Forum menu
We haven't quite gotten to France's level of far left protest complete with petrol bombs but we are heading in that direction.
😆 x 150
Are you okay?
You seem to have become Jamba's stalker over the last few months. Are you trying to bully him off the forum?
Are you okay?
You seem to have become Jamba's stalker over the last few months. Are you trying to bully him off the forum?
No bullying involved. When you post as much shite as jamby does whilst so publicly refusing to accept facts when he's demonstrably proven wrong, it's quite reasonable that it's met with equally public opposition.
As I've said before, I'm all for hearing opposing views and opinions, but if they bear no resemblance to reality then it's a bit of a stretch to accept them as anything other than noise.
If he's spoiling the forum, why not report him rather than trying to bully him into submission?
Who gets to decide the allowed level of crap spouted by a poster.. coz i've got a long list 😉
the thing about tenant friendly laws in the UK shows just how skewed his worldview is
you should read his comment again tj, in fairness to him it's you that's read him wrong on that point.tjagain - Member
the thing about tenant friendly laws in the UK shows just how skewed his worldview is
still don't understand his thing with the word occupy mind, comes across as some next level paranoia, but still re read the point...
crap is allowed
So is saying things you know are untrue
So is moaning that someone does this
So is moaning that someone does the moaning
welcome to free speech
I am sure it has finer moments that this but lets take the win where we can
[quote=theocb ]If he's spoiling the forum, why not report him rather than trying to bully him into submission?
Who do you think is trying to bully him into submission? Just wanting to make sure the help goes to the right place, because anybody thinking that is possible really needs help.
Residential tenants are well protected during the Winter in France which seems entirely reasonable. Commercial tenants are not. 5000e was 15 months BTW.
Cmmmercial non-payment is not respecting the conditions of the "bail commercial". I reckon you are being very selective in the information you are giving us concerning your FIL, Jamba. I rented commercial premises for 10 years and the "bail" was clear: non-payment = eviction.
Paradoxically, I now find this thread very very encouraging.
I used the word 'reactionary' earlier in it, and this is just what we see here, in its truest sense.
I'm only moderately lefty and would certainly welcome the return of a left-leaning Labour government. But when the RW have to desperately construct the straw-man that we see above, it shows me that they're bereft of any sensible policies to counter Corbyn and the growth of the left, and are clearly running very scared.
Someone opens up a debate about the parlous state of social housing in this country and they try to shut him down. Typical.
Whether its just another of the cycles that politics goes through or not I dont know, but its good to see viewpoints changing out there and the RW hegemony we've got being challenged. To see them now reacting in this way is just Classical, and I deliberately choose that word with all its heavy historical context.
Loving it 🙂
seosamh77
Correct - I did misread it 😳
I'm only moderately lefty and would certainly welcome the return of a left-leaning Labour government. But when the RW have to desperately construct the straw-man that we see above, it shows me that they're bereft of any sensible policies to counter Corbyn and the growth of the left, and are clearly running very scared.
You are not alone in your observations!
Good news today 🙂
crap is allowed
So is saying things you know are untrue
So is moaning that someone does this
So is moaning that someone does the moaning
welcome to free speech
Not quite my interpretation of the forum [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/our-forum ]RULES[/url]
Will be interesting to see the governments idea of luxury 😀
EDIT: Oohh, looks good. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280 ]BBC Link, new homes on the way[/url]
So it seems the Tories are doing what Corbyn told them to do
Good!
😆
Correct - I did misread it
A quick mea culpa would be nice.
Well done to them, genuinely, it's the correct thing to do.
So it seems the Tories are doing what Corbyn told them to do
And why not? Seems an obvious and wise response to the terrible situation.
[ Not a Corbyn fan by the way ]
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said Grenfell residents had been through "some of the most harrowing and traumatic experiences imaginable"."Our priority is to get everyone who has lost their home permanently rehoused locally as soon as possible, so that they can begin to rebuild their lives," he added.
Government doing the right thing. More practical than commuting from Preston.
Bloody tories, stealing private property. they've basically just legalized robbery. What's the point of going to work anymore - now the government can just take anything of yours that they deem you don't deserve...?
This is an acceleration of some social housing that would have come onstream later in the year, I think it is sllight disingenous to say it is a special purpose. All developments are either required to have a social housing element or a contribution toward social housing has to be made. This is the former for the relevant development.
just accept it as a good thing. I'd guess there's more to come though, 68 flats in to what was 127 flats, doesn't quite fit, so I assume more work being done, and even more beyond that to support the residents on an on going basis, they'll need it..ahwiles - Member
Bloody tories, stealing private property. they've basically just legalized robbery. What's the point of going to work anymore - now the government can just take anything of yours that they deem you don't deserve...?
That distinction is irrelevant. Long as they are getting sorted.mefty - Member
This is an acceleration of some social housing that would have come onstream later in the year, I think it is sllight disingenous to say it is a special purpose. All developments are either required to have a social housing element or a contribution toward social housing has to be made. This is the former for the relevant development.
kelvin - Member
Correct - I did misread itA quick mea culpa would be nice.
I thought its pretty obvious I accept I made a mistake and accepted I was wrong.
That distinction is irrelevant. Long as they are getting sorted.
Of course, but that has always been the case, however the distinction is very important to the majority playing politics.
This is an acceleration of some social housing that would have come onstream later in the year, I think it is sllight disingenous to say it is a special purpose.
Exactly what I was thinking on reading the article.
Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that the people from the grenfell flats are being sorted out and given somewhere proper to live, rather than a hotel room or whatever.
But this was always going to be Social Housing, it's not any speacial concession, or a change of plan in special circumstances.
Still great news though.
Looks like a pragmatic, timely-ish and fit-for-purpose solution. Wonder whether the govt/council will get any credit?
You're just role reversing though by bringing up the point.mefty - Member
That distinction is irrelevant. Long as they are getting sorted.
Of course, but that has always been the case, however the distinction is very important to the majority playing politics.
Only concern here is that they get sorted. And that this work is continued to house them all and give them on going support. It is only a partial solution from what we can read in the article. (in fairness it does say one of the options, so more to come by the sounds.)
So, where are they going to put the people who were originally going to move into these new social housing flats?
just accept it as a good thing. I'd guess there's more to come though, 68 flats in to what was 127 flats, doesn't quite fit
As I posted on the other thread - To be blunt, a lot of those in the 120 flats are dead, and some of the survivors may have already found somewhere else to live, I could certainly get a roof over my head inside 24 hours, I've done it more than once.... No sense taking more then you need
dunno, if they'd allocate unfinished housing to individuals before it's finished. But the wider questions do remain, though I don't know if so relevant to this thread.perchypanther - Member
So, where are they going to put the people who were originally going to move into these new social housing flats?
Looks like a pragmatic, timely-ish and fit-for-purpose solution. Wonder whether the govt/council will get any credit?
Of course not. It was all Jezza.
I believe the official line is 'they've been waiting 6 years for a flat so another year or 2 will be fine'
Be interesting to see the details of the deal..
dunno, if they'd allocate unfinished housing to individuals before it's finished
I'd assume that, like everywhere else in the country, there's a waiting list for social housing.
The "solution" being proposed is undoubtedly the right thing to do given the circumstances but it's also bumped 68 other families from getting a house as a knock on effect.
I'd have also liked to have seen a commitment to build, at a minimum, an equal number of new properties to bring the social housing stock back up to at least the level it was going to be at.
More importantly:
under an article about a yodelling otter.
There was a yodelling otter or is this #jambafact? We should be told.
I am kind of in 2 minds about this. Firstly I absolutely sympathise about the plight of those that lost their homes, and I agree that short term they should be found accommodation
On the flip side I'm not sure that housing them permanently in luxury accommodation is a great idea. Firstly surely the money spent on these would be much better spent on providing more social housing for everyone, rather than just focusing on those immediately affected.
And whilst left leaning, I'm not entirely sure it's fair that those who have bought these properties at market price should see their homes massively devalued, which will undoubtedly happen if this becomes a permanent arrangement. I'm not in a position to buy a 1.5 million pound house, but if I was and I'd mortgaged myself to the hilt to afford it then I'd personally be furious if I was suddenly lumbered with negative equity..
It was intended for social housing anyhow, so the marketeers are safe.
I'm not entirely sure it's fair that those who have bought these properties at market price should see their homes massively devalued, which will undoubtedly happen if this becomes a permanent arrangement. I'm not in a position to buy a 1.5 million pound house, but if I was and I'd mortgaged myself to the hilt to afford it then I'd personally be furious if I was suddenly lumbered with negative equity..
These flats were probably always allocated as social housing stock. It's often a condition imposed on large housing development that a proportion of the stock has to be set aside for social housing.
Work is now taking place to assess the housing needs of all Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk families to identify longer-term accommodation in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and neighbouring borough,” a spokesperson said. “So far 110 assessments have been completed.
And whilst left leaning, I'm not entirely sure it's fair that those who have bought these properties at market price should see their homes massively devalued, which will undoubtedly happen if this becomes a permanent arrangement. I'm not in a position to buy a 1.5 million pound house, but if I was and I'd mortgaged myself to the hilt to afford it then I'd personally be furious if I was suddenly lumbered with negative equity..
This is standard for most London developments, you will always have social housing on your doorstep, it is a fact of London life. They won't be specced the same either - Miele appliances aren't a basic human right, although there is a very good argument to make them one.
There was a yodelling otter or is this #jambafact? We should be told.
It's as likely as his other pronouncements - was there just the one otter, or 150?
Ah I didn't realise that they were already allocated to social housing, didn't read that way on the BBC link.. Even mentioned that they may not be able to use the on site facilities..
What is the point of incorporating social housing in these developments? Do the council get them for free? I'm not saying poor folks should not have nice housing, or we should create ghettos, but surely the cash should be better spent on providing adequate accommodation for all, rather than luxury accommodation for a few.
And whilst left leaning, I'm not entirely sure it's fair that those who have bought these properties at market price should see their homes massively devalued
As mefty says, that's life in the Big City - posh places and grotty places are often adjacent. Millionaires are sometimes obliged to see poorer folk - unfortunate, but that's how it goes.
Millionaires are sometimes obliged to see poorer folk
I can't imagine how ghastly that must be for them.