You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > No more immigrants.
November 23 2024 2.28pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

No more immigrants.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 58 of 85 < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 >

  

elgrande Flag bedford 07 Sep 15 6.41pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.38pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.33pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.


There are not enough tradesmen to build that amount of homes....just been reading up on it.
Housing associations built 21.600 homes in 2013,but were held up because of lack of tradesmen and the fact that they were running out of materials.
So no way can 240.00 homes be built a year....pie in the sky.

That’s an easy one to solve - just get more foreign workers over to build them.


 

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 07 Sep 15 6.42pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

How does Corbyn 'address this'?

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 07 Sep 15 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

 

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 6.48pm

Quote matt_himself at 07 Sep 2015 6.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

How does Corbyn 'address this'?

Rent caps linked to average wage in the area is one of the ideas mooted.


 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 07 Sep 15 6.57pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.48pm

Quote matt_himself at 07 Sep 2015 6.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

How does Corbyn 'address this'?

Rent caps linked to average wage in the area is one of the ideas mooted.


Has Corbyn provided costings on this 'Policy'? For example, should areas become uneconomic for landlords to provide accommodation because of 'rent caps' has he said how his government will maintain rent at the government's decreed price but without private sector investment?

And, purely out of interest, how much will his scheme cost the taxpayer?


Edited by matt_himself (07 Sep 2015 6.58pm)

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
-TUX- Flag Alphabettispaghetti 07 Sep 15 7.02pm Send a Private Message to -TUX- Add -TUX- as a friend

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

 

Time to move forward together.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.03pm

Quote farms at 07 Sep 2015 6.23pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.18pm

Quote farms at 07 Sep 2015 6.15pm

I have been reading Nickgusset and legaleagle posts on here , by the the looks of it ,they are young left wingers have not experienced the hardship of life . Typical of youngsters being bought up this day of age.Brain washed by the goverments of there time . Sorry Nick , Legal listen to the Hungarian prime minster wish ours was the same .

Lol - I dont think that is the case but i'm sure they will both be flattered. I think they are both pretty decent guys, I just dont ever seem to agree with either them, maybe sometimes with Nick when its about music.


Lol just wanted to wind nick up , all done in good taste .


Touche

savile-thatcher_2437786b.jpg Attachment: savile-thatcher_2437786b.jpg (69.04Kb)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 07 Sep 15 7.08pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 7.03pm

Quote farms at 07 Sep 2015 6.23pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.18pm

Quote farms at 07 Sep 2015 6.15pm

I have been reading Nickgusset and legaleagle posts on here , by the the looks of it ,they are young left wingers have not experienced the hardship of life . Typical of youngsters being bought up this day of age.Brain washed by the goverments of there time . Sorry Nick , Legal listen to the Hungarian prime minster wish ours was the same .

Lol - I dont think that is the case but i'm sure they will both be flattered. I think they are both pretty decent guys, I just dont ever seem to agree with either them, maybe sometimes with Nick when its about music.


Lol just wanted to wind nick up , all done in good taste .


Touche


How long do we think it will be until Corbyn has PIE on his face?

He is ex-Haringey local government...

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom

 

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
-TUX- Flag Alphabettispaghetti 07 Sep 15 7.25pm Send a Private Message to -TUX- Add -TUX- as a friend

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom


Yes you do.

 

Time to move forward together.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Tom-the-eagle Flag Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.26pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.25pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom


Yes you do.


No really - i dont

 

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 07 Sep 15 7.29pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 7.14pm

Quote -TUX- at 07 Sep 2015 7.02pm

Quote Tom-the-eagle at 07 Sep 2015 6.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.30pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 6.16pm

Quote elgrande at 07 Sep 2015 6.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 5.48pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 1.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 07 Sep 2015 12.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 07 Sep 2015 12.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 11.27am

Quote dannyh at 07 Sep 2015 10.41am

meanwhile we have 90,000 + children homeless living in shelters, B&B's and hostels.

It is reported that as many as 9,000 war veterans are among Britains homeless which I belive as a total is about 10% of Britains total homeless figure.

But heyt fcuk it, lets have 10,000 people already in a camp in shelter and safe from harm, (that are from a country that isnt as f***ed up as eveyone seems to think, try Sierra Leone, now thats f***ed.) jump the cue and have the red carpet rolled out for them.

Why ?

Why are our own children, veterans who fought for the country, and British people being treated as second class citizens, being largely ignored.

Sickens me to my stomach.

A very valid question in its own right, but irrelevant to the migration problem. The Conservatives have solved Child Poverty by redefining it (Labour were no better).

Fact is even if we took back all that foreign aid and never allowed a single refugee or immigrant into the UK, the problems of suffering facing children, adults and veteran's would just continue same as it always has.

Successive governments have had 25 plus years to solve the increasing problems of homelessness and child poverty and its only gotten worse. But hey, at least we had tax cuts.....


It is a disgrace in a wealthy country like ours and we are all to blame in one sense.
I often wonder why we spend so much money on the British Olympic team for example when some are homeless.
I can only imagine that the realities of dealing with homelessness and child poverty are far more complex than they appear. Surely any government would want to fix it if it were simple. Throwing money at it alone is not ther solution I suspect.


600000 empty homes in the UK and we can't solve the homeless crisis...

Someone owns those homes as they are perfectly entitled to do. That is capitalism. Would you advocate taking those houses away from their owners ?


If I had my way, yes. Obviously there would be financial compensation. Unless they put the houses to the use for which they are intended, ie habitation, rather than as an 'asset' / 'investment'
It is morally scandalous that houses lie empty while there are people on the street.


Edited by nickgusset (07 Sep 2015 5.49pm)


Sorry nick,that;s just more anti capitalist bull.
While I agree having 1000s of houses lying empty is wrong.
These people have bought the properties with their own money.
the true moral issue is the absolute neglect that this party and all the other parties have totally refused to build more social housing.
Now I agreed with Thatcher about the right to buy( I still do) but more housing should have been built then and still now,you cannot take away that amout of housing stock and not replace it without problems.
And the more people coming to this country demand increases all the time.

So where do you suggest this new 20.000 will be housed.
In somebodies house that they have paid for,who are proberly using it as a pension( we are not all on gold plated pensions).
So just to summerise .......where the f*** are these people gonna go....and this is just the first lot.
Schools housing healthcare housing.

Are you saying houses don't increase in value if people live in them? The owners would also get rent.

We live in a nation riddled with selfish c***sc***s who put money before people.

People can not afford private rents,and a lot of people don't like renting because of hassles that can occour.
The answer is to buid more social housing......But to claim that doughnut JC will build 240.000 houses a year.really I don't think so.
Wheres the money going to come from.


The answer is to sort out the dodgy landlords then surely. Again Corbyn addresses this. Having somewhere to live is a basic human need. The market and successive government have ensured that it is not the case for many.

Nick - Speaking as a property developer and landlord I would be keen to know what you describe as a 'dodgy landlord'?
Cheers - Tom

If the standard of living was way below what is expected of the rent paid, that would make someone ''dodgy''.
What was it that made you want those with less than you (opportunity/funds etc), pay for your mortgages?

Firstly - I was asking Nick what he meant.

Secondly - The standard of properties on the market would in no way help sort the housing shortage (which Nick was alluding to)

Thirdly - I have no idea what your question meant?

Tom

You read plenty in the media about bad landlords who do not provide a service commensurate with the rent.

Of course I'm not saying the vast majority of landlords are dodgy.

As for the empty properties, why keep a property empty?

Hardly helping the national cause is it?

Also, as an aside, many think that those on housing benefit get the money first. They don't it goes directly to the landlord.
Would it be naive to think that some landlords may collude to drive up the 'market' rental price?

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 58 of 85 < 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > No more immigrants.