The Queen (UK) should move into a council house - What say yall?

Who thinks the UK Queen and her cohorts should move into council housing and why?


uk.news.yahoo.com...


Personally I think its a very good idea and long overdue, not sure how neighbourly she would be. But it would be
interesting im sure.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I am not from the UK and I don't recognize the term 'council housing'. Could you explain it for us across the pond? Also, are you anti-queen? I think the idea of royalty is antiquated, but I think I can understand the nostalgia value of the position.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I also think it's a good idea.

How about making them survive on jobseekers allowance since they would be "redundant". I would laugh my socks off if they got benefit sanctioned, and had to go to a food bank. That's what I would call social justice.

Or got too ill to work, but got booted off incapacity despite being ill by some target driven private medical asessment company.
This happened to a friend of mine who suffered from COPD. She died three months later after being told she was fit for work. Disgusting.

a reply to: Metallicus
Council housing is where the local authority own houses then rent these houses at low cost to "poor people".

Of course in America you have no such thing as your local authorities are mercenary bast**** and put your "poor people" out on the streets to live in tent towns.

Yes I'm sure the UK would still bring in the massive tourism funds if the Queen was greeting them outside a block of flats...


I'm sure the economy would thrive off of that.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I am not from the UK and I don't recognize the term 'council housing'. Could you explain it for us across the pond? Also, are you anti-queen? I think the idea of royalty is antiquated, but I think I can understand the nostalgia value of the position.

Low cost housing made available for the working classes to rent. Not that many have been built in recent times. Many have been sold off.

That reminds me of the time when the British Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace.

The Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster, documents disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act reveal.

Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and the Government.

source

Yea, it's probably time to find a more suited house the queen can afford to warm up

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Actually you'll find it's the pomp and ceremony that tourists come to see not the queen. In fact if you were King Charlie you would pull in just as many tourists.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

In receipt of state income, I would say Aye but she actually create's revenue for the state but then I am no royalist as I believe them to be against my faith since I recognize only one King and that being christ, that aside if I was a royalist then I would have to acknowledge the rightful king of england who lived in australia and is a direct descendant of the plantagenat king's, no king since the Tudors usurped the throne has been legitimite, therefore no law's are legal and no royal decree's are legitimate, no royal warrent or court is legitimate etc.

They are simply head's of state, more pressing for me is the fact the refused to lower the flag for Princess Diana who had more claim from the house of Stuart to the British throne than any of those Battenbourg's who actually have no legitimate claim and they had to be forced under public pressure to lower the flag but they jump at lowering the flag to a foreign king who had a harem, rumoured slaves and whose relative prince bandar was rumoured to have a harem of kidnapped blonde European and American kid's, something is very wrong there..

originally posted by: LABTECH767
something is very wrong there.

Yes, some people believe silly made up stories!

originally posted by: korkythecat
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I also think it's a good idea.

How about making them survive on jobseekers allowance since they would be "redundant". I would laugh my socks off if they got benefit sanctioned, and had to go to a food bank. That's what I would call social justice.

Or got too ill to work, but got booted off incapacity despite being ill by some target driven private medical asessment company.
This happened to a friend of mine who suffered from COPD. She died three months later after being told she was fit for work. Disgusting.

You mean ATOS a private french contractor largely owned and run by David Cameron's personal friend.
One story was a girl with a mental age of four who was told she was able to work.
I have crippling back pain and have been told that I am perfecly well to work though they acknowledge that I have a disabillity, I worked security for year's and before that worked in engineering and production, I feel like shooting that government I paid my due's then they steal what I paid for from me, It was not even enough to live on and my saving's are almost gone now but needless to say I am Wroth with them beyond word's and god forgive me if they think I am going to die without a fight they are in for one hell of a shock, they need to be stopped and stopped NOW, why do you think Cameron ordered the police to load hollow nosed bullets and shoot rioters if they allegadly look like they are going to attack property, it had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting property and everything to do with scaring people out of there free speech.
Remember that cad Llain Duncan Smith claiming he could live on jobseekers allowance but then refusing to do so for a week.
Remember how when was running for the election he kept claiming he cared about the sick and the disabled.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: LABTECH767
something is very wrong there.

Yes, some people believe silly made up stories!

Yes some people do believe in silly story's Like calling Usurpors Royalty and bowing to people of lower intelligence than themesleve's but who have had tutalage and direction as figure head's for an entrenched and corrupt highrarchy even to the point of having there underwear ironed for them.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I would not go that far.

Id instead make the goverment confiscate all there property and make it taxpayer owned (as we pay for it) and allow them to live in it for free in exchange for diplomatic service.

Id also conficate all current wealth under the procededs of crime act seeing as much of there wealth has been gained throughout history via crimes against humanity.

Id allowthe queen and immediate hier to contine there yearly allowance.

Do they really say "Yall" in England? Is it still England or is it Saudi Arabia with a strong chance of rain?

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Yeah stick them all in council housing for a month.

Make sure they have pay as you go gas and electric meters whilst living off JSA or ESA.

They wont last a week.

a reply to: restless genius



I'm just going to leave this here. You say they won't last a week, the UK wouldn't either.

a reply to: crayzeed

But surely there would be no pomp and ceremony with the Queen in a council house...


& thanks for the vote of confidence, but I doubt that pal.

Council housing in Britain was originally intended to provide housing for those who had lost their homes or relatives after the two World Wars. Homes can be anything from a "council estate" with bungalows (preferred by pensioners) to high-rise apartments (given to young families) or terraced homes (two ups - two downs - bedrooms and attic on the top, living room/kitchen at the bottom).

It used to be the case that any family unemployed or not could apply for a council house so long as they had ties to the area. It was only after a certain judge ruled that councils couldn't used this "locality test" to allocate homes, that refugees with large numbers of children could take priority over unemployed locals. Then there was the great "sell-off" of council housing because people who owned their property were more likely to take care of it. Now that there is a "housing shortage", we have a "bedroom tax" on any unused bedrooms.

I think royalty should be abolished, and she and the top 1% of the 1% need to be in prison for the rest of their lives with all their wealth distributed to the world's citizens, and clean zero point energy out, counsels of citizens the real power, the people all learning how to manage systems with full equality and still preserving freedoms. Because the equality part isn't crazy glued onto the bills that create tyranny. They're not wedded. Just corruption manipulates people in the most hideous poiltical systems on both sides. I want everyone equal without slavery and no unlawful legislations prohibiting them from weapons, free speech, access to the natural seeds of earth, what they can do with their properties, etc etc etc.