When did you say that? This morning.

Yes, when you're is used I do tend to assume it meant me.

 

Are you sugggesting the article is a true reflection of the facts?  I'd prefer to read the report itself not the telegraph's warped view of the report.

 

It is demonising public housing tenants regardless.  Labelling them as housos is the first step in demonising them.

I once saw a story about a public housing tenant leaving her house trashed on a current affairs show.  

Lovely it was. Let's get all outraged about this single parent female who left her pet to starve and trashed her house.

It was painters hired by housing who called in the current affairs show.

 

It's such a shame they did NO research. 

If they had done any research they would have found that the tenant was in hospital after her ex tracked her down and murdered her pet then proceeded to trash her house while waiting for her to return home.  He almost killed her. 

 

 

Punch I understand your argument but if there is already not enough private rental accommodation or houses to buy in most states where are these people going to go if they are moved out of housing?

 

I believe if they have that amount of money they should pay the full market value for rent without subsidy but to evict them if they have nowhere to go is just going to add to the problem as they will then become homeless and what good will that do for anyone.

---

@freakiness wrote:

When did you say that? This morning.

Yes, when you're is used I do tend to assume it meant me.

 

I think you're overreacting. You put out a general statement "I wonder when the regular political spammers will turn up?" (words to that effect). I understood this to be general banter. To which I replied, " looking around, I see they're already here" (words to that effect), in what I thought to be banter the same vein. Of course it would be in reply to your id, because it was, well...in reply to your post.

You seem very quick to take offence when your comments boomerang back on you, sadly.

 

Are you sugggesting the article is a true reflection of the facts?  I'd prefer to read the report itself not the telegraph's warped view of the report.

 

That is your prerogative.

 

It is demonising public housing tenants regardless.  Labelling them as housos is the first step in demonising them.

I once saw a story about a public housing tenant leaving her house trashed on a current affairs show.  

Lovely it was. Let's get all outraged about this single parent female who left her pet to starve and trashed her house.

It was painters hired by housing who called in the current affairs show.

 

It's such a shame they did NO research. 

If they had done any research they would have found that the tenant was in hospital after her ex tracked her down and murdered her pet then proceeded to trash her house while waiting for her to return home.  He almost killed her. 

 

That's very unfortunate, but not the same thing at all.

 

 

---

 

No, not the same but an indication of the demonisation that regularly targets public housing tenants, therefore I need more than the telegraph's view before I assume it's article is the truth.

 

 

I'd go further and say that is the last place to find it. if the truth were important you'd look elsewhere .

I agree, I heard this rumour ten years ago, all BS

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

When did you say that? This morning.

Yes, when you're is used I do tend to assume it meant me.

 

I think you're overreacting. You put out a general statement "I wonder when the regular political spammers will turn up?" (words to that effect). I understood this to be general banter. To which I replied, " looking around, I see they're already here" (words to that effect), in what I thought to be banter the same vein. Of course it would be in reply to your id, because it was, well...in reply to your post.

 

---

 

---

This is what was said. What I'd like you to show me is where are the political threads that I am supposed to have spammed the board with today or any other day.  It's a frequently used dig which is never backed up with proof, just more bluster or a lol. 

 

Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor;  

 

Newspoll: 55-45

 

Galaxy: 53-47 to Labor

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/

---

I wonder where the morning spamsters are today...

---

From what I can see you're all here 

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

When did you say that? This morning.

Yes, when you're is used I do tend to assume it meant me.

 

I think you're overreacting. You put out a general statement "I wonder when the regular political spammers will turn up?" (words to that effect). I understood this to be general banter. To which I replied, " looking around, I see they're already here" (words to that effect), in what I thought to be banter the same vein. Of course it would be in reply to your id, because it was, well...in reply to your post.

 

---

 

---

This is what was said. What I'd like you to show me is where are the political threads that I am supposed to have spammed the board with today or any other day.  It's a frequently used dig which is never backed up with proof, just more bluster or a lol. 

 

Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor;  

 

Newspoll: 55-45

 

Galaxy: 53-47 to Labor

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/

---

I wonder where the morning spamsters are today...

---

From what I can see you're all here 

---

So where does it say "freakiness spams the boards with political threads"?

As I said, I take "you're" to include me.

 

It's ok though because, although you post many times more political threads than I, you were not included in the spamster comment as you don't make a habit (with this ID) of attacking other posters because they don't agree with you  😄 

"I can't for a minute imagine anyone with the money for decent respectable housing would stay couped up in a 2 bedroom flat in a unsavory complex situation."

Not all housing commission is a 2 bedroom unit in a housing commission suburb. Some are 3 and 4 bedroom homes scattered in subdivisions of private housing. I have no doubt that there are people ripping the system off but I don't believe they are representative of the majority.