Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
worzel

Tory Landlord Trougher

Recommended Posts

It's not hypocrisy, he's just observed a huge amount of waste from a system in need of reform, and being a self interested person, he's made a few bob, legally above board, from it

If he said the system must stay to help the poor he'd be a hipocrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the size of that house and I bet his family stole/enclosed the land back in 1600 or something or other.

Why are we still respecting and protecting property rights acquired through medieval violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richest MP in Britain slams welfare state but makes £625k a year in housing benefit

Maggots! :angry:

Red Blue Yellow Purple - what choice from a shower of shite.

I'd rather vote Russel Brand (if I could), how phuckin desperate is that?

Edited by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the size of that house and I bet his family stole/enclosed the land back in 1600 or something or other.

Why are we still respecting and protecting property rights acquired through medieval violence?

Possibly

But in the event also legal, if admittedly immoral, so it is hard to see what can practically be done about it if you value our constitution

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hypocrisy, he's just observed a huge amount of waste from a system in need of reform, and being a self interested person, he's made a few bob, legally above board, from it

If he said the system must stay to help the poor he'd be a hipocrite

No, he's basically called the poor scroungers saying that there is a "something for nothing" culture that needs to be got rid of.

Considering his role in that, in feeding off of state handouts, he is entirely a hypocrite as others have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

How on earth has this money been allowed to flow into the hands of the few?

How many are doing it on leveraged DEBT?

Surely if this was done differently the 'money' could be funneled into building more affordable housing, making it more attractive for people to actually work for a living.

Something needs to be done about it, but the VI's make the rules.

Edited by spp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hypocrisy,

Benefit scrounger criticises benefit scroungers? Man getting something for nothing criticises something for nothing culture.

Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

he's just observed a huge amount of waste from a system in need of reform, and being a self interested person, he's made a few bob, legally above board, from it...

So exactly like all the other people on benefits then.

Possibly

But in the event also legal, if admittedly immoral, so it is hard to see what can practically be done about it if you value our constitution

The 'constitution' that tolerated monarchy, slavery, enclosure and empire? We should definitely hold onto that.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's basically called the poor scroungers saying that there is a "something for nothing" culture that needs to be got rid of.

Considering his role in that, in feeding off of state handouts, he is entirely a hypocrite as others have said.

No

He isn't in any other way condoned it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefit scrounger criticises benefit scroungers? Man getting something for nothing criticises something for nothing culture.

Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

So exactly like all the other people on benefits then.

The 'constitution' that tolerated monarchy, slavery, enclosure and empire? We should definitely hold onto that.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'constitution' that tolerated monarchy, slavery, enclosure and empire? We should definitely hold onto that.

Given we ended slavery that inclusion seems an odd choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given we ended slavery that inclusion seems an odd choice.

We ended monarchy, and brought it back too (somewhat unconstitutionally)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given we ended slavery that inclusion seems an odd choice.

The government banned slavery, it didn't declare it unconstitutional. You think the 70mph speed limit is part of the constitution? The smoking ban?

You can argue that we don't really have a constitution. I would agree.

If you want to claim that we do, that's fine too.

If you want to claim we have a constitution, and also that it is somehow 'good', then you have to try and explain its failure to prevent monarchy, slavery, enclosure and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.