I'd personally let them all stay but not pay in or out of work benefits to anyone who hasn't contributed for 10 solid years.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
I can get on board with that.
I reckon this move by May might be portrayed or received as a bit miserly, a bit grudging.
I can see why the current residents would object - one of the reasons people pay huge sums of money to live in luxury complexes is that it guarantees you won't have to live near loads of poor people.
Surely there's more housing somewhere in the country that isn't next to wealthy parts.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
Probably.
But if those residents have jobs, schools and families nearby, I don't think they should be moved.
It's a different block. I guess there are no guarantees on your neighbors when you choose to live in a city.
I'm sure they'll survive.
I'd be interested to know how many had jobs and how many were paying for private education - I certainly wouldn't move them. The rest - if you want it or free from the state, I think you have to accept what you're given.
You can be pretty sure of your neighbours. The more you spend, the less likely you are to have a load of chavs living on you street.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Nothing wrong in that.
They bought them for £160m didn't they?
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I think there will be a lot people who would say the same thing, but you know how many " bleeding heart liberals " are about.
Although I think the private tenants were quoted as paying around 2.5k/month. For that, they want a certain level of peace and quiet as well as a preference for residents of a similar demographic.
There is a underground cinema there too - is this off limits....
Affordable housing is set at 50% of local market rate, I guess this gets picked up by housing benefit?
parklane1
Tony Galvin
If true this is a fudging disgrace.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...te-from-kensington-and-chelsea-is-blood-money
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...te-from-kensington-and-chelsea-is-blood-money
milo
Jack L. Jones
I think that the suggestion is a break that we could trigger if the numbers get too high not an immediate stop for five years. It is the same that Norway currently has.
milo
Jack L. Jones
It's the same deal as a number of leading members of the Brexit campaign suggested could be our future relationship during the campaign.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
I suspect that is a journo hack piece to create the quotes they want.
But if not, then I have no words.....
Have papers always been able to just print a story from another paper quotes and all? Is this a guardian story on the mail website? Only time I normally see this is when they are criticising the reporting.
Guardian and Telegraph do it a lot - especially when reporting on something like the events on Big Brother. It's a way of getting the publicity from a story without being seen as lowering oneself to that level
Bullet
Andy Thompson
No, £10m.
I don't get why/how St Edward threw away £150m?
Developer St Edward has sold the 68 flats at 'cost' price even though they have a market value of around £160million.
The flats have been bought by the Corporation of London, which will run them as part of its social housing stock.
New Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad said she understands the housing that has been allocated to the survivors was always set aside for social housing within the private development.
According to planning documents there were 63 flats to be set aside for affordable housing - only five fewer than the number bought for Grenfell survivors.
Ms Dent Coad told MailOnline: 'In other words, rather than the council creating additional social homes, they're putting survivors into homes that may have already been allocated to other people.
'So people would have bought the homes in the full knowledge that there would be social housing on that site. That's how development works.'
I assume there's some kind of land deal in place.
Cost price of the buildings might be £10m but surely the land would have been 10 times that.
I imagine the council are handing over some prime land or maybe removing the need for social housing on new developments. Probably the latter as it will be doubly valuable to the developers - not only do the keep the profit from what they'd have had to give away, but they also don't damage the value of the other property by having it near low cost housing.
That's very interesting. The mention of case law suggests that it will be too late now to ever put it into action.