This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
jamiemartin721  Reading 13 Aug 15 4.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 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.
True, but I thought we'd moved on from the original post. Of course some of them probably were trafficked into France etc, and as we don't pay benefits to illegal immigrants (unless they granted asylum), then they're probably looking to end up working in the illegal labour market in the UK. Either way, the real issue is cutting head the head of the snake, and that is businesses and individuals who are using or paying illegal workers (or agencies that are employing people who are using illegal workers on the behalf of others). Who we should put behind bars and out of business, rather than fine them less than they're saving by employing illegal workers. Cut off the economic source of support, and economic migration will eventually dry up. Just focusing on the migrants will only prevent some getting in, as long as demand exists, then there is going to be supply.
"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 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Aug 2015 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. Agreed, the longer a problem goes unchecked, because its 'not popular or is expensive', the worse the problem becomes. This is something that was apparently for the last 10-15 years. The resolution isn't going to get any cheaper or more palatable, and will ultimately end up needing to be resolved eventually. You have a situation where two people working two full time jobs are spending 75% of their salary on just securing a place to live, food to eat, clothing and utilities for them and their children. And its because a small two bedroomed house will set you back at least 1000 pcm (or 12k a year of disposable income - that's real problem in the making - Why bother working if all you get is the chance to stand still or run up debt). Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Aug 2015 4.44pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 4.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote palace_in_frogland at 13 Aug 2015 8.21am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 12.32am
I'd introduce an empty home tax. Might encourage some to rent their properties out thus increasing stock and hopefully lead to lower rents because of more availability. I'm sure there are many homeless ex servicemen and women that would look after the property.
Sorry, missed this yesterday... If a property is uninhabited for a period of 3 months, then an 'empty house tax' could be applied, increasing incrementaly as time goes on. There will be those that are renovating etc and of course those would be exempt. I bet that the same people that were quick to defend the bedroom 'tax' are dead against this idea..!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 13 Aug 15 5.01pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.37pm
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 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.
True, but I thought we'd moved on from the original post. Of course some of them probably were trafficked into France etc, and as we don't pay benefits to illegal immigrants (unless they granted asylum), then they're probably looking to end up working in the illegal labour market in the UK. Either way, the real issue is cutting head the head of the snake, and that is businesses and individuals who are using or paying illegal workers (or agencies that are employing people who are using illegal workers on the behalf of others). Cut off the economic source of support, and economic migration will eventually dry up. Just focusing on the migrants will only prevent some getting in, as long as demand exists, then there is going to be supply. This is quite true and I am glad that at last the government is bringing in new laws to fine very heavily the people that employ or supply these illegal workers to firms. I bet if the powers to be were to come down to the West Country and look amongst the farms and fields they would find a lot of people working here that really should not be. The saying "out of sight out of mind" springs to mind when I drive past "swarms" of people picking up spuds and strawberries and the suchlike that are not students as was the case in the old days. They are mostly foreign and look like they have just got off the ferry from France! I suppose as they are way out working in the country no-one is bothered these days and the employers are bound to take a chance. I hope the new legislation comes soon and these people get fined and get taught a lesson!
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 |
 |
| matt_himself Matataland 13 Aug 15 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 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?
There is subtext and as with most of your posts, you are trying to make a complicated issue black and white in order to suit your ideological ends. The question should be, do you think housing policy in the UK is balanced and reactive to need? My answer is no. Planning for change has never been a speciality of British governance and it is quite clear that people are struggling to get in the ladder, when on the ladder it is difficult for people to move up it and planning rules & regulations are confused, impractical and causing bottlenecks. This in turn is causing further issues such as homelessness. Edited by matt_himself (13 Aug 2015 5.08pm)
"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 |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 5.01pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.37pm
Quote susmik at 13 Aug 2015 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.
True, but I thought we'd moved on from the original post. Of course some of them probably were trafficked into France etc, and as we don't pay benefits to illegal immigrants (unless they granted asylum), then they're probably looking to end up working in the illegal labour market in the UK. Either way, the real issue is cutting head the head of the snake, and that is businesses and individuals who are using or paying illegal workers (or agencies that are employing people who are using illegal workers on the behalf of others). Cut off the economic source of support, and economic migration will eventually dry up. Just focusing on the migrants will only prevent some getting in, as long as demand exists, then there is going to be supply. This is quite true and I am glad that at last the government is bringing in new laws to fine very heavily the people that employ or supply these illegal workers to firms. I bet if the powers to be were to come down to the West Country and look amongst the farms and fields they would find a lot of people working here that really should not be. The saying "out of sight out of mind" springs to mind when I drive past "swarms" of people picking up spuds and strawberries and the suchlike that are not students as was the case in the old days. They are mostly foreign and look like they have just got off the ferry from France! I suppose as they are way out working in the country no-one is bothered these days and the employers are bound to take a chance. I hope the new legislation comes soon and these people get fined and get taught a lesson! We should more than fine. Prison and forfeiture of assets sustained through illegal workers should be the norm, along with lengthy bans from owning a business. Those people employing them are perpetuating something akin to the slave trade in many cases, defrauding the state of tax and national insurance, and preventing employment.
"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 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.53pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 13 Aug 2015 8.21am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 12.32am
I'd introduce an empty home tax. Might encourage some to rent their properties out thus increasing stock and hopefully lead to lower rents because of more availability. I'm sure there are many homeless ex servicemen and women that would look after the property.
Sorry, missed this yesterday... If a property is uninhabited for a period of 3 months, then an 'empty house tax' could be applied, increasing incrementaly as time goes on. There will be those that are renovating etc and of course those would be exempt. I bet that the same people that were quick to defend the bedroom 'tax' are dead against this idea..! I would say that it would be better that owners could register with the state the state to rent it out at a the price of the mortgage property and maintain it for the duration until the individual wishes to sell it, then for each year that its been in the program they receive a reduction or if they've been involved long enough, an exemption from Capital Gain tax on their investment sale (as a second or more properties should be classed). That was the individual paying a mortgage on a second home doesn't lose out, the state gains access to property at cost and when its sold off, then the owner massively benefits from their investment. Or something similar.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 13 Aug 15 5.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.53pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 13 Aug 2015 8.21am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 12.32am
I'd introduce an empty home tax. Might encourage some to rent their properties out thus increasing stock and hopefully lead to lower rents because of more availability. I'm sure there are many homeless ex servicemen and women that would look after the property.
Sorry, missed this yesterday... If a property is uninhabited for a period of 3 months, then an 'empty house tax' could be applied, increasing incrementaly as time goes on. There will be those that are renovating etc and of course those would be exempt. I bet that the same people that were quick to defend the bedroom 'tax' are dead against this idea..!
You've heard of council tax I take it? That already applies on empty properties. You cannot go around deciding to steal private property. The banks would also tell you it's their security against a mortgage in the vast majority of cases.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 5.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 13 Aug 2015 5.14pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.53pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 13 Aug 2015 8.21am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 12.32am
I'd introduce an empty home tax. Might encourage some to rent their properties out thus increasing stock and hopefully lead to lower rents because of more availability. I'm sure there are many homeless ex servicemen and women that would look after the property.
Sorry, missed this yesterday... If a property is uninhabited for a period of 3 months, then an 'empty house tax' could be applied, increasing incrementaly as time goes on. There will be those that are renovating etc and of course those would be exempt. I bet that the same people that were quick to defend the bedroom 'tax' are dead against this idea..!
You've heard of council tax I take it? That already applies on empty properties. You cannot go around deciding to steal private property. The banks would also tell you it's their security against a mortgage in the vast majority of cases. And to think we could have just owned all those banks....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 13 Aug 15 5.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote DanH at 12 Aug 2015 1.42pm
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. How long would a property have to remain empty before it qualified to be seized? When I go out to work in the morning and don't come back until the evening, my house has laid empty for about 10 hours. Is that long enough? No, of course not. So what about if I go on a fortnight's holiday? Or maybe I get a year's contract working in Abu Dhabi and my house is empty for 12 months? Could it be full of migrants when I come back? Anyone care to offer their thoughts on how it might work?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 13 Aug 15 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 5.25pm
Quote Stuk at 13 Aug 2015 5.14pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.53pm
Quote palace_in_frogland at 13 Aug 2015 8.21am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 12.32am
I'd introduce an empty home tax. Might encourage some to rent their properties out thus increasing stock and hopefully lead to lower rents because of more availability. I'm sure there are many homeless ex servicemen and women that would look after the property.
Sorry, missed this yesterday... If a property is uninhabited for a period of 3 months, then an 'empty house tax' could be applied, increasing incrementaly as time goes on. There will be those that are renovating etc and of course those would be exempt. I bet that the same people that were quick to defend the bedroom 'tax' are dead against this idea..!
You've heard of council tax I take it? That already applies on empty properties. You cannot go around deciding to steal private property. The banks would also tell you it's their security against a mortgage in the vast majority of cases. And to think we could have just owned all those banks.... The great myth of 'we' somehow owning nationalised businesses and services. You have have more influence if you are a share holder in a private company.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Aug 15 7.07pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
People can't be blamed for using the law to better themselves financially. They didn't write the laws. They aren't at fault for the housing crises.....That's the fault of government over decades....Short term political decisions that have....And are continuing to come home to roast. We aren't the kind of country where contracts are torn up because of the 'greater good'. Resolution to these problems is supposedly why politicians are there in the first place.....To work for the 'greater good'. Why isn't there an Ofsted for them? F##king useless pile of freeloaders who continually worsen the living standards and infrastructure in this country. By far the worst public service. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Aug 2015 7.08pm)
'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.