FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Socialist Workers Party !

Socialist Workers Party !

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

I can't hold my contempt at thier atempted hi Jacking of the protests over the the Fire !

It's no better than the Scum of the BNP / EDL / Ect , jumping on the bandwagon of Islamic Terroism !

Discuss !

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"I can't hold my contempt at thier atempted hi Jacking of the protests over the the Fire !

It's no better than the Scum of the BNP / EDL / Ect , jumping on the bandwagon of Islamic Terroism !

Discuss !"

The far left Corbyn momentum militant activists are nothing but scum who should be thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour in recent days. The genuine victims in the community affected by the fire deserve all the help and support they get but these momentum morons who are attempting to hijack this tragedy are very sick and twisted trying to make political capital out of it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mmabluTV/TS  over a year ago

upton wirral

They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised"

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oncupiscentTonyMan  over a year ago

Kent


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor"

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless"

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Oh grow up..........you know exactly what was said and meant....But choose to ignore any sense or reason regarding anything Mr Corbyn says.....cue your smart alec answer...your just a sad man really

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible. "

so you're saying you want to see the victims of the tradgedy destitute and living on the street ... you disgust me

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law. "

It isn't against the law. It's a law that is used in emergencies. I do believe it was used during the second world war.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible.

so you're saying you want to see the victims of the tradgedy destitute and living on the street ... you disgust me "

Where did my post say that? Don't put words in my mouth. I said its wrong for Corbyn to suggest Vacant private property be seized, which would be against the law, the law of the land must still be adhered to. The right way to do it is the way the government is doing it now, by putting the people who have lost their homes up in hotel accommodation until permanent alternative housing can be found for them. Corbyn is behaving in a very irresponsible manner by suggesting private property be seized, not only in blatant disregard for the law, but also he is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor by suggesting this happen in the first place. Corbyn should be ashamed of himself.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible.

so you're saying you want to see the victims of the tradgedy destitute and living on the street ... you disgust me

Where did my post say that? Don't put words in my mouth. I said its wrong for Corbyn to suggest Vacant private property be seized, which would be against the law, the law of the land must still be adhered to. The right way to do it is the way the government is doing it now, by putting the people who have lost their homes up in hotel accommodation until permanent alternative housing can be found for them. Corbyn is behaving in a very irresponsible manner by suggesting private property be seized, not only in blatant disregard for the law, but also he is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor by suggesting this happen in the first place. Corbyn should be ashamed of himself. "

i think your choice to kick these victims while they're down is disgusting

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 18/06/17 00:42:31]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible.

so you're saying you want to see the victims of the tradgedy destitute and living on the street ... you disgust me "

I drove past it today, and i found it very distressing that people were killed and made homeless. The crematorium shell there for all to see. You could smell the burnt plastic miles away. I'm still distressed by the sight and smell, but I could drive away from it to a safe home to be with family and friends.

If you want to have a rant, go for it. It's a free country. But please leave these vunerable people whose lives have been irreversibly changed through no fault of their own in a matter of hours. It's not right.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *xplicitlyricsMan  over a year ago

south dublin

Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal."

Its wrong because Corbyn is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor. There is no need to seize anyone's property, when residents can be put up in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them, as is currently happening.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I can't hold my contempt at thier atempted hi Jacking of the protests over the the Fire !

It's no better than the Scum of the BNP / EDL / Ect , jumping on the bandwagon of Islamic Terroism !

Discuss !"

.

My discussion would be to say that you need at the very least to go away for several months and read history from about 1810 onwards!.

You need at least to understand where the left comes from to argue against it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible.

so you're saying you want to see the victims of the tradgedy destitute and living on the street ... you disgust me

Where did my post say that? Don't put words in my mouth. I said its wrong for Corbyn to suggest Vacant private property be seized, which would be against the law, the law of the land must still be adhered to. The right way to do it is the way the government is doing it now, by putting the people who have lost their homes up in hotel accommodation until permanent alternative housing can be found for them. Corbyn is behaving in a very irresponsible manner by suggesting private property be seized, not only in blatant disregard for the law, but also he is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor by suggesting this happen in the first place. Corbyn should be ashamed of himself.

i think your choice to kick these victims while they're down is disgusting "

The ONLY person i'm kicking here is Corbyn for his irresponsible behaviour, where he is stirring up tensions further when there is already a great deal of anger and tension there to begin with.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham

I was disturbed, but not surprised, to see others getting involved to try and push their own political agendas, in this appalling tragedy. I saw an interview with the Labour councillor for this ward yesterday, in which he deplored the actions of these people.

The positive support shown after the fire should be celebrated, its what we do best in the UK.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

My Post wasn't Aimed at Corbyn !

Who to be fair I have warmed to .

I doubt I'd vote for him but I do think he is decent and not as daft as I used to think .

Tho Mcdonald still worry me

But the extreme left ie Socialst Workers are just as bad as the Extreme Right i.e. BNP or whatever they are called now !

They both jump on other people's grievances for thier own Ends WRONG !!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal."

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple  over a year ago

in Lancashire


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible. "

See what you just did?

You slagged them off for using the tragedy then you did the same thing..

Well done on the double standards..

Ps..not a fan of their type of political slant either

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ophieslutTV/TS  over a year ago

Central

At least no one would now use the forum to try desperately to score cheap political points with this tragedy

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

"

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law. "

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

If the masses are ever told the truth then democracy can only lead to Marxism!.

Adolf Hitler

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then? "

Would you be happy to go on holiday then find people living in your house on your return? It is communist bollocks. As usual

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then? "

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 18/06/17 11:00:27]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *imiUKMan  over a year ago

Hereford


"If the masses are ever told the truth then democracy can only lead to Marxism!.

Adolf Hitler "

Apparently though, according to the hard of thinking, he was a socialist.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Would you be happy to go on holiday then find people living in your house on your return? It is communist bollocks. As usual"

That wouldn't happen. It would be for vacant property. The council knows where they are.

They are turning away people who are volunteering accommodation, stating that they've got it covered. Which is a lie. They haven't. Go on BBC iPlayer and listen to the BBC London programmes. Or LBC. You will hear the voice of locals and Londoners.

KCC is not looking good. At all.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think. "

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal. "

There is a legal process to go through first! Corbyn was talking of seizing property immediately without any legal court process!

Do you think it's a good idea for the government to send out compulsory purchase orders in this case and face months and months of legal wrangling and appeals while the homeless from the tower block are left in limbo? It's a ridiculous suggestion from Corbyn. Theresa May and the government have taken the correct course of action by putting the residents in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them. The government have said they are aiming to rehouse everyone affected within 3 weeks.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham

Any volunteered accommodation has to be fit for purpose. It's not as easy as just opening doors and saying "here you are".

There are many Health and Safety rules centred around tenanted accommodation.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal.

There is a legal process to go through first! Corbyn was talking of seizing property immediately without any legal court process!

Do you think it's a good idea for the government to send out compulsory purchase orders in this case and face months and months of legal wrangling and appeals while the homeless from the tower block are left in limbo? It's a ridiculous suggestion from Corbyn. Theresa May and the government have taken the correct course of action by putting the residents in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them. The government have said they are aiming to rehouse everyone affected within 3 weeks.

"

You are totally oblivious to the state of social housing if you honestly believe that they will be housed in 3 weeks. Families with young children live in b&bs, sharing facilities with strangers for months and months on end. I would be very surprised if there are a spare 120 social properties in Kensington that are available for people to move into. Or do you want to split the community, make the children who have gone through an amazingly traumatic experience also lose their friends and stability by moving them into a new school half way through the year? Move people away from their friends and families, move people away from their jobs and livelihoods?

I think you should either provide us with a direct quote from Corbyn that he wants to do this illegally, or admit that you are making it up. I highly doubt you will do either.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *utandbigMan  over a year ago

Bournemouth


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal.

There is a legal process to go through first! Corbyn was talking of seizing property immediately without any legal court process!

Do you think it's a good idea for the government to send out compulsory purchase orders in this case and face months and months of legal wrangling and appeals while the homeless from the tower block are left in limbo? It's a ridiculous suggestion from Corbyn. Theresa May and the government have taken the correct course of action by putting the residents in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them. The government have said they are aiming to rehouse everyone affected within 3 weeks.

You are totally oblivious to the state of social housing if you honestly believe that they will be housed in 3 weeks. Families with young children live in b&bs, sharing facilities with strangers for months and months on end. I would be very surprised if there are a spare 120 social properties in Kensington that are available for people to move into. Or do you want to split the community, make the children who have gone through an amazingly traumatic experience also lose their friends and stability by moving them into a new school half way through the year? Move people away from their friends and families, move people away from their jobs and livelihoods?

I think you should either provide us with a direct quote from Corbyn that he wants to do this illegally, or admit that you are making it up. I highly doubt you will do either. "

here here he talks such garbage

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Would you be happy to go on holiday then find people living in your house on your return? It is communist bollocks. As usual

That wouldn't happen. It would be for vacant property. The council knows where they are.

They are turning away people who are volunteering accommodation, stating that they've got it covered. Which is a lie. They haven't. Go on BBC iPlayer and listen to the BBC London programmes. Or LBC. You will hear the voice of locals and Londoners.

KCC is not looking good. At all.

"

Vacant property? What does that mean? So ok, if you own a house and decide you want to sell it but all of a sudden find you can't because somebody is living in it what do you do?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then? "

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help."

Nice to see that you agree with me, and disagree with Centaur that it's illegal.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal.

There is a legal process to go through first! Corbyn was talking of seizing property immediately without any legal court process!

Do you think it's a good idea for the government to send out compulsory purchase orders in this case and face months and months of legal wrangling and appeals while the homeless from the tower block are left in limbo? It's a ridiculous suggestion from Corbyn. Theresa May and the government have taken the correct course of action by putting the residents in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them. The government have said they are aiming to rehouse everyone affected within 3 weeks.

"

Totally agree with what you're saying. But then when you're not talking BREXIT you seem to be able to talk sense.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oncupiscentTonyMan  over a year ago

Kent


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help."

Nobody's suggested cpo's, a quick search on Rightmove shows 575 2 bed properties within 1/2 a mile of Shepard's Bush with a max of £2k pcm, all sitting empty.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help."

Really? It can be done if a state of emergency was declared in that area. It needs to be. The situation is dire. Seeing it afar on the TV and seeing it for real brought it home for me.

You expect people to sleep on a floor of a leisure centre/hotel for 3 weeks is satisfactory? In a country that claims to be the 5th richest in the world?

People said it was the UK's version of Hurricane Katrina. I think they are right.

Parliament have the legislation to do this, or they can create an emergency legislation.

If this isn't an emergency, then I don't know what is.

Something NEEDS to be done.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

"

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Would you be happy to go on holiday then find people living in your house on your return? It is communist bollocks. As usual

That wouldn't happen. It would be for vacant property. The council knows where they are.

They are turning away people who are volunteering accommodation, stating that they've got it covered. Which is a lie. They haven't. Go on BBC iPlayer and listen to the BBC London programmes. Or LBC. You will hear the voice of locals and Londoners.

KCC is not looking good. At all.

"

Surely then they should use the accommodation offered before looking at controversial compulsory purchase of properties.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Nice to see that you agree with me, and disagree with Centaur that it's illegal. "

Funny it sounds like he was disagreeing with you and was actually agreeing with me.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help."

Completely agree with what you are saying, but when you're not talking about BREMAIN you seem to talk sense.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

You have months and months of legal wrangling between the two parties involved that is what happens. I live in Staffordshire quite close to the HS2 proposed route and it's often talked about around here. The government put in compulsory purchase orders on property owners who don't want to move or sell, then the property owners take the case to court and appeal against it, this has taken the government longer than 12 months in some cases, it's not an easy and quick process as you seem to think.

Where did I say it was quick?

So in the end, if the government takes your house right? That private property, becomes public property. The very thing you said was illegal.

There is a legal process to go through first! Corbyn was talking of seizing property immediately without any legal court process!

Do you think it's a good idea for the government to send out compulsory purchase orders in this case and face months and months of legal wrangling and appeals while the homeless from the tower block are left in limbo? It's a ridiculous suggestion from Corbyn. Theresa May and the government have taken the correct course of action by putting the residents in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them. The government have said they are aiming to rehouse everyone affected within 3 weeks.

You are totally oblivious to the state of social housing if you honestly believe that they will be housed in 3 weeks. Families with young children live in b&bs, sharing facilities with strangers for months and months on end. I would be very surprised if there are a spare 120 social properties in Kensington that are available for people to move into. Or do you want to split the community, make the children who have gone through an amazingly traumatic experience also lose their friends and stability by moving them into a new school half way through the year? Move people away from their friends and families, move people away from their jobs and livelihoods?

I think you should either provide us with a direct quote from Corbyn that he wants to do this illegally, or admit that you are making it up. I highly doubt you will do either. "

There is no way the properties can be requisitioned both quickly and legally.

The commitment to house all in or near the borough is the best that can be done. Provisions are also being put in place to allow for transport costs so that children will not have to move schools if they don't want to. There are no really good and quick solutions but requisitioning private property in a legal way is simply not a doable or realistic option.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people."

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg."

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg."

I agree, KCC's handling of the situation is totally appalling. They should have kept their offices open over the weekend and should be doing more to coordinate and help the victims. If KCC can't step up to crease then the government should take direct control itself.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower. "

She probably was as she was previously a councillor. However, it seems that being on the scrutiny committee didn't necessarily mean that she didn't make her concerns at the time....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/17/for-years-ive-seen-kensington-poor-treated-with-disdain?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower. "

ok the former mayor of London shut down 3 fire stations in that same area...but I'm sure your wouldn't mention this....maybe if those 3 stations was still operating more people could of been saved ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andS66Couple  over a year ago

Derby


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower.

She probably was as she was previously a councillor. However, it seems that being on the scrutiny committee didn't necessarily mean that she didn't make her concerns at the time....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/17/for-years-ive-seen-kensington-poor-treated-with-disdain?

"

Just read it, nowhere does she say she voiced her concerns at the time. Nowhere does she admit she was on the committee. Nowhere does she say she objected to any of the plans for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Nowhere does she say she thought the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was unsafe, or that she opposed its refurbishment on any grounds, let alone safety.

All she says it what she's seen and what she's witnessed. She doesn't say anything about actually having done anything for anyone.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower.

She probably was as she was previously a councillor. However, it seems that being on the scrutiny committee didn't necessarily mean that she didn't make her concerns at the time....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/17/for-years-ive-seen-kensington-poor-treated-with-disdain?

Just read it, nowhere does she say she voiced her concerns at the time. Nowhere does she admit she was on the committee. Nowhere does she say she objected to any of the plans for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Nowhere does she say she thought the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was unsafe, or that she opposed its refurbishment on any grounds, let alone safety.

All she says it what she's seen and what she's witnessed. She doesn't say anything about actually having done anything for anyone. "

I know, but it does admit she was a councillor, and she was probably aware of it. She certainly was aware of the housing conditions that that borough had to endure.

Centaur said that she was on the committee. My point was that although she maybe on the committee, it doesn't mean that she was complicit in voting things through that were not beneficial to her constituents. She may have voted against issues which she didn't agree with but she was not in the majority.

We can never be sure until this minutes of those committees are accessed.

I put up that article to prove that she was a councillor and the fact that she was aware of bad housing conditions. I linked this article so at least people can make their mind up about it. If Centaur could put up the link showing how she voted in that committee would be good too!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Nice to see that you agree with me, and disagree with Centaur that it's illegal.

Funny it sounds like he was disagreeing with you and was actually agreeing with me. "

He said its legal, you said it's not.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

Its wrong because Corbyn is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor. There is no need to seize anyone's property, when residents can be put up in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them, as is currently happening. "

Im actually in favour of westminster passing a law which prevents a lot of property simply being held as a money generating asset.

If you are going to have it rent it out at the very least.

Problem is a lot of wealthy onternationals own city centre propert in london, manchester, Leeds, ect. Doesnt get used just a big property mothball.

Call me mad but given our housing cricis owners should be told to make money off it via renting it.

As much as I think we shouldnt simply requesetion peoples property, this might be a bit of a kick up the backside the mega rich need to understand that they took too much cake. Or it could lead to the communist state of Britain...but I doubt that. Probably just a bit of capital flight.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andS66Couple  over a year ago

Derby


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

I don't think eminent domain (which is normally implemented as Compulsory Purchase in the UK) would really help in this situation. Eminent domain can only be exercised with fair and realistic compensation. In Kensington & Chelsey that would require quite a large amount of money which could probably be better spent on real emergency relief.

And why would they have to go down the road to use compulsory purchase legislation to solve an issue of temporarily housing people?

Especially when they have legislation of sequestration to deal with this? This is a humanitarian crisis. They need to at least house people on a temporary basis.

There are still people who are housed in hotels not knowing how how long they are going to stay there for, and no one to contact in the council to find out this information. The council is closed on the weekend. Oh, and this time they said it was due to the victims breaking down ONE door when they went down there to find what the hell was going on. Don't believe me? Check out the website. This is a humanitarian crisis. This is terrible.

The UK rushes out to sort out humanitarian crises in other countries and can't sort out their own shit on their doorstep? This is disgraceful. And embarrassing.

Besides, if there is a money issue, KCC have £300m in their coffers to kick start things off, and to top it all have the cheek to hand back £100 back to residents as a rebate. They need to get a grip on things. Fast.

If this was a multi millionaire whose property in KCC was burned out as a result of dodgy electrical wiring from a neighbour in a council owned property, you KNOW it would be sorted out quick quick.

If they're happy to take council tax from people, they have a level do responsibility for them too.

If any one says that they were a bunch of benefit scroungers, I'd like to say that they were people who worked in that tower. They were people who bought their flat in that tower in the right to buy scheme. They pay council tax too.

They deserve better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm really angry about this.

I drove past there yesterday, and I'm amazed at their dignity in such a crisis.

This is a problem of organisation, not resources. The accommodation is available in or near the borough without out having to requisition or sequestrate anything. Let's concentrate on sorting the organisational problems that will actually help these people.

In your comment you prove that you are missing the point. This issue is made worse because the very people who are legally responsible for organising are not there. Their very absence is creating the confusion. They are all hiding. The TMO is pointing fingers at the council, the council are pointing fingers are the building contractors, the building contractors are pointing fingers at the subcontractors.... It's a finger pointing merry go round. Hence the silence. Even journalists can't break the silence. No one is talking.

They are all waiting for the first one to blink. If the first one moves to help them they fear that they will be seen to be responsible. Why, the TMO was asked for space to hold the donations given by the public. They refused.

KCC close their doors over the weekend. It was mentioned by a local on a local radio programme.Check the website, they said. I did. He was right. The caller also said that they should at least put on the website an emergency number. That was at 2pm. Then things kicked off at 3 at the town hall because it was finally realised that if they went going to deal with any 'organisation' now, they went going to do it till Monday.

There is NO organisation. People are left to fend for themselves.

The council themselves are creating the organisational chaos themselves. Btw, on their website it says that the town hall is closed due to vandalisation of a door due to a protest. Why not kick people while they're down,eh?

So they're not going to provide any emergency services because a victim kicked down a door? The very ones that they are legally obliged to protect when the housing that they have provided has burnt down because they can't be arsed to spend an extra two quid? Gimme a break!

They have access to resources. They are the council. They should use them for god's sake. Right now they're just shifting chairs on the Titanic, and it's already got the bloody iceberg.

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower.

She probably was as she was previously a councillor. However, it seems that being on the scrutiny committee didn't necessarily mean that she didn't make her concerns at the time....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/17/for-years-ive-seen-kensington-poor-treated-with-disdain?

Just read it, nowhere does she say she voiced her concerns at the time. Nowhere does she admit she was on the committee. Nowhere does she say she objected to any of the plans for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Nowhere does she say she thought the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was unsafe, or that she opposed its refurbishment on any grounds, let alone safety.

All she says it what she's seen and what she's witnessed. She doesn't say anything about actually having done anything for anyone.

I know, but it does admit she was a councillor, and she was probably aware of it. She certainly was aware of the housing conditions that that borough had to endure.

Centaur said that she was on the committee. My point was that although she maybe on the committee, it doesn't mean that she was complicit in voting things through that were not beneficial to her constituents. She may have voted against issues which she didn't agree with but she was not in the majority.

We can never be sure until this minutes of those committees are accessed.

I put up that article to prove that she was a councillor and the fact that she was aware of bad housing conditions. I linked this article so at least people can make their mind up about it. If Centaur could put up the link showing how she voted in that committee would be good too! "

You can bet your bottom dollar if she'd voted against anything that could have had any bearing on Grenfell Tower, she'd have put it in there and be shouting it from the rooftops. As would Corbyn it al.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

Lol

I started the thread about the far left or Right Hijacking things !

And the thread has been hijacked

Only kidding it's still a serious subject to discuss

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/06/17 18:27:23]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

It's a building safety issue.. the building was still a potential hazard during the Blair/Brown years.. I'm not a Teresa may fan per se but trying to cast her as somehow responsible for the tragedy?

Beneath contempt. The thoughtless actions of an absent minded or reckless tenant conspired highlight just how below standard the building was, it could've happened during any administration ..so that's irrelevant really.

London is a place for wealthy foreign investors to buy and build up huge property portfolios while natives are crammed into shit housing and ugly death trap tower blocks that should be ripped down and replaced. Also there's far too much of a burden placed on councils to accommodate "new arrivals" further shafting locals.

So many factors come into play..it is however undeniably a horrific tragedy.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


"

Kensington just elected a Labour MP in the general election. Where is she in all this? Her name is Emma Dent Coad, and it's come out in the last 2 days she was previously on the council housing scrutiny committee as a Labour councillor up until 2014. Her name is mentioned on a 2014/15 report which says the committee which she was on scrutinised work on Grenfel tower. "

The article is here in the Evening Standard.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labours-new-kensington-mp-was-on-housing-scrutiny-committee-a3566661.html

The article says she was on the committee that scrutinized the work done on Grenfell in 2014 and others say she is one of Corbyns advisers.

The Guardian published this today allowing her side of the story but she hasn't gone into detail of any safety issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/17/for-years-ive-seen-kensington-poor-treated-with-disdain

This leads back to the topic and what seems to be a politically driven campaign against the PM. I think it absolutely is or was until people realised Johnson was waiting in the wings and then (some) calm has been asked for. I think any leader would come under intense scrutiny in a situation like this but our position at the moment is quite precipitous so nobody can do very much but support (Brexit/GE).

Her handling of it should have been better but she took the advice from her security team which in hindsight may have been good or bad. We know she isn't liked compared to Corbyn, though the speed at which displaced people rallied into an organised group from Weds to Fri is quite astonishing.

Below shows a BBC reporter at the very start of the Friday Kensington Town Hall riot. The first 2 minutes are a brilliant example of how a group can turn dangerous at a moments notice. May would not have wanted to be in that situation. Nobody would want to be in that kind of situation. They were a mob attacking people at random.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

I can't post all links but I did some looking around. On the Weds around 10am May went to Grenfell, spoke to firemen and made the Pubic inquiry announcement.

Around noon Corbyn arrived unannounced, met and hugged residents and made speeches that it will be investigated.

At 1:30pm John Snow was being shouted at, quite angrily by a large group of residents that 'it was not a photo opportunity'. This is worth searching for.

On the Friday crowds surrounded Mays car and were shouting "murderer" at her demanding answers - she was leaving a Church in Kensington close to the victims.

The mob that was there on Friday was not to be seen on Saturday as can be seen here.. though this is a shorter video it is the only one I can find now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40316530/silence-the-scene-at-kensington-and-chelsea-town-hall

The reports that I was seeing on saturday were that volunteers were arriving at the town hall with essential items. They were being stockpiled, though no protesters or people were asking for services as expected - and neither were staff. I would have thought people would want a house or share of available monies.

The mob was instead marching on Downing street and Trafalgar which to me would indicate either an electorate that is either skewed to Labour or one that is being organised and used by the Left as and when it need to tip the balance of power.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes

[Removed by poster at 18/06/17 23:32:07]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Nice to see that you agree with me, and disagree with Centaur that it's illegal.

Funny it sounds like he was disagreeing with you and was actually agreeing with me.

He said its legal, you said it's not."

I'll clarify. The requisitioning of private property, with out due process, would be illegal. With out further legislation, which itself would take time, the only legal way to requisition the properties required would be by compulsory purchase and that would take too long to be of any practical good.

I also think that Corbyn was totally wrong, verging on the irresponsibly wrong, to suggest this as a solution to the problem when he must have known that it could not be done legally within a timeframe that would provide any help at all and also when there are perfectly good and doable solutions that could and should be done now that would actually help.

I'm sorry to disappoint some but I hate populist, demagogical bullshit whether it comes from the left, right or centre.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Nice to see that you agree with me, and disagree with Centaur that it's illegal.

Funny it sounds like he was disagreeing with you and was actually agreeing with me.

He said its legal, you said it's not.

I'll clarify. The requisitioning of private property, with out due process, would be illegal. With out further legislation, which itself would take time, the only legal way to requisition the properties required would be by compulsory purchase and that would take too long to be of any practical good.

I also think that Corbyn was totally wrong, verging on the irresponsibly wrong, to suggest this as a solution to the problem when he must have known that it could not be done legally within a timeframe that would provide any help at all and also when there are perfectly good and doable solutions that could and should be done now that would actually help.

I'm sorry to disappoint some but I hate populist, demagogical bullshit whether it comes from the left, right or centre."

That's fine, you have clarified that there are legal routes to make it happen, and shown that Centaur is wrong when he said it was illegal.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

What if your house is in the way of HS2 or a new motorway and you dont want to sell. What happens then?

Compulsory Purchase. But it takes time and is not cheap. Far better to use emergency housing in available hotels in the immediate term and then ensure people are properly rehoused preferably within the borough and definitely in or very close to the borough.

This talk about requisitioning property is totally impractical, unworkable and seems to me to raising unrealistic expectations of what can be done to actually help.

Nobody's suggested cpo's, a quick search on Rightmove shows 575 2 bed properties within 1/2 a mile of Shepard's Bush with a max of £2k pcm, all sitting empty."

This would work then...if the several million raised by various "funds" plus the five million the government has allocated as a start could be used to rent these properties for the victims.

Maybe then housing trusts or KCC could look at purchasing them longer term? This makes the most sense to me!

What Corbyn said is clear for anyone to see on "Peston on Sunday". Available on ITV player. I won't comment but will leave it up to individual posters to see for themselves

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville

I tried to make my reply on the threads topic which was opinions on a politically driven campaign but the thread has moved to this compulsory purchase theme.

May has said there is £5m available and a separate £1.5m for therapies. Why are people discussing compulsory purchase orders when London house prices especially around Kensington are hiked? They are some of the most expensive in the world where a 2-3 bed flat will go for £1m. This £5m will be nowhere near enough to re-homing the number of families affected. Secondly even if more money was released (£bn), and compulsory purchases were issued to re-home all families in habitable properties, they will be responsible for all associated bills. There will then be a bigger scandal in say 6mnths as they will not be able to meet these bills and will get into arrears, ending in a worse position than finding an appropriate home from the off - who wants a CCJ after a trauma like that?

I am not posting to cause offence, just making an observation and thinking logically. Another point back to topic where Labour either do not seem to think things through or want to cause political tension? I realise Labour have a reformist mandate but people must appreciate the problems of housing families in homes they cannot afford?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

.....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy."

What channel were you watching?

I didn't see over half of the protestors.

Half a dozen maybe. Half the crowd? Definitely not.

They don't even have that many members!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy."

The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not ."

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. "

So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice."

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign."

Sounds like you have a problem with the angry protesters .They aren't the problem. People who dont like their reaction they are the problem.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign."

But that incident was filmed on Friday afternoon. If she had visited on Wednesday she would not have got such an angry reaction. These people are those who had been waiting patiently for support, didn't get any so went to the place which should have produced answers.

Why are you confusing the two time frames?

If Sadiq Khan can deal with some heckling and a water bottle chucked at him, then Theresa May can deal with a disapproving crowd too.

She's a politician, for God's sake. If she can't deal with things like this, she shouldn't have become a politician.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign.

But that incident was filmed on Friday afternoon. If she had visited on Wednesday she would not have got such an angry reaction. These people are those who had been waiting patiently for support, didn't get any so went to the place which should have produced answers.

Why are you confusing the two time frames?

If Sadiq Khan can deal with some heckling and a water bottle chucked at him, then Theresa May can deal with a disapproving crowd too.

She's a politician, for God's sake. If she can't deal with things like this, she shouldn't have become a politician.

"

Hes only interested in defending May and the Tory party.He doesn't get why people want to shout and protest.Thinks its a left wing stitch up..and seems to ignore the body count would illicit an angry mob.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *0tt0nSu3Woman  over a year ago

London


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign.

But that incident was filmed on Friday afternoon. If she had visited on Wednesday she would not have got such an angry reaction. These people are those who had been waiting patiently for support, didn't get any so went to the place which should have produced answers.

Why are you confusing the two time frames?

If Sadiq Khan can deal with some heckling and a water bottle chucked at him, then Theresa May can deal with a disapproving crowd too.

She's a politician, for God's sake. If she can't deal with things like this, she shouldn't have become a politician.

Hes only interested in defending May and the Tory party.He doesn't get why people want to shout and protest.Thinks its a left wing stitch up..and seems to ignore the body count would illicit an angry mob."

Meh.

If he was wants to do that, then it's his call, I guess...

But..if you keep defending all the good bits and ignore the bad, then it's a surefire way of being caught out.

Better to give to Caesar what is Caesar. It always guarantees? a good night's sleep... And stops ya looking stupid!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign.

But that incident was filmed on Friday afternoon. If she had visited on Wednesday she would not have got such an angry reaction. These people are those who had been waiting patiently for support, didn't get any so went to the place which should have produced answers.

Why are you confusing the two time frames?

If Sadiq Khan can deal with some heckling and a water bottle chucked at him, then Theresa May can deal with a disapproving crowd too.

She's a politician, for God's sake. If she can't deal with things like this, she shouldn't have become a politician.

"

Yes I understand that, and I am merely showing the volatility on day. I too am trying to keep objective to the residents reactions. It is why in my initial post I outlined events on the day from TM at 10am to 1:30 and Jon Snow being berated.. I do think her not speaking to them on day led to the events after but you cannot blame her for taking her own safety seriously given 2-3 months of critical events.

As said previous too - the two party leaders have very different styles and very different policies. Personally I have never liked the whole selfie promotion Corbyn undertook and as compassionate as it was, I think politicians should remain dispassionate to the electorate, so hugging I thought was a little too much. He nearly had my vote, but that is another matter. Look at Kahn an hour ago at Finsbury Park, speaking to a very shook up, tearful woman, he kept his reserve well. It remained professional, popular or not, there were no photo opportunities, he just tried to calm and reassure.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ingdong11Man  over a year ago

emsworth


"It's a building safety issue.. the building was still a potential hazard during the Blair/Brown years.. I'm not a Teresa may fan per se but trying to cast her as somehow responsible for the tragedy?

Beneath contempt. The thoughtless actions of an absent minded or reckless tenant conspired highlight just how below standard the building was, it could've happened during any administration ..so that's irrelevant really.

London is a place for wealthy foreign investors to buy and build up huge property portfolios while natives are crammed into shit housing and ugly death trap tower blocks that should be ripped down and replaced. Also there's far too much of a burden placed on councils to accommodate "new arrivals" further shafting locals.

So many factors come into play..it is however undeniably a horrific tragedy."

Thats not true , the cladding that spread the fire was only fitted a year ago , without that cladding the fire would have been contained to that one flat .

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andemanMan  over a year ago

bedforshire


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

It isn't against the law. It's a law that is used in emergencies. I do believe it was used during the second world war.

"

As always bang on the money.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andemanMan  over a year ago

bedforshire


".....and on the theme of the OP.

It was clear to see that over half of the protesters were touting socialist workers placards....often nothing to do with the initial catastrophe. Maybe not blaming Labour Party but someone was trying to scire political points on the back of a tragedy. The aim of the goverment is not to politicize this event.Their modus operandi is damage limitation

Its political like it or not .

If you were the PM would you risk a potential situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G-jYKPfzCE

In two minutes a correspondent turns reporting on a gathering, to what in no other terms is a riot. She was right to take advice from her security team.

The number of incidences in recent months are exorbitant and have truly stretched public services - terror, criminal, political. I don't know how any PM would not have been tested or remained unscathed. Any criticism so far has come from political opponents but we'll not doubt see public sector workers speaking up due to the unprecedented nature of events.

It is right to hold the Govt to account but questions like why the LA has been holding onto so much money should be a LA (or commons) issue not a PM issue, as is who signed off of the build itself. If this were to be politicised legislation (I believe) leads back to Labour in 2000 and a 2009 review under Kier Starmer but it is too politically sensitive right now. So your upset by anrgy protesters. Mother's throwing children out of a burning tower block has that effect on a community that feels neglected .Shes in charge she chooses not to face the community.Shes getting terrible advice and she'll pay the price for this advice.

I am far from upset by anger I don't see where you have read that in my response. I have talked about the the sheer number of recent event being unprecedented and how this must test any PM and a country's services. I also mentioned why KCC hasn't been exposed for sitting on so much cash and why it hadn't been brought up or challenged in the commons.

Anger is great, it's perfect and legitimate in every way - it's application is what is at question. In considering anger and the clip of Kensington Town Hall, how would you expect a PM to be heard or to be safe in that situation. How would you expect anyone to be safe in that position... The clip also shows residents assaulting council workers and reporters.

The question still remains if this was politically mobilised or a resident only campaign.

But that incident was filmed on Friday afternoon. If she had visited on Wednesday she would not have got such an angry reaction. These people are those who had been waiting patiently for support, didn't get any so went to the place which should have produced answers.

Why are you confusing the two time frames?

If Sadiq Khan can deal with some heckling and a water bottle chucked at him, then Theresa May can deal with a disapproving crowd too.

She's a politician, for God's sake. If she can't deal with things like this, she shouldn't have become a politician.

"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andemanMan  over a year ago

bedforshire

Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eavenscentitCouple  over a year ago

barnstaple


"Whats wrong with Corbyns suggestion? He didnt say that the government (or some other funds such as all the money raised for these victims) wouldnt be used to compensate the property owners for rent of their vacant properties which currently arent earning any money at all. It sounds like a win/win for everyone.

And it wouldnt be against the law if it was agreed with the property owners or if the government used eminent domain both of which would be perfectly legal.

Its wrong because Corbyn is seeking to stir up tensions between rich and poor. There is no need to seize anyone's property, when residents can be put up in hotels until alternative accommodation can be found for them, as is currently happening. "

There are always tensions between the rich and poor. In many inner London boroughs only the very rich or very poor live there. The very poor in this case, were some poor buggers that had escaped war torn parts of the world to be burnt to death. The have's should help out

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eavenscentitCouple  over a year ago

barnstaple

I watched Michael Gove talking about the fire yesterday morning, another chinless wonder with no regard for the poor or needy. No emotion no passion, just posh boy talk.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

It isn't against the law. It's a law that is used in emergencies. I do believe it was used during the second world war.

As always bang on the money."

Peston asked Corbyn what he meant by his comments and did actually say that compulsory purchase should be a proposition.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-18/jeremy-corbyn-renews-calls-to-seize-empty-homes-for-grenfell-tower-victims/

In response to your other comment (below), believing May would have been safe because the Queen was safe, I have posted two more links below.


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!"

1. When the demonstrators (not residents as the articles states), went to the Town Hall, they attacked a volunteer who they believed to be the CEO of KCC. Would they have reacted in same way at 10am on Weds is anybodies guess. I still think not meeting them was an error but her security as has been shown needs to be protected. When the queen met them they were all lined up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-volunteer-beaten-protest-kensington-and-chelsea-robert-black-kctmo-a7796531.html

2. The KCC was Tory held until this election. Whilst you agree (and I do too), that there is a distinct 'politics of death' about recent events, which is what this discussion is about. This article lends itself to explain surpluses in other councils - something we rarely think about. That councils (whether Lab or Tory) have to run surpluses or they are mismanaged. They have to be able to pay bills, contractors, raise funds and run efficiently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-fire-london-kensington-council-austerity-cuts-government-may-a7797646.html

I agree completely that the politics need to be removed from this tragedy and it needs a thorough investigation.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oi_LucyCouple  over a year ago

Barbados


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

It isn't against the law. It's a law that is used in emergencies. I do believe it was used during the second world war.

As always bang on the money.

Peston asked Corbyn what he meant by his comments and did actually say that compulsory purchase should be a proposition.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-18/jeremy-corbyn-renews-calls-to-seize-empty-homes-for-grenfell-tower-victims/

In response to your other comment (below), believing May would have been safe because the Queen was safe, I have posted two more links below.

Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

1. When the demonstrators (not residents as the articles states), went to the Town Hall, they attacked a volunteer who they believed to be the CEO of KCC. Would they have reacted in same way at 10am on Weds is anybodies guess. I still think not meeting them was an error but her security as has been shown needs to be protected. When the queen met them they were all lined up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-volunteer-beaten-protest-kensington-and-chelsea-robert-black-kctmo-a7796531.html

2. The KCC was Tory held until this election. Whilst you agree (and I do too), that there is a distinct 'politics of death' about recent events, which is what this discussion is about. This article lends itself to explain surpluses in other councils - something we rarely think about. That councils (whether Lab or Tory) have to run surpluses or they are mismanaged. They have to be able to pay bills, contractors, raise funds and run efficiently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-fire-london-kensington-council-austerity-cuts-government-may-a7797646.html

I agree completely that the politics need to be removed from this tragedy and it needs a thorough investigation.

"

OK, but as you don't know the difference between local council and national elections I guess that means we can safely assume you don't know what you are talking about?

-Matt

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *oodmessMan  over a year ago

yumsville


"You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor

He actually suggested that VACANT properties could be requisitioned to provide TEMPORARY accommodation to those rendered homeless

Vacant property that other people own. You can't do that to private property, it is against the law.

It isn't against the law. It's a law that is used in emergencies. I do believe it was used during the second world war.

As always bang on the money.

Peston asked Corbyn what he meant by his comments and did actually say that compulsory purchase should be a proposition.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-18/jeremy-corbyn-renews-calls-to-seize-empty-homes-for-grenfell-tower-victims/

In response to your other comment (below), believing May would have been safe because the Queen was safe, I have posted two more links below.

Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

1. When the demonstrators (not residents as the articles states), went to the Town Hall, they attacked a volunteer who they believed to be the CEO of KCC. Would they have reacted in same way at 10am on Weds is anybodies guess. I still think not meeting them was an error but her security as has been shown needs to be protected. When the queen met them they were all lined up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-volunteer-beaten-protest-kensington-and-chelsea-robert-black-kctmo-a7796531.html

2. The KCC was Tory held until this election. Whilst you agree (and I do too), that there is a distinct 'politics of death' about recent events, which is what this discussion is about. This article lends itself to explain surpluses in other councils - something we rarely think about. That councils (whether Lab or Tory) have to run surpluses or they are mismanaged. They have to be able to pay bills, contractors, raise funds and run efficiently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-fire-london-kensington-council-austerity-cuts-government-may-a7797646.html

I agree completely that the politics need to be removed from this tragedy and it needs a thorough investigation.

OK, but as you don't know the difference between local council and national elections I guess that means we can safely assume you don't know what you are talking about?

-Matt"

I might have got carried away with voter behaviour yes.

It still doesn't change the other Labour held councils running surpluses, or does it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *andemanMan  over a year ago

bedforshire

I will need to check my facts on this, however I seam to recall that at the time of Thatchers origonal right to buy scheme the local authorities were requires to put the cash from this into reserves and run surpluses as a matter of central Goverment instruction. This is what caused Councils to be in no position to build new council housing as the moneys rasied were tied down and could not be released.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *imiUKMan  over a year ago

Hereford


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!"

But it's highly amusing having the right telling me who the far left are and what they think.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!"

Maybe lecture others about learning to read when you have learned to spell.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mmabluTV/TS  over a year ago

upton wirral


"They are only one step away from the present labour party it is a worrying theme,Mcdonald is probably a member I would not be suprised

McDonnell IS one of them. In the past he has said those who use violence as a means of protest are 'the best of us', and he has called for a million people to march on Westminster, no doubt he secretly hopes it would turn violent. The likes of him would love to see a revolution where a violent mob storm Parliament and overthrow the government by force. You also have Corbyn himself suggesting people's private property be seized and given to the poor. There is a very sinister undercurrent to all of this, Corbyn's blatant disregard for the laws of the land and seizing private property from individuals against the law is very worrying. These Marxist madmen must be kept as far away from government as possible. "

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *imiUKMan  over a year ago

Hereford


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

Maybe lecture others about learning to read when you have learned to spell. "

Is that an actual victory for you? A typo?

Lordy.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

"

Watching press preview on sky news now. They show the front pages of tomorrow's newspapers. One front page has a headline where the community directly affected in the Grenfell tower tragedy tell the hard left "Don't highjack our Grief".

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

  

By *oi_LucyCouple  over a year ago

Barbados


"Anyone who thinks that John MaC or JC are SWP should either

A) do a bit of reading (when they have learned how)

B) see a pycologist!

C) not comment on what you clearly have no clue about

D) all of the above!

Now yes i agree political parties of any discription attempting to score political points off this tradgedy is discusting!

Finding who to blame is only human.

But the first priority is to deal with the survivers and there needs.

As for May being a coward and not facing the people for security concerns.

It just goes to show the the truth of the old adage that they dont make them that way no more, when a 91 year old top terror target walks amoungst her people in thier time of need without a flintch!

Watching press preview on sky news now. They show the front pages of tomorrow's newspapers. One front page has a headline where the community directly affected in the Grenfell tower tragedy tell the hard left "Don't highjack our Grief". "

The Daily Mail.

Enough said.

-Matt

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic

0.2968

0