This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Calais migrant trouble
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 chris123  hove actually 13 Aug 15 9.41am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 9.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 8.46am
From what I've read, it seems many have no problem having homeless people and empty houses in this country. Fair enough. I do, and I find it immoral, not so much that the properties are empty, but that the state has abandoned homeless people with successive cuts to the point that assistance and support is largely reliant on charities that now bid for the council business of 'outreach'. You probably can't save everyone, but you should at the very least make it reasonable difficult to become homeless, and easy to get out of homelessness. Its not the fault of people with multiple properties, but successive governments cuts that stimulate homelessness as a common problem - a phenomena of our life times.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Aug 15 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. Compulsory purchase is used to facilitate infrastructure developments such as roads and railways. The compensation given is usually generous. Seizing the property of people against their will, even if you compensate them, for the purpose of effectively giving the property to less well off people is indeed totalitarian - something they did in Soviet Russia. I find it utterly bizarre that a 'serious' discussion is being held on here talking about dispossessing indigenous people to house various disparate immigrants - many of whom are here illegally. There really is no limit to the foolishness of you new lefties.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 13 Aug 15 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Aug 2015 10.23am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. Compulsory purchase is used to facilitate infrastructure developments such as roads and railways. The compensation given is usually generous. Seizing the property of people against their will, even if you compensate them, for the purpose of effectively giving the property to less well off people is indeed totalitarian - something they did in Soviet Russia. I find it utterly bizarre that a 'serious' discussion is being held on here talking about dispossessing indigenous people to house various disparate immigrants - many of whom are here illegally. There really is no limit to the foolishness of you new lefties. They have broken the law and should be treated as criminals not given money housing and free health care. We should speed up the process of getting rid of them as soon as they arrive on our shores. They are here illegally not real asylum cases...They deserve NOTHING and should get NOTHING !!!
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 11.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 10.59am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Aug 2015 10.23am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. Compulsory purchase is used to facilitate infrastructure developments such as roads and railways. The compensation given is usually generous. Seizing the property of people against their will, even if you compensate them, for the purpose of effectively giving the property to less well off people is indeed totalitarian - something they did in Soviet Russia. I find it utterly bizarre that a 'serious' discussion is being held on here talking about dispossessing indigenous people to house various disparate immigrants - many of whom are here illegally. There really is no limit to the foolishness of you new lefties. They have broken the law and should be treated as criminals not given money housing and free health care. We should speed up the process of getting rid of them as soon as they arrive on our shores. They are here illegally not real asylum cases...They deserve NOTHING and should get NOTHING !!! They don't receive benefits, unless they're fraudulently claiming them using fake or stolen ID's. That said, as criminals, they do have to be housed somewhere whilst processed and entitled to health care pending deportation (and prison is an exceptionally expensive option). Also, some of them will also be victims of crime themselves(forced trafficking and sex trafficking), and may be required as witnesses for a prosecution. The real issue with illegal immigrants isn't the immigrants themselves, but the people who employ them and bring them in. Most illegals in the UK will be working in some form or another in order to survive, or pay off a debt to traffickers (the traffickers will typically sell them onto affiliate gangs in the country, who will then put them to work to pay debts, or for a pittance, whilst providing some kind of accommodation and food). These gangs essentially provide these people as cheap labor into various UK businesses, or in the sex trade they're generally pressed into prostitution. Most have lives that are pretty terrible even by third world standards. Illegal migrants lives is maybe one up from being homeless and living on the streets in the UK.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 11.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Aug 2015 10.23am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. Compulsory purchase is used to facilitate infrastructure developments such as roads and railways. The compensation given is usually generous. Seizing the property of people against their will, even if you compensate them, for the purpose of effectively giving the property to less well off people is indeed totalitarian - something they did in Soviet Russia. I find it utterly bizarre that a 'serious' discussion is being held on here talking about dispossessing indigenous people to house various disparate immigrants - many of whom are here illegally. There really is no limit to the foolishness of you new lefties. Well you wouldn't be giving it, you'd be purchasing it as state housing infrastructure. I don't agree with it per se, but the capacity is there for the state to make compulsory purchases of housing, without actually having to seize property. Of course more sensible, would be to incentivize people with additional property to rent it out.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 13 Aug 15 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 8.46am
From what I've read, it seems many have no problem having homeless people and empty houses in this country. Fair enough.
Given that private sector pensions have significantly diminished in value in recent years, many people are turning to property as a way to obtain an income through retirement. By forcing those people to give up second homes you are not only denying people a right of self determination, freedom & ownership but also denying people an income in retirement. One cannot help but think that the opposition to multiple home ownership has far more to do with an ideological agenda than wishing to resolve homelessness.
"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 a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 13 Aug 15 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. What the left appear to be saying is that multiple home ownership is evil. The problem is not to do with property as a means of investment, it is the fact that other forms of investment, such as pensions, simply do not provide significant incomes for the retired. I still believe that the multiple homes ownership 'debate' has more to do with ideology than practicality.
"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 a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 13 Aug 15 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 11.18am
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 10.59am
Quote leggedstruggle at 13 Aug 2015 10.23am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 9.38am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
UK law permits for Compulsory Purchase Orders, so its not totalitarian at all, if compensation or provision is made to allow for compensation. The state could of course utilize existing properties by compulsory letting, and taking responsibility as a temporary owner of the property. To forcibly take property, without compensation is beyond the capacity of the state, outside of a State of Emergency. It would take an act of parliament (which would never be accepted by the Lords). The problem really is the idea of property as a means of investment and return, as has become very common practice since the 80s housing boom. People throw the word totalitarian and freedom around far to easily. Compulsory purchase is used to facilitate infrastructure developments such as roads and railways. The compensation given is usually generous. Seizing the property of people against their will, even if you compensate them, for the purpose of effectively giving the property to less well off people is indeed totalitarian - something they did in Soviet Russia. I find it utterly bizarre that a 'serious' discussion is being held on here talking about dispossessing indigenous people to house various disparate immigrants - many of whom are here illegally. There really is no limit to the foolishness of you new lefties. They have broken the law and should be treated as criminals not given money housing and free health care. We should speed up the process of getting rid of them as soon as they arrive on our shores. They are here illegally not real asylum cases...They deserve NOTHING and should get NOTHING !!! They don't receive benefits, unless they're fraudulently claiming them using fake or stolen ID's. That said, as criminals, they do have to be housed somewhere whilst processed and entitled to health care pending deportation (and prison is an exceptionally expensive option). Also, some of them will also be victims of crime themselves(forced trafficking and sex trafficking), and may be required as witnesses for a prosecution. The real issue with illegal immigrants isn't the immigrants themselves, but the people who employ them and bring them in. Most illegals in the UK will be working in some form or another in order to survive, or pay off a debt to traffickers (the traffickers will typically sell them onto affiliate gangs in the country, who will then put them to work to pay debts, or for a pittance, whilst providing some kind of accommodation and food). These gangs essentially provide these people as cheap labor into various UK businesses, or in the sex trade they're generally pressed into prostitution. Most have lives that are pretty terrible even by third world standards. Illegal migrants lives is maybe one up from being homeless and living on the streets in the UK.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 3.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 8.39pm
Quote corkery at 12 Aug 2015 5.42pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 12 Aug 2015 1.41pm
Been thinking about the idea of using empty houses for migrant families, as has been suggested several times.
The subtext of the above is that you appear to be saying that all empty homes should be handed over to the 'homeless'. Therefore, I ask in turn is is right to force people to use their property for purposes they don't want it to be used for? Is the forcing of people to hand over property against their will totalitarian? Is that morally right?
Is it right that homes lay empty whilst there are homeless people?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Aug 15 3.56pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 11.42am
What the left appear to be saying is that multiple home ownership is evil. The problem is not to do with property as a means of investment, it is the fact that other forms of investment, such as pensions, simply do not provide significant incomes for the retired. I still believe that the multiple homes ownership 'debate' has more to do with ideology than practicality.
However, the state is there to look after all its citizens. Not have a two tier system where one set of people is favoured over another. When it comes to the housing situation the state....represented by all parties.....has been almost criminal in not ensuring that housing availability is consistent with population increase. In a situation with not enough to go around I can see how an argument could be made that multiple ownership isn't a healthy idea.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Aug 15 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.41pm
You've failed to answer a simple yes or no question. No subtext involved. Is it right that homes lay empty whilst there are homeless people?
But what solutions are you suggesting?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.