The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Without checking the EHCR, I would say that the existence of EDMOs, CPOs, control orders demonstrates that property rights are not sacred nor incompatible with that law.  In recent years they seem to have been elevated to a position of pre-eminence (sometimes by the same people whose inherited wealth comes from the Clearances - irony overload), but we need to reassert that the right to a home is more important than the right to launder stolen money through estate agents and push property prices through the roof.

If you want to abandon property rights and the rule of law then fair enough, but you still need to change the law first. Until then seizure of property by the state is not an option, in fact it's totalitarian. 

Whats wrong with putting the affected people up in hotels until alternatives are found, why the rush to abandon the law? 

[colhint]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

If you want to abandon property rights and the rule of law then fair enough, but you still need to change the law first. Until then seizure of property by the state is not an option, in fact it's totalitarian. 

Whats wrong with putting the affected people up in hotels until alternatives are found, why the rush to abandon the law? 

Didn't Sadiq Kahn's report last year say the vast majority of foreign investments are buy to let and there is almost no evidence that properties are bought and kept empty. 

[peterms]

Just now, Awol said:

If you want to abandon property rights and the rule of law then fair enough, but you still need to change the law first. Until then seizure of property by the state is not an option, in fact it's totalitarian. 

Whats wrong with putting the affected people up in hotels until alternatives are found, why the rush to abandon the law? 

I am proposing changing the law, through emergency session.

In the meantime, if squatters force entry to provide housing for people, as they did in the post-war period for homeless servicemen, good luck to them.  And if vacant properties are squatted to house these families, I think it would be a very foolish act to ask the police to remove them.

Hotels have been used, or rather B&B's,  but there is a shortage, they are often pretty disgusting, they often force residents to leave the premises during the day...pretty unsuitable, as well as being poor value for money.

The consensual option is private sector leasing, but again pretty overpriced and exploitative.

But the owners of the empty properties in this area are not like the PSL areas of Norwood and Croydon.  They include many absentee owners, often mafia, kleptos, corrupt foreign politicians, taxdodgers...there is no public sympathy for them.

[snowychap]

May's interview with Maitlis is simply awful.

[PaulC]

I think its scandalous so many properties are left empty when there are so many homeless. I am hoping that Theresa May's promise of rehousing the survivors within 3 weeks as close as possible to the tower block means that many will be rehoused in some of these posh vacant properties. screw the owners rights. People shouldn't be able to buy houses and then be allowed to leave them empty. 

[colhint]

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

Obviously no one who has survived this fire and is now homeless should be left in the street, the local council should already have them sorted in local hotels & central government can pick up the bill if required. 

The wrong answer is arbitrarily seizing private property, whether it's occupied or not - I can't really believe that needs pointing out, but just in case the Human Rights Act says hi. 

There needs to be an investigation / inquest asap and if there is evidence to support charges then those responsible/culpable should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But they need to do the investigation first and get to the bottom of it before this unseemly rush to politicise the deaths. 

Saw a clip on BBC of people marching on Downing St calling for May to go. Printed and mass produced signs with the same slogan, clearly not the local residents affected. 

Well organised, calling for May to go outside Downing St... call my cynical but it stinks of Momentum or close associates  politicising these deaths for their own political ends. 

 

You are right one of the leading protesters at the town hall is Tina Buckley, goading them on. An Ultra Corbynista. Unfortunately she was wearing the same outfit and backpack she was wearing outside number 10 screaming May is a terrorist last month, easily spotted.

[colhint]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

I think its scandalous so many properties are left empty when there are so many homeless. I am hoping that Theresa May's promise of rehousing the survivors within 3 weeks as close as possible to the tower block means that many will be rehoused in some of these posh vacant properties. screw the owners rights. People shouldn't be able to buy houses and then be allowed to leave them empty. 

Unfortunately against article 1 of ECHR. You can't pick and choose which bits you want and which bits you don't.

[PaulC]

1 minute ago, colhint said:

Unfortunately against article 1 of ECHR. You can't pick and choose which bits you want and which bits you don't.

If there is a huge social housing waiting list in the area and hotels can only be a termporary solution what is the alternative

[colhint]

I don't know yet, but it's a slippery slope to go down.

[markavfc40]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

May's interview with Maitlis is simply awful.

Just watched it. She is an embarrassment and at a time this country is desperately in need of leadership, and a leader with some empathy, we have this weak, cold, heartless bitch.

Edited June 16, 2017 by markavfc40

[PaulC]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

I don't know yet, but it's a slippery slope to go down.

I agree but she has dug herself into a hole and she cant go back on her word and people wont stand for it if she just sticks them in hotels. Also if the council remarkably finds social housing for these people then the ones on the waiting lists will be very angry

Edited June 16, 2017 by PaulC

[peterms]

1 minute ago, colhint said:

I don't know yet, but it's a slippery slope to go down.

We've been going down a slippery slope for decades, and we've landed in a vast tub of shite.

We cannot allow "the market" to dictate whether people can afford to live in their own town.

It's time to take back control.  Didn't someone say that just recently?

[Rugeley Villa]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

I am proposing changing the law, through emergency session.

In the meantime, if squatters force entry to provide housing for people, as they did in the post-war period for homeless servicemen, good luck to them.  And if vacant properties are squatted to house these families, I think it would be a very foolish act to ask the police to remove them.

Hotels have been used, or rather B&B's,  but there is a shortage, they are often pretty disgusting, they often force residents to leave the premises during the day...pretty unsuitable, as well as being poor value for money.

The consensual option is private sector leasing, but again pretty overpriced and exploitative.

But the owners of the empty properties in this area are not like the PSL areas of Norwood and Croydon.  They include many absentee owners, often mafia, kleptos, corrupt foreign politicians, taxdodgers...there is no public sympathy for them.

You cannot just go around giving  people's houses away for a bit. 

[PaulC]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

You cannot just go around giving  people's houses away for a bit. 

and you cant keep letting rich people buy up houses and then leave them empty imo

[Rugeley Villa]

13 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I think its scandalous so many properties are left empty when there are so many homeless. I am hoping that Theresa May's promise of rehousing the survivors within 3 weeks as close as possible to the tower block means that many will be rehoused in some of these posh vacant properties. screw the owners rights. People shouldn't be able to buy houses and then be allowed to leave them empty. 

Why not? They have every right to leave them empty if they want. People do it all over the world including normal folk who have holiday homes. Build more houses that's the answer.

[Awol]

22 minutes ago, peterms said:

I am proposing changing the law, through emergency session.

In the meantime, if squatters force entry to provide housing for people, as they did in the post-war period for homeless servicemen, good luck to them.  And if vacant properties are squatted to house these families, I think it would be a very foolish act to ask the police to remove them.

Hotels have been used, or rather B&B's,  but there is a shortage, they are often pretty disgusting, they often force residents to leave the premises during the day...pretty unsuitable, as well as being poor value for money.

The consensual option is private sector leasing, but again pretty overpriced and exploitative.

But the owners of the empty properties in this area are not like the PSL areas of Norwood and Croydon.  They include many absentee owners, often mafia, kleptos, corrupt foreign politicians, taxdodgers...there is no public sympathy for them.

It's not about public sympathy mate, it's about the law of the land. If and when politicians start suggesting that obeying the law is discretionary very big red alarm bells should be ringing. 

[Ingram85]

Why not? If the owners have no actual plans to use them, if they have been vacant for years just sitting there while the owner uses them as a financial tool instead of letting them or living there? If they will be recompensed after perhaps?

[colhint]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

We've been going down a slippery slope for decades, and we've landed in a vast tub of shite.

We cannot allow "the market" to dictate whether people can afford to live in their own town.

It's time to take back control.  Didn't someone say that just recently?

, Unfortunately the ECHR have other ideas at the moment, Brexit may change that but that's a different can of worms.

[Rugeley Villa]

Just now, PaulC said:

and you cant keep letting rich people buy up houses and then leave them empty imo

It's not ideal I know but they own them and they have paid a lot of money for them. Why should the rich be dealt a bad hand because of dodgy buildings and not enough homes.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

and you cant keep letting rich people buy up houses and then leave them empty imo

I agree with you, but the law can't be changed overnight.

Until then the authorities should pony up and get the poor buggers on the wrong end of this disaster into hotels - of which there are plenty in the vicinity.