Ewan, it's called "attention seeking".
It's true. I freely admit it. 
And of course creating a grossly exaggerated persona which is a projection of what someone desires to be, is not attention seeking, oh no.... 
Anyway...
Penalised? What being told that as they can afford a non-council place they should get one in order for someone else to benefit from the council house? Pretty black and white for me.
Thing is though, what any £100k+ earners who actually do live in council housing (and I don't imagine there are all that many of them tbh..) are doing is perfectly legal, regardless of any 'moral' argument. So, perhaps they are exploiting weaknesses in a system, but they themselves aren't actually doing anything wrong, certainly not from a legal perspective. A bit like someone trying stuff on in a shop then buying it cheaper online.
As someone who grew up in social housing, mainly, I do think that those with enough wealth to afford their own homes should consider the needs of others, yes. But I also strongly believe that a person should be free to live where they choose, regardless of wealth. Everybody has a right to a home, and if they've spent time and effort making their house their home, and becoming a valued member of the local community, who the hell has the right to move them elsewhere?
For me, social housing is (or at least should be, IMO) for the disadvantaged. Once someone is earning £100K or even £45K (~ the 40% tax threshold) they are a long way from that and there are many people (families, single parented ones and evberything) in shitty bedsits etc waiting to move up the ladder. The latter should be getting the social housing and the rich guy in the Cooncil hoose has IMO a duty to fend for himself and stop sponging.
The issue (if indeed it is actually an 'issue' rather than a few isolated atypical cases) is to find a solution which works out for everyone, especially the person whose home it is. Simply turfing people out or demanding that they move is not a decent and fair solution.
Why not have banding like tax?
If you're on benefit, all costs are covered.
Low income, some costs are covered.
Higher incomes and the rental price increases so that those on 100k salaries pay market rates.
People don't get turfed out of their homes and the councils potentially earn more.
This is actually at least an idea that could work, and not see the fracturing of communities and disruption to someone's personal life. And you could extend that to say 'if you start to earn above X amount, then you can start to pay into a 'mortgage' type scheme where eventually you might own your own home outright, or have amassed sufficient credits to be offset against a mortgage on a private property'. Why not? Should ideas like this not at least be considered? Surely such a scheme could also encourage people to 'better' themselves (hate that term but it'll do for now).
I think the whole 'social' housing situation needs to be looked at carefully, and not just by a bunch of disconnected politicians in Westminster.
)?
