, and, that your extraordinary concern for her—which some would call socialism—is merely a convenience of argument.  Knowing you, I don’t think you would advance such care and concern for her was it not that she is a victim in a scenario involving a ‘superior’ villain.  That is, if she was just someone being evicted by some landlord, you would be right there defending the property rights of the property owner.  Your xenophobia for Muslims is greater than your feelings for the underdog.

moreover....the "who" is to a greater extent irrelevent....the PRINCIPLE however isnt....

it is simply ridiculous to make one person homeless in order to give a home to another...it neither solves the problem nor in the circumstances surroundig this issue does it ensure a welcome for the "interloper"

as I said to didge last night...how many "one offs" do you want...when is enough , enough....?

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Something that's not entirely clear to me here...

The woman loves alone yes? So therefore, has a one-bedroom property as is the only entitlement that she would have.

They aren't evicting her for a needy "family", then, they must be evicting her for a single person...?

Well I think she raised her two sons there as a single parent which would explain her obtaining this property from the council to lease Eddie
Being that it is 90 Square feet,
That is no small flat, so it begs the question why she would then need all that space?

Original Quill wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

moreover....the "who" is to a greater extent irrelevent....the PRINCIPLE however isnt....

it is simply ridiculous to make one person homeless in order to give a home to another...it neither solves the problem nor in the circumstances surroundig this issue does it ensure a welcome for the "interloper"

as I said to didge last night...how many "one offs" do you want...when is enough , enough....?

The gym is real?  Nah, I think you've read it wrong.  Lost in translation...you get the jist.  And that's giving you the benefit of doubt...neither you or the good mayor have shown us gyms full of beds.

i rather think thats the POINT...the mayor...for whatever reason, doesnt want his precious gym "full of beds"

On your other point, the 'who' is the PRINCIPLE, had you paid attention.  The point was that the evicted nurse could as easily been the liberal's victim had the script been different.  I was merely saying that in Ragg's hierarchy of conservative values, xenophobia trumps economic hardship.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Something that's not entirely clear to me here...

The woman loves alone yes? So therefore, has a one-bedroom property as is the only entitlement that she would have.

They aren't evicting her for a needy "family", then, they must be evicting her for a single person...?

Well I think she raised her two sons there as a single parent which would explain her obtaining this property from the council to lease Eddie
Being that it is 90 Square feet,
That is no small flat, so it begs the question why she would then need all that space?

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well I think she raised her two sons there as a single parent which would explain her obtaining this property from the council to lease Eddie
Being that it is 90 Square feet,
That is no small flat, so it begs the question why she would then need all that space?

yep that right a single person only NEEDS 48 square feet (8x6 a prison cell)

so we are back to "needs" as oposed to "is healthier and happier with more"....

we can all live in those dreadful "boxes" they have in china (or is it japan?)

victorismyhero wrote:ang on a min...90m sqare FEET...or 90 square meters???

cos 90 square feet is ONLY 10 feet by 9 feet....smaller than my bathroom???

victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The gym is real?  Nah, I think you've read it wrong.  Lost in translation...you get the jist.  And that's giving you the benefit of doubt...neither you or the good mayor have shown us gyms full of beds.

i rather think thats the POINT...the mayor...for whatever reason, doesnt want his precious gym "full of beds"

On your other point, the 'who' is the PRINCIPLE, had you paid attention.  The point was that the evicted nurse could as easily been the liberal's victim had the script been different.  I was merely saying that in Ragg's hierarchy of conservative values, xenophobia trumps economic hardship.

Original Quill wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

The "gym full of beds" was hyperbole...a metaphor exaggerated to create an effect.  There is no gym and there are no beds.

The simple fact is that this whole argument is spin: some news media guy has found a single instance that has all of the drama of a victim, sitting on her suitcase, in tears, selling her victimness in order to vilify some other victims (the Syrians).  In the first place, you can't generalize from specifics.  And in the second place, I don't believe she is a victim, nor do I believe that you and Raggs believe she is a victim either.  As I said, she is a convenience of the argument.

You and Raggs follow the crocodile tears; I'm going to talk straight talk.

eddie wrote:Did he it is not commonplace to be evicted from your flat just to make way for someone else, refugee or no refugee.

It would be different if she'd had a letter saying that she now didn't need two bedrooms so would be moved to a smaller property.

But that's not what happened.

Cuchulain wrote:90 Square meters is big enough for a family.
Like i say, would any here have objected if this had been going to a single German mum with two children?
I very much doubt it which shows the reasons are anti refugee based.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Did he it is not commonplace to be evicted from your flat just to make way for someone else, refugee or no refugee.

It would be different if she'd had a letter saying that she now didn't need two bedrooms so would be moved to a smaller property.

But that's not what happened.

But the point is Eddie, no matter what is legal here. Would anyone have really objected, if she was given plenty of notice as she has been in order to house a German single mum homeless with two children?
Seriously I want to know if anyone would have objected to that. Where they helped find her a new smaller home,

the problem with THAT didge, is at a personal level isnt it....

so she gets a new smaller home.....so what pray does she "throw away, get rid of....

her dog?

erm...all the mementos of her kids?
erm...all her "hobby" things (if she has them)

of course we cant say, witghout knowing what she did or does...but that CAN be a problem....

i mean...take me

i couldnt manage in anywhere smaller...

6 cats, seven dogs
birds

my study with computer/radios books  etc

my workshop of 25 sq meters

my wood shed

chickens

the missus

guns

angling gear

where the hell would I fit THAT lot in anywhere smaller??


See peoples lives tend to fill the spot they occupy......people forget that...or deliberately and callously ignore it (as long as it aint themselves)?



now that her kids have grown up? Is she then being unfair being as she was given this opportunity herself, clearly as it is a council property, she was a single mum of two?

Cuchulain wrote:I dont believe you for a minute Victor
Sorry I think you know this point I have made trumps the situation because you have been going on about helping the homeless first and foremost and this in any situation would be helping a homeless single mum of two. So you are contradicting your views from earlier posts where you stated many times to helping the homeless. So where a mother who herself was helped when she needed help, provided with cheaper accomdation no doubt took this opportunity without a second thought. Why to me she is being unfair is she had this help herself when she needed help, to then deny this help to others is selfish, more so when her children are grown up and others can now use this property.

So you are saying the needs of a woman who's children are grown up, where she certainly does not need the very large flat that she has,

just who the fuck....do you think YOU are to make such a judgement????

of which it is selfish to not think of others who would need this space for their faimily, outweighs that of a homeless german mother of two?

Nonesense, you know this point is showing how and I am positive of this many would have not objected at all for her to down size, now her children have grown up and now allow someone else who needs this home to use it. When it boils down to your view on quality of life, well you can have one bed flats which are very spacious indeed.
THAT is a different matter.....IF and I say IF it is sufficiently spacious then there is fair argument to be made....the nuber of bedrooms in that case is irrelevent to the case.... ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL ...ie cost travel time/cost etc....

She certainly does not need or require something of this size, when even more it was once clearly was a benefit to her. Cheaper housing should be for those who need it and she is talking up a large space that others less fortunate than her can certainly use.  

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:I dont believe you for a minute Victor
Sorry I think you know this point I have made trumps the situation because you have been going on about helping the homeless first and foremost and this in any situation would be helping a homeless single mum of two. by making a single person homeless instead???(since we can safely presume the authority is lying about getting her any help) So you are contradicting your views from earlier posts where you stated many times to helping the homeless. So where a mother who herself was helped when she needed help, provided with cheaper accomdation no doubt took this opportunity without a second thought. Why to me she is being unfair is she had this help herself when she needed help, to then deny this help to others is selfish, more so when her children are grown up and others can now use this property.

So you are saying the needs of a woman who's children are grown up, where she certainly does not need the very large flat that she has,

just who the fuck....do you think YOU are to make such a judgement????

of which it is selfish to not think of others who would need this space for their faimily, outweighs that of a homeless german mother of two?

Nonesense, you know this point is showing how and I am positive of this many would have not objected at all for her to down size, now her children have grown up and now allow someone else who needs this home to use it. When it boils down to your view on quality of life, well you can have one bed flats which are very spacious indeed.
THAT is a different matter.....IF and I say IF it is sufficiently spacious then there is fair argument to be made....the nuber of bedrooms in that case is irrelevent to the case....  ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL ...ie cost travel time/cost etc....

She certainly does not need or require something of this size,

how do you know???

when even more it was once clearly was a benefit to her. Cheaper housing should be for those who need it and she is talking up a large space that others less fortunate than her can certainly use.  

Raggamuffin wrote:Still they invited them in ...

Cuchulain wrote:Who am I?
Someone who clearly understands better the needs of others over someone who does not need such a large space now Victor.

this is the problem with you didge...you have this fixation with "needs"...soley on YOUR interpretation...an interpretation I have NO hesitation is saying you would carefully neglect to apply to your self under similar circumstances....unless of course it was to your advantage......

Your argunment is spent and done, as seen you crapped on for ages about helping the homeless
YES, but NOT at the expense of another, save perhaps the somewhat leftist principle that you should really only have the right to ONE home.... one home (no matter how big) is a right...two is just plain wrong.....
we SHOULD be doing more for the homeless...but you have never seen me advocate truning someone elses life upside down to do so.....so that YOUR argument dealt with



and now when I place your own argument back at you, then you crumble quickly.

so no crumbling....I'm NOT a feckin pie.....

That is called learning from the master, that being you.
The student lerans fast as you well know and the student has the better of the argument as you well know.
She can still have a great quality of life even in a large one bedroom flat,

as i said, given the single bed flat is of sufficient size for HER particular needs then there is no argument....other than that there is....

we are conflating numbers of rooms with "space"

BUT again having said that she is not getting any help ...so........

where she certainly does not need something this big when its purpose was to clearly help single families etc.
Like I say most reasonble people would see that for her to stay is neglecting the very fact why she needed the large flat in the first place. She was a single mum rasing two kids, where some how she seems to have forgotten that

victorismyhero wrote:this is the problem with you didge...you have this fixation with "needs"...soley on YOUR interpretation...an interpretation I have NO hesitation is saying you would carefully neglect to apply to your self under similar circumstances....unless of course it was to your advantage......
Really lets weigh up these needs then shall we.
She needed a large place as there was her two children and herself.
Now there is just her.
Now foir arguments sake, a homeless single German mum with two children, is in a worse situation than when she first needed this place.
Their needs outweigh any of your absurd reasons based on your belief she needs to retain such a large place to live.
Its just utterly absurd.
She has a home that ccan be used by those in more need, when again its whole clear purpose leased by the council was to help those struggling.
So yes I can easily weigh up the needs, you are just trying poorly to deny them


YES, but NOT at the expense of another, save perhaps the somewhat leftist principle that you should really only have the right to ONE home.... one home (no matter how big) is a right...two is just plain wrong.....
we SHOULD be doing more for the homeless...but you have never seen me advocate truning someone elses life upside down to do so.....so that YOUR argument dealt with
But she herself only obtained this flat because she once needed this help herself, which you keep avoiding at every turn. This is after all a council owned property, which means when she needed cheaper rented accomadation she obtained this, because then her needs were great. Now she does not need such a large place, as her children have grown up. So at her expense? Really, again for her to think she should stay when she was offered this help herself before to deny now others who clearly need this help is utterly selfish


so no crumbling....I'm NOT a feckin pie.....
Hope not shepherds pie. lol

as i said, given the single bed flat is of sufficient size for HER particular needs then there is no argument....other than that there is....
we are conflating numbers of rooms with "space"
A lady who is in a big council property bought or built to help needy families etc is always been about afforadble accomadtion to those who need this, of which she herself benefited. Hence for her to be unreasonable here is forgetting how she was graced with such help. It has more rooms than one person clearly needs for a rented accomadation that its intent was to help those in need. her needs are now far lesser than that of a Homeless German singler mother of two.
That is just basica commen sense

BUT again having said that she is not getting any help ...so........

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:this is the problem with you didge...you have this fixation with "needs"...soley on YOUR interpretation...an interpretation I have NO hesitation is saying you would carefully neglect to apply to your self under similar circumstances....unless of course it was to your advantage......
Really lets weigh up these needs then shall we.
She needed a large place as there was her two children and herself.
Now there is just her.
Now foir arguments sake, a homeless single German mum with two children, is in a worse situation than when she first needed this place.
Their needs outweigh any of your absurd reasons based on your belief she needs to retain such a large place to live.
Its just utterly absurd.
She has a home that ccan be used by those in more need, when again its whole clear purpose leased by the council was to help those struggling.
So yes I can easily weigh up the needs, you are just trying poorly to deny them


YES, but NOT at the expense of another, save perhaps the somewhat leftist principle that you should really only have the right to ONE home.... one home (no matter how big) is a right...two is just plain wrong.....
we SHOULD be doing more for the homeless...but you have never seen me advocate truning someone elses life upside down to do so.....so that YOUR argument dealt with
But she herself only obtained this flat because she once needed this help herself, which you keep avoiding at every turn. This is after all a council owned property, which means when she needed cheaper rented accomadation she obtained this, because then her needs were great. Now she does not need such a large place, as her children have grown up. So at her expense? Really, again for her to think she should stay when she was offered this help herself before to deny now others who clearly need this help is utterly selfish


so no crumbling....I'm NOT a feckin pie.....
Hope not shepherds pie. lol

as i said, given the single bed flat is of sufficient size for HER particular needs then there is no argument....other than that there is....
we are conflating numbers of rooms with "space"
A lady who is in a big council property bought or built to help needy families etc is always been about afforadble accomadtion to those who need this, of which she herself benefited. Hence for her to be unreasonable here is forgetting how she was graced with such help. It has more rooms than one person clearly needs for a rented accomadation that its intent was to help those in need. her needs are now far lesser than that of a Homeless German singler mother of two.
That is just basica commen sense

ere we go again...never mind number of rooms.......as I agreed ...IF the alternative has sufficient space for her (present) needs then fine....one bed or 3 matters not. as long as she can fit all her "stuff" into it in a reasonable manner...she may have to "move" (and that is possibly, just acceptable) but she should NOT in ANY circumstance have to change her "life style" or get rid of anything she owns, nor be placed in an impossible situation becasue of that requirement

BUT again having said that she is not getting any help ...so........

Really, they claim otherwise

yes yes didge...and "authority" ALWAYS acts truthfully and honourably doesnt it, especially when its playing politics with peoples lives

as I said...this is number 2......how many more do you want untill you admit there is a problem ?
10.
100
1000

6 million?





which after looking into this more and how she went to the press

so what should she do...keep quiet about it....roll over and die? of course she went to the press about it....


and how irn makes the best point so far that the sources are not the mot reliable and are from media sources anti refugee. How she clearly herself was helped once before makes me less believe her claims to them not helping. I think she is is miffed to lose out on being able to stay in a property, that in all reality deserves to go to someone more needy.
The more I think about this story, the more I think she has truely forgotten how she was once helped. Yes its sad she has to leave a place she has lived a long time with many memmories, but she only obtained this, when she was in need herself. Time she did the right thing and allowed someone else this need

and I'm sure the god of the LLA will reward her in the herinafter.....

Cuchulain wrote:Your argument is spent where you have not reasoned over the needs of someone homeless with children to woman who now should allow this cheaper accomadation to go to someone who needs it. She needed it once herself becuase she was a single mum rasing children. Now they are grown up. has is she changing her lifestyle?

so what do you suggest (if they put her somewhere smaller) she "gets rid of"  come on...you are the "expert" on "needs" always telling us what we "need"  

the dog perhaps?

or the TV

or her "hobby stuff"

or.....what?


this is what i mean by lifestyle....and peoples lives growing to fill the space they live in.....

I would not accept being forced to move somewhere smaller and losing any of my "stuff" ....for anyone or anything....if any of MY stuff has to go ...it will be by MY choice and for MY reasons....not the dictats of some "official"








Now you are really getting desperate, based on no outcome of this yet.
Sorry but you have gone beyond clutching at straws. Who is to say they will find her now something even cheaper if smaller in a one bed flat instead of the two-three bed possible accomadtion this is? What then if this frees up more money for her? Less bills, as smaller to heat etc? Did you think of any of this?
Like I say you are just make very weak what if's.

victorismyhero wrote:so what do you suggest (if they put her somewhere smaller) she "gets rid of"  come on...you are the "expert" on "needs" always telling us what we "need"

the dog perhaps?

or the TV

or her "hobby stuff"

or.....what?


this is what i mean by lifestyle....and peoples lives growing to fill the space they live in.....

I would not accept being forced to move somewhere smaller and losing any of my "stuff" ....for anyone or anything....if any of MY stuff has to go ...it will be by MY choice and for MY reasons....not the dictats of some "official"
and so do you......

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:so what do you suggest (if they put her somewhere smaller) she "gets rid of"  come on...you are the "expert" on "needs" always telling us what we "need"

the dog perhaps?

or the TV

or her "hobby stuff"

or.....what?


this is what i mean by lifestyle....and peoples lives growing to fill the space they live in.....

I would not accept being forced to move somewhere smaller and losing any of my "stuff" ....for anyone or anything....if any of MY stuff has to go ...it will be by MY choice and for MY reasons....not the dictats of some "official"
and so do you......

Again poor what if's
This is all you are left depserately to argue on where there is no reason she would have to give up anything.
Come on a TV?
This is not going to fit in the flat?
What is it? A TV 10 ft wide?
Behave.
How on earth would she need to give up the dog or cat?
Anyway I am against cats and dogs being couped up in flats anyway., of which she no doubt has to leave them this way, when she works. I think its utterly wrong and unkind to animals, as I doubt she is going to allow the dog to roam free outside when at work.
Which she may then get a one bed bungalow, then she may have her own garden even, for her animals to have freedom outdorrs when at work
You are just badly speculating off no reasoning.
Like I said this would more likely be far better off in a one bed flat than a very large two bed flat.
I mean just think how much it cost to pay the heating bills in a place that large?
Seriously, at every point it works to her benefit.
So the dog, point, non-argument, I think she is selfish there also to keep one couped up in a flat.
Two, she stands to have more money paying less rent and less in bills.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They're having to publish the constitution in Arabic now to point out that men and women are equal, and that homosexuality is fine, and that anti-semitism is not tolerated in Germany.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/europe-migrants-germany-constitution-idINKCN0RU13020150930

Funny how male superiority, straight superiority and ethnic/religious bigotry are so often defended and promoted by the right ...

Are you saying the refugees are "right wing"?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying the refugees are "right wing"?

No, though some of their values certainly pair up well with the values of Western conservatives. But Western conservatives act like there's much less similarity than there really is.

When Nigel Farage engages in homophobia, the right defend him and condemn the "PC brigade." If he'd been a Muslim leader, they'd have condemned all Muslims as savages. They excuse and handwave away racism, sexism and homophobia in their own ranks while pretending that those traits in Islamic cultures make them deficient. It's breathtakingly hypocritical.