The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[Awol]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

I would dispute "whim".

It's a long term policy.

I would also place high up the list all those whose estates were originally stolen from the rest of us.  The legal title they have is corrupt - their ancestors stole common land by violence and they should lose it without compensation.  Who would disagree with that?

How far back are we going? The Normans, the Vikings? Saxons? Romans? 

You appear to be saying property rights are meaningless, or only applicable to people deemed deserving of them - by whom you don't mention, although I doubt that group of decision makers believe the same rules would apply to them.

That's communism, not just common ownership of the means of production but no private property either. 

There's no value in repeating the same thing over and over so I'll leave it with it's all well and good to change the law, but it's not okay to simply abandon it as many people here are calling for. 

[PaulC]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

How far back are we going? The Normans, the Vikings? Saxons? Romans? 

You appear to be saying property rights are meaningless, or only applicable to people deemed deserving of them - by whom you don't mention, although I doubt that group of decision makers believe the same rules would apply to them.

That's communism, not just common ownership of the means of production but no private property either. 

There's no value in repeating the same thing over and over so I'll leave it with it's all well and good to change the law, but it's not okay to simply abandon it as many people here are calling for. 

Do you have a problem with forcing the owners of these vacant properties to let them to the survivors of this tragedy. I don't. 

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

More complicated than you realise, perhaps.

I was involved with managing the temporary housing of homeless families in London years ago, when it was easier.  It was hard then, it's harder now.

And you should drop this thing about "stealing".  We have every right to determine how people will use their property.  We don't allow them to install neon signs; why is it seen as a greater intrusion to say they will not keep housing empty for speculative gain, while bereaved families sleep on floors?

Time to get real about this stuff.

We have every right, do we? Who is 'we'? This is some scary shit, exactly the kind of revolutionary socialism I've always thought Corbyn was about underneath - no respect for the law or due process, just might is right. 'We'll take your stuff* because we can'. F*** that.  

*note, I've got no stuff worth taking so this isn't about self interest.

 

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Do you have a problem with forcing the owners of these vacant properties to let them to the survivors of this tragedy. I don't. 

Yes I do! By all means spend the money to put them up in hotels, or rental properties, until new permenent homes are found for them. Doesn't matter what it costs they deserve every support from the state. 

BUT, government screwing with private property rights is a really, really bad road to go down legally, ethically and economically. We are not Venezuela. 

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

We have every right, do we? Who is 'we'? This is some scary shit, exactly the kind of revolutionary socialism I've always thought Corbyn was about underneath - no respect for the law or due process, just might is right. 'We'll take your stuff* because we can'. F*** that.  

*note, I've got no stuff worth taking so this isn't about self interest.

 

Wow, that's a bit weird.

You really value the property rights of mafiosi, taxdodgers, kleptos, corrupt politicians from corrupt regimes above the immediate need for housing for bereaved local families?

Seriously?

You do know who owns this stuff, don't you?

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, peterms said:

Wow, that's a bit weird.

You really value the property rights of mafiosi, taxdodgers, kleptos, corrupt politicians from corrupt regimes above the immediate need for housing for bereaved local families?

Seriously?

You do know who owns this stuff, don't you?

I value the rule of law, plain and simple. If you want to go after the kleptocrats, corrupt politicians and general filthy money London is swimming in then I'll hold your coat and cheer you on. 

Until then the law is the law and can't simply be tossed aside when 'we' (whoever that is) decide it's inconvenient. 

Edit: and to add the point that keeps being ignored, put them in hotels at the taxpayer's expense. The state doesn't need to seize private property. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Awol

[Ingram85]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

I value the rule of law, plain and simple. If you want to go after the kleptocrats, corrupt politicians and general filthy money London is swimming in then I'll hold your coat and cheer you on. 

Until then the law is the law and can't simply be tossed aside when 'we' (whoever that is) decide it's inconvenient. 

But its ok for the powerful, elite and wealthy to side step and flaunt all these laws all the bloody time? Or is it only the working class that must obey?

[peterms]

28 minutes ago, Awol said:

How far back are we going? The Normans, the Vikings? Saxons? Romans? 

Well, assuming this is not just a rhetorical pub debating point, there is an issue of practicality.  It is quite hard to make a case that your name is of Norman origin, therefore you stole my land.  It is however far simpler to make a case that you (well, not you personally) are the Duchess of Sutherland, and all the land you lay claim to was stolen.

So, you do what you can, within the limits of what is practical.

[Awol]

Just now, Ingram85 said:

But its ok for the powerful, elite and wealthy to side step and flaunt all these laws all the bloody time? Or is it only the working class that must obey?

Give me an example mate and let's talk about it. 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

Well, assuming this is not just a rhetorical pub debating point, there is an issue of practicality.  It is quite hard to make a case that your name is of Norman origin, therefore you stole my land.  It is however far simpler to make a case that you (well, not you personally) are the Duchess of Sutherland, and all the land you lay claim to was stolen.

So, you do what you can, within the limits of what is practical.

Oh. You're actually serious. Wow. 

[Xela]

The requisition of properties won't happen anyway as its illegal and I would assume to change things you would need a bill to be passed in the HoC, which would never get through?

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Xela

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, Xela said:

The requisition of properties won't happen anyway as its illegal and I would assume to change things you would need a bill to be passed in the HoC, which would never get through?

 

Seems a surprising number of people think the law doesn't apply to people they deem to be undeserving. 

Dont want to detract from the point of this thread any further but it's been an eye opener. 

[peterms]

14 minutes ago, Xela said:

The requisition of properties won't happen anyway as its illegal and I would assume to change things you would need a bill to be passed in the HoC, which would never get through?

 

It would be an act of public education to spread far and wide the names of those who oppose it.

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

Oh. You're actually serious. Wow. 

Oh, yes.

[Xela]

I'm all for legislative change going forward to try and curb the purchase of properties purely for investment by oligarchs and sheiks who have no intention of ever setting foot in them but it has to be done through the correct channels in my view.

 

[LondonLax]

Use aggressive taxation to redirect the market where it is failing the people. A severe 'empty home' tax linked to the value of the property should sort out the problem quick smart, to the benefit of the wider community.

Abandoning the rule of law and commandeering property Zimbabwe style is a very dangerous road for a government to travel down.

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

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 will always get fringe groups who have an agenda against politicians of all sides. Whether these groups then attract support from the wider community largely depends on how the politicians conduct their business of Government.  

[Rugeley Villa]

6 hours ago, PaulC said:

You haven't got to hand it over. You can just force them to let it and the council foot the cost

Ask yes, but you cannot force them.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

But its ok for the powerful, elite and wealthy to side step and flaunt all these laws all the bloody time? Or is it only the working class that must obey?

That's the way it's always has been, and it will never change.

[magnkarl]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

Seems a surprising number of people think the law doesn't apply to people they deem to be undeserving. 

Dont want to detract from the point of this thread any further but it's been an eye opener. 

I generally find that someone who's this convinced of totalitarian beliefs won't listen mate, there's a whole barrage of rights and laws preventing this sort of thing from happening but it's been an eye opener for me too how far some people are willing to go to support their beliefs. The fact that these people support Labour, a pretty liberal party, while at the same time wanting the kitchen sink thrown at our rule of law, is so ironic. Where do you stop when you start taking people's rightful property/possessions away? It's an extremely slippery slope which has been shown to be catastrophic for the economy in the few countries that do this sort of thing. (Zimbabwe, South Africa, Venezuela, Iraq, Libya).

It's weird how they're for taking "rich" people's property away, but won't even consider the fact that we need to be better at encouraging people from moving out of our most expensive areas to have a better life.

Edited June 17, 2017 by magnkarl