It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grenfell Tower surviors move Bad idea waiting to happen?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
My appology's audobon I need glasses, I read you comment wrong and actually totally agree so have deleted my wrong reply.
Sorry if you read it, I really do need gig's and badly, I see only out of one eye and that not perfectly the other will not focus and is like a bathroom window so I can't see other than vague shapes with that.

edit on 28-6-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

That is the question Corbyn is asking, why they are only counting the body's that survived the inferno as victims rather than comparing those accounted for with those not accounted for which pushes it up into the hundreds of victim's, probably because the Tory's want to whitewash this and it is too big so they are perhaps trying to downscale it before hand.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: destination now




anyone who can pay over a million quid for a flat, are both wealthy and imo, quite stupid


You dont understand how the real world works. 1.5 mill is hardly "wealthy". Those who do have those houses maybe small business owners who borrow against their business cashflow to pay for that house - a business that employs 5-10 low income workers. At any moment they may lose that house if a drop in trade or misfortune or an interest rate increase.



ETA one resident at the posh block apparently moaned about how hard they worked for their property...aye petal and so do all the people on minimum wage who could only dream of spending £1.5 million on a flat.


So you bemoan people aspiring to better themselves and get into debt to own a "better" house? You dont beleive that people have a right to a better place to live because they are smarter business people or harder working and make more wise investment decisions?



But as people are inherently greedy, they have pride in "how much their house is worth"


And you are not greedy wanting to take another persons house, that they worked hard for and take pride in to maintain its value?

Shelter should be provided for the unfortunate who lost in the fire. What gives you or the government the mandate to just throw all sense of equity out the window? How is the rule of law to be administered when its at the whim of some fire. Why not suggest that the building refurbishers who put in the cladding be held accountable, or the Councils inspectors that signed off on their fitness for habitation?

I hear that the Royal family has a few thousand homes under their control - why not suggest that?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



them homeless then yes we should be taking those vacant luxury homes and using them to rehouse these people.


The Queen has plenty of houses, start there.

www.forbes.com...


Not included are those assets belonging to the Crown Estate, which she gets to enjoy as Queen, such as $10 billion worth of real estate, Buckingham Palace (estimated to be worth another $5 billion)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

I didn't see your original reply, so no harm done from my POV.

Do you know how to increase the zoom on your screen, to get the display bigger and more legible? (I hope that doesn't sound patronising, it's a feature that many people don't realise is there and it saves a lot of confusion).



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

As long as the owners are compensated and have agreed to be part of a temporary scheme and all damages by any temporary tenants be guaranteed by the authority who will grant this, it could be a good idea. However and I can't stress this enough - it has to be that the owners allow this to happen without coercion.

Otherwise you're advocating a Staliesque Progrom to deprive people of their property or the free use of their own property at the point of a gun by the State.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


Shelter should be provided for the unfortunate who lost in the fire.


This has happened, and the government made the decision so no-one else is to 'blame' for any of it.


What gives you or the government the mandate to just throw all sense of equity out the window?


Do you mean 'equity' in the financial sense, or 'equity' in the moral sense? If the former, house values are not set by the Government. If the latter, then that condition has been met.


How is the rule of law to be administered when its at the whim of some fire.


There is no threat to the rule of law.


Why not suggest that the building refurbishers who put in the cladding be held accountable, or the Councils inspectors that signed off on their fitness for habitation?


Responsibility for the fire is a different matter to rehousing the people who have been made homeless. Why does rehousing people who have been struck by disaster come lower on the list of priorities than prosecuting the wrongdoers?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: destination now

That seems to be a big part of the problem. Unfettered movement of refugees, some of which are economic refugees through Europe and into Britain.

The British Govt should be held accountable for their actions in the middle East - the wars didn't happen because Saddam one day woke up and decided to attack his own people.

The billions flowing to the Western allies through their involvement in the Middle East are being used against us ordinary people to keep their buddies in power who give them the spoils of war and tax havens to booty.

All we're seeing out of this is division between ourselves whilst the puppet masters pull the strings and the wool over everyones eyes.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Tried a few thing's, the computers accessibility options, well I tell myself I dont' need them yet but I probably do or to lower my resolution and make the font much more bold.

edit on 28-6-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon




Do you mean 'equity' in the financial sense, or 'equity' in the moral sense? If the former, house values are not set by the Government. If the latter, then that condition has been met.

Equity in the moral sense - you cant just take some arbitrary figure like the poster above said of "hey look he has an untenanted property worth 1.5 mill" and make the assumption that 1. they are super wealthy and 2. They dont deserve the right to do what they want with their property



There is no threat to the rule of law.


Of course there is when I have the title deeds and I can by force be made to let out my house against my will.
Why bother owning property we may as well all apply for social housing from the Govt. Why invest in housing and make your money work for you when it can be rendered someone elses property at the whim of some govt?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Of course there is when I have the title deeds and I can by force be made to let out my house against my will.
Why bother owning property we may as well all apply for social housing from the Govt. Why invest in housing and make your money work for you when it can be rendered someone elses property at the whim of some govt?


No-one is being forced to let out their house against their will, so I'm not sure why you raise the idea.

But you can have private property confiscated by the Government under existing laws. Ever heard of Compulsory Purchase Orders? Don't get alarmed, they are rarely used, but the power is there.

As for social housing, you are quite at liberty to become eligible by becoming disabled, or losing your job if you so desire. In that situation, you will soon discover that beggars can't be choosers, and come to regret your decision.

The thing is that you don't choose to do these things, because they aren't very nice or desirable. You'd rather work and have the luxury of a substantial income. So would most people.

In the meantime, what sort of a country do you want to live in, if you are willing to see the disadvantaged made homeless?

I'm not suggesting that you actually want this outcome btw, just that there isn't another alternative. Either we look after the less able and unlucky, or we become a quite unpleasant society.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hazardous1408

That is the question Corbyn is asking, why they are only counting the body's that survived the inferno as victims rather than comparing those accounted for with those not accounted for which pushes it up into the hundreds of victim's, probably because the Tory's want to whitewash this and it is too big so they are perhaps trying to downscale it before hand.


Because someone could be claiming that relatives are missing in order to get compensation when in fact they are safe and well taking sanctuary in a mates spare bedroom. Counting bodies (or skeletons) is the only way they can get a realistic number.

If people are/were in the country illegally, there won't be any official record of them.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: destination now




anyone who can pay over a million quid for a flat, are both wealthy and imo, quite stupid


You dont understand how the real world works. 1.5 mill is hardly "wealthy". Those who do have those houses maybe small business owners who borrow against their business cashflow to pay for that house - a business that employs 5-10 low income workers. At any moment they may lose that house if a drop in trade or misfortune or an interest rate increase.



ETA one resident at the posh block apparently moaned about how hard they worked for their property...aye petal and so do all the people on minimum wage who could only dream of spending £1.5 million on a flat.


So you bemoan people aspiring to better themselves and get into debt to own a "better" house? You dont beleive that people have a right to a better place to live because they are smarter business people or harder working and make more wise investment decisions?



But as people are inherently greedy, they have pride in "how much their house is worth"


And you are not greedy wanting to take another persons house, that they worked hard for and take pride in to maintain its value?

Shelter should be provided for the unfortunate who lost in the fire. What gives you or the government the mandate to just throw all sense of equity out the window? How is the rule of law to be administered when its at the whim of some fire. Why not suggest that the building refurbishers who put in the cladding be held accountable, or the Councils inspectors that signed off on their fitness for habitation?

I hear that the Royal family has a few thousand homes under their control - why not suggest that?



Minimum wage is £14K/year. Ten workers = £140K. Maximum mortgage is 5x salary (1.5 million/5 = 300K/year)
Someone earning 300K/year isn't just going to be employing 10 minimum wage employees. They are probably city financiers or company directors.

But now the country is being forced to trade off building new hospitals against increasing land prices:

"Homes are being built on land previously earmarked for a new medical centre for St Mary’s Hospital, which was abandoned after spiralling costs."

www.homesandproperty.co.uk... 9926.html



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
Because someone could be claiming that relatives are missing in order to get compensation when in fact they are safe and well taking sanctuary in a mates spare bedroom. Counting bodies (or skeletons) is the only way they can get a realistic number.

If people are/were in the country illegally, there won't be any official record of them.


What an incredibly unpleasant set of assumptions. Seriously, really revolting.

The reason the death toll has risen so slowly is because it is normal protocol to first identify a corpse, then notify the next of kin, and only when the identity is settled beyond dispute is the death announced to the public. The reason that this is normal protocol is that public servants operate by an ethical code. Can you imagine how it would feel to learn of the death of a family member by reading about it on the front page of a newspaper, or seeing it on TV?

This is complicated by the fact that some people were reported missing presumed dead, but many people weren't even reported missing which has hampered identification. It is more than probable that the reason some people have not been reported missing is because their entire family burned to death at the same time, so there is no-one left to report their absence.

Firefighters know that the true death toll is higher than the 'official' number. Some of the stories they are telling friends and family are so horrendous that they make your stomach turn over. A number of local schools have noted the 'absence' of certain pupils but cannot tell their classmates anything. National journalists are well aware of the 'ballpark' final total, but there are ethical rules governing what they can and cannot report right now (n.b., no laws, just codes of practice).

There are other procedural complications: lack of dental records, incomplete electoral registration, outdated council tax accounts, and other missing tiles in the mosaic of information that is being assembled. The final death toll won't be announced till all lines of inquiry have been exhausted. I'm saying no more at this stage.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin


To argue that its ok somehow to put a entire family on the streets after a disaster not of their making because they are immigrants to me is tantamount to racism. IF you are saying you would be happy to rehouse the British born victims but not those from Syria or Iran, then that's racist.

(I would remind you that discrimination basted on nationality under UK law is also regarded as racism)

Fine I am a racist and proud of it!


No benfits or welfare unless YOU ARE A UK CITIZEN!



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Interesting that your mind leaped immediately from 'rehousing the homeless' to 'claiming benefits', as though they were the same thing.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: destination now




anyone who can pay over a million quid for a flat, are both wealthy and imo, quite stupid


You dont understand how the real world works. 1.5 mill is hardly "wealthy". Those who do have those houses maybe small business owners who borrow against their business cashflow to pay for that house - a business that employs 5-10 low income workers. At any moment they may lose that house if a drop in trade or misfortune or an interest rate increase.



ETA one resident at the posh block apparently moaned about how hard they worked for their property...aye petal and so do all the people on minimum wage who could only dream of spending £1.5 million on a flat.


So you bemoan people aspiring to better themselves and get into debt to own a "better" house? You dont beleive that people have a right to a better place to live because they are smarter business people or harder working and make more wise investment decisions?



But as people are inherently greedy, they have pride in "how much their house is worth"


And you are not greedy wanting to take another persons house, that they worked hard for and take pride in to maintain its value?

Shelter should be provided for the unfortunate who lost in the fire. What gives you or the government the mandate to just throw all sense of equity out the window? How is the rule of law to be administered when its at the whim of some fire. Why not suggest that the building refurbishers who put in the cladding be held accountable, or the Councils inspectors that signed off on their fitness for habitation?

I hear that the Royal family has a few thousand homes under their control - why not suggest that?



As you might not be aware mpst these property's are owned by Saudi oil barons/princes and Russian oligarchs.

They buy property in bulk to deliberately manipulate the property markets to drive up prices. No one lives in these houses, they just use them as a cash cow.

Thats not free market enterprise, its economic terrorism.

I say sieze those properties without any compensation and call it "sanctions".
Just the thought of making these oligarch bastards squeal would be worth it alone.
There money is dirty and there buisness practices provide little benfit to the UK only there home countrys and hardly any of them pay tax!


Now as for property that been brought in good faith by genuine investors , land lords or home owners they should be left alone and the government should keep there filthy hands off.
edit on 29-6-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: crazyewok

Interesting that your mind leaped immediately from 'rehousing the homeless' to 'claiming benefits', as though they were the same thing.


Acomedation at the expense of the tax payer is a benfit and aside from pensions makes up one of the biggest parts of the welfare budget.

NO CITIZENSHIP NO WELFARE!



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Acomedation at the expense of the tax payer is a benfit and aside from pensions makes up one of the biggest parts of the welfare budget.


No, it's not. It's paid for by local authorities, not the Department of Work and Pensions.

In any case, it is not known how many Grenfell residents were in receipt of any kind of benefit, let alone how many of them received Housing Allowance ("Housing Benefit" as was). Or, come to that, how many of them were UK citizens.

But I think the more pertinent question here is why you think that someone who had accommodation in a social housing scheme (until they were made homeless by a fire) should suddenly become ineligible for rehousing.

Talk about kicking someone while they are down!



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: crazyewok
Acomedation at the expense of the tax payer is a benfit and aside from pensions makes up one of the biggest parts of the welfare budget.


No, it's not. It's paid for by local authorities, not the Department of Work and Pensions.

In any case, it is not known how many Grenfell residents were in receipt of any kind of benefit, let alone how many of them received Housing Allowance ("Housing Benefit" as was). Or, come to that, how many of them were UK citizens.

But I think the more pertinent question here is why you think that someone who had accommodation in a social housing scheme (until they were made homeless by a fire) should suddenly become ineligible for rehousing.

Talk about kicking someone while they are down!


Paid for by l9cal authorities.......and who pays for the local authorities? THE TAX PAYER!
Its a benfit if someone else is paying for it regardless of what government department is in control.


If they are UK citizens they they should receive all the help they can be given and a few hundred thousand pounds in compensation from the government too!

But ONLY if they are UK citizens or married to UK citizens.

If they are not UK citizens then the government should deport them instead for being useless to UK society as we should only want Immigrants that can survive without benfits!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join