The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[NurembergVillan]

40 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

encouraging people from moving out of our most expensive areas to have a better life.

[magnkarl]

5 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Good examples. Theresa May was born in Hastings - she now lives in Berkshire (when not in no. 10.) Michael Gove was born in Edinburgh and now lives in London, Bors Johnson was born in New York and now lives in Islington. Do you see what I'm saying here? Good examples though mate, applause. All the three people above moved to further their career, which is generally a good idea once you're 18.

This thread isn't about how a lot of people hate the tory party. (myself included) - so get back on topic. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[NurembergVillan]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

This thread isn't about how a lot of people hate the tory party. (myself included) - so get back on topic. 

Kind of feels like the hate towards the Government IS on topic -

 

[mjmooney]

12 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

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.

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. 

It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. 

And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. 

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contracts and internships), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and got our priorities right. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by mjmooney

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. 

It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. 

And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. 

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contract), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and get our priorities right. 

Agreed - the problem isn't the landlords who buy the properties because the system is broken. It's the system that encourages this sort of thing that needs adjusting. Though I don't think taking the houses off the people that bought them legally is the answer. Flipping it the total other way wouldn't be good for anyone either. Someone who has done something well within the confines of the law is not at fault here, but rather the law allowing this thing to happen.

[Demitri_C]

9 hours 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?

Can you please list every individual that owns these properties and also link how each is as you describe in your second paragraph?

[PaulC]

3 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Ask yes, but you cannot force them.

Well the law needs to be changed so you can. its not acceptable that we have such a huge housing problem and these lie empty. I have no problem with affluent people, however they made their money but I do have a problem of so many people being homeless or being shifted to other parts of the country while posh houses in London lie empty. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by PaulC

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Kind of feels like the hate towards the Government IS on topic

But that's so 'terribly unfair'.

[Rugeley Villa]

9 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

This mantra really boils my piss. BUILDING MORE HOUSES IS NOT, NOT, NOT 'THE ANSWER'. The only thing it's good for is the building industry. 

It's happening all around where I live. Huge new estates going up on green belt land. Are they 'affordable, first time buyer' homes? Are they ****. They're 4 and 5 bedroom jobs, costing 3, 4, 5 hundred grand. There are some smaller ones, but they are still totally unaffordable by young people - they are getting bought up by buy-to-let landlords, to turn themselves a nice little profit. 

And the roads around here are very close to gridlock (not just at rush hour, all **** ing day). The new estates are throwing hundreds more cars into the chaos on a daily basis. It's madness. 

Both my daughters and their partners want to buy. They all have decent jobs, but not money enough to save a deposit, and zero chance of getting a mortgage. There are plenty of available houses that they'd buy, but they're in a poverty trap. 

Stop this crap about building houses, and start addressing the real problems - low paid jobs (don't get me started on zero hours contract), banks who will only lend to the already rich, lack of investment in existing properties, not enough use of brown field sites, no social housing. The system is broken, and it's about time we kicked out the bastards responsible and got our priorities right. 

Of course more houses are needed. Population in 10-20-30 years time?  I see your point regarding new builds being expensive, even little shitty two beds. I'm in the same boat regarding a mortgage, but luckily we are in council and can buy for half price. Small country, large population of course it's going to create problems. More houses are needed, it's not my fault the government are not sorting your valid points out. 

[Rugeley Villa]

8 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Well the law needs to be changed so you can. its not acceptable that we have such a huge housing problem and these lie empty. I have no problem with affluent people, however they made their money but I do have a problem of so many people being homeless or being shifted to other parts of the country while posh houses in London lie empty. 

If law changes fair enough. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

9 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?

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

At a very basic level the Government is duty bound (possibly by law?) to ensure the health, housing and safety of all it's population,  no matter how poor or wealthy.  The encasing of a tower block in flammable elements and deadly elements must have been signed off and was well within the law at this point who know for sure but if the fire proof version was the cheapest option this thread would not exist for sure.  Simple as that really.  

I am not convinced this thread would exist either if these basic and in my opinion, top of the list items are given the time and money needed and required for continual & ongoing improvement,  which as far as I know is what the ultimate aim is at a fundamental level for what is a service delivered to the population.

 

[PaulC]

It seems to me its always the poor that gets trodden on. People living in in sub standard bedsits where landlords are allowed to get away with charging extortionate rent, and not providing even the basic living standards, and if the tenant complains they will be kicked out. Things have to change. In a wealthy country like ours it should not be like this. Part of me thinks this might have been a sinister ploy by some rich property developers to get rid of the "scum" from this affluent area. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by PaulC

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

 

 we need to be better at encouraging people from moving out of our most expensive areas to have a better life.

people have died

children have been burnt and smoked to death

People have the right to live - if they have come from 6 generations of Londoner or if they have come from the Yemen or if they are trying to set up a new life with a boyfriend that shouldn't mean there are zones they can officially live in. People have died in what appears to have been an avoidable fire. Abstract political theories on how ghetto's are actually for the benefit of the poor are not what's needed right now.

Those flats wouldn't have been safer if they had been in Brick Lane, or Blackburn, or Bangor. The people in them wouldn't be safer if they lived the other side of a gate or commute 20 miles to their cleaning job.

They would have been safer if the people making the costing decisions truly lived among those affected and not in their own ghetto 2 miles down the road.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, PaulC said:

It seems to me its always the poor that gets trodden on. People living in in sub standard bedsits where landlords are allowed to get away with charging extortionate rent, and not providing even the basic living standards, and if the tenant complains they will be kicked out. Things have to change. In a wealthy country like ours it should not be like this. Part of me thinks this might have been a sinister ploy by some rich property developers to get rid of the "scum" from this affluent area. 

I agree. I think the gap between rich and poor should be shortened. The government needs to do more to make a basic standard more liveable. 

[PaulC]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

I agree. I think the gap between rich and poor should be shortened. The government needs to do more to make a basic standard more liveable. 

I am pleased we agree on something. I'm happy now Rugeley Villa 

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I agree. I think the gap between rich and poor should be shortened. The government needs to do more to make a basic standard more liveable. 

Vote Labour. 

[Rugeley Villa]

Just now, mjmooney said:

Vote Labour. 

I agree with a lot of what labour are trying to do but at the moment I don't think they are quite ready to run the country. They will get in though. I'm normally conservative but I could not bring myself to vote for them.

[Rugeley Villa]

2 minutes ago, PaulC said:

I am pleased we agree on something. I'm happy now Rugeley Villa 

Mate I'm not pro rich, I just don't agree with forcing houses off people. I certainly feel more for the poor than I do the rich.

[PaulC]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

Mate I'm not pro rich, I just don't agree with forcing houses off people. I certainly feel more for the poor than I do the rich.

neither am I really but I think a compromise could be reached on empty properties being letted out. If the owners had a heart they would offer this at least on a short term basis until the council can find them suitable replacement accomodation 

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Of course more houses are needed. Population in 10-20-30 years time?  I see your point regarding new builds being expensive, even little shitty two beds. I'm in the same boat regarding a mortgage, but luckily we are in council and can buy for half price. Small country, large population of course it's going to create problems. More houses are needed, it's not my fault the government are not sorting your valid points out. 

Ruge there are over 1,400,000 empty homes already. New build blocks of flats are bought up by the rich off plan and lay empty for years as investments.

How many more should we build?

Will another million fix it? 

This is why we now have to talk about 'affordable homes'. You know, the starter flat with one open kitchen diner and one bedroom that you can buy for £145,000 or the starter family home you can buy for just £330,000. We have to talk about affordable homes now, because a million properties are now actually just investment vehicles for the pensions of the rich. They aren't homes you're looking at when you walk around Maida Vale or Little Venice. They are high yield investment portfolio opportunities.

Telling the poor to move to Cornwall as one cretin has done is just so **** offensive. How much Cornish housing stock has been bought up as second or third homes for the holiday season?

I'll tell you what though, I can guarantee all those tens of thousands of investment properties have decent fire alarms. Can't risk a poor return on investment.