27 storey tower block gone up. I've never seen anything like it. Hope and prayers to all involved... appears to be families etc.

 

Hope everyone gets out, would be amazed- but fear the worst.

 

Apparently gas works taken place... hopefully nothing more sinister.

It was the way he said it...

 

Asked by ITV interviewer Robert Peston if he would “seize it forever, or just take it for as long as they’re needed”, he replied: “Occupy, compulsory purchase it, requisition it, there’s a lot of things you can do.”

 

Basically had a left leader telling people to occupy the homes of the rich....

I still don't understand why somebody in London should be homeless so that somebody on the other side of the world can leave a property vacant whilst it's accruing value as their nest egg.

I think it's the land Lords responsible as it comes under their insurance not the tenant

Yes the landlords insurers who are responsible

I still don't understand why somebody in London should be homeless so that somebody on the other side of the world can leave a property vacant whilst it's accruing value as their nest egg.

You see I disagree.

 

So you win the lottery and buy a holiday home somewhere and you would open the doors so that any homeless person could live there when you're not there aye?

 

Why should people not be entitled to as many houses as they want?

 

Homelessness needs addressing but not in this manner IMO

Edited June 21, 20179 yr by Escobarp

In reality, apart from folk newly made homeless, is there a reason (considering benefits system)why anyone should be homeless for any length of time?

 

A fair point re property ownership, sooner or later things must collapse somewhat- no one will be able to live close enough to travel in and do the menial work.

 

Back to the immigration debate, at least in part, wrt housing situation.

One of my cousins was homeless for 2 years roughly after struggling when he came out of the army. He had no need to be homeless but made a very strange lifestyle choice in no part aided by struggles with depression.

 

Not every person fits this bill but a portion of the homeless either choose to be homeless and some others are unhouseable.

 

I also don't know the figures but how many asylum seekers are granted housing in the uk currently and the question I've always had is what entitles these people to houses in advance of uk citizens. And no I'm not saying we shouldn't take any asylum seekers in I just can't see the merit in housing them ahead of our own homeless people.

Edited June 21, 20179 yr by Escobarp

In reality, apart from folk newly made homeless, is there a reason (considering benefits system)why anyone should be homeless for any length of time?

 

A fair point re property ownership, sooner or later things must collapse somewhat- no one will be able to live close enough to travel in and do the menial work.

 

Back to the immigration debate, at least in part, wrt housing situation.

Simply not the number of properties available in the areas of need at a price people can afford.

One of my cousins was homeless for 2 years roughly after struggling when he came out of the army. He had no need to be homeless but made a very strange lifestyle choice in no part aided by struggles with depression.

 

Not every person fits this bill but a portion of the homeless either choose to be homeless and some others are unhouseable.

 

I also don't know the figures but how many asylum seekers are granted housing in the uk currently and the question I've always had is what entitles these people to houses in advance of uk citizens. And no I'm not saying we shouldn't take any asylum seekers in I just can't see the merit in housing them ahead of our own homeless people.

Asylum seekers are usually housed in specific housing.

 

Council houses are issued on a needs basis.

Families with disabled kids at the top

Working down to single males.

The country really is getting too full. Reducing demand easier and quicker than trying to build thousands of new houses.

And that is what brexit was hoped to achieve by limiting and controlling immigration and being able to free up space for our own.

Aye. Fingers crossed.

You see I disagree.

 

So you win the lottery and buy a holiday home somewhere and you would open the doors so that any homeless person could live there when you're not there aye?

 

Why should people not be entitled to as many houses as they want?

 

Homelessness needs addressing but not in this manner IMO

If I knew the locals were being forced out of an area because of foreigners buying all the property up and not living there - then I wouldn't buy a property there in the first place. But that's just me.

Fair play. You are in the minority though I would say

Fair play. You are in the minority though I would say

Maybe - but I think most people would feel the same way if they knew prior to buying somewhere. That's why I think it's beholden on whoever is in charge to try to prevent it from happening.

i would allow them to buy whatever they want but tax it heavily for being vacant. At least that way it's more

Money into the public purse.

Kent would you apply the same reasoning within the UK ie you wouldn't buy in The Lakes or Cornwall because locals were priced out?

 

Esocobar would you also like to see heavy taxation for British taxpayers on second homes in the UK?

 

I'm in no way defending foreign multimillionaires using London housing stock as a store of value, just interested to know your thoughts?

Yes I think there would need to be occupancy thresholds that triggered increased taxation. How it was policed I've absolutely no idea at all and would as with all taxation be open to manipulation and avoidance no doubt

A friend of mine bought a house in London in 2011 for £890k. Spent 25k on it painting it etc.

 

Valued in 2015 at 1.7m. He bought it as an investment and stays there one week per year when he can be arsed. He's 74 years old.

 

He should be taxed on it and heavily.

Kent would you apply the same reasoning within the UK ie you wouldn't buy in The Lakes or Cornwall because locals were priced out?

It's a little bit different - but no I wouldn't buy a place in the Lakes or Cornwall if the locals were priced out - not unless I had to buy and live there for work. And even if I did - I certainly wouldn't leave it vacant - and I certainly wouldn't leave it vacant with no intention of moving in so that I could sell it at a massive profit in 20 years.

 

I've got friends in Kent who are struggling now. Who's family have lived in an area for generations but now can't afford a house in (or anywhere near) the town they grew up in. Largely because folk working in London but them to move into at the weekends.

 

Now personally I don't think that's right. I know others disagree and think it should all be down to market forces or whatever - but I don't.

Some new rules on second home stuff and buying for renting if I've heard rightly.

Extra cash for the government, though not sure how much of an effect it will have.

Just reading an article in the paper about the flat fire.

One of the questions was.

There are 108 people in hospital and temp.lodgings and a reported 79 were killed.

Now they reckon between 5-600 people lived in these flats?

So thats leaves 3-400 not accounted for.

So where are they and why are they not coming out with the true death toll.

Someone trying to hide something.?

Any property investor that buys up places in London will very likely rent them out for a decent amount

 

Leaving them empty to go to rack and ruin, I just can't see it

 

My mate gets £1200 for his spare room in Clapham ffs

 

Requisition them if you want but pay the going rate, non of this squatting bollocks

 

If your housing benefit doesn't cover it then make it up yourself

Edited June 21, 20179 yr by birch-chorley

Just reading an article in the paper about the flat fire.

One of the questions was.

There are 108 people in hospital and temp.lodgings and a reported 79 were killed.

Now they reckon between 5-600 people lived in these flats?

So thats leaves 3-400 not accounted for.

So where are they and why are they not coming out with the true death toll.

Someone trying to hide something.?

5-600 in 100 flats?

 

How many got out unscathed and have sorted themselves out with accommodation since? Like the majority of us would have to

I still don't understand why somebody in London should be homeless so that somebody on the other side of the world can leave a property vacant whilst it's accruing value as their nest egg.

The free market, I'm afraid

 

It's what has lead to millions being raised out of poverty each year for many people years, 30% more food being produced than 40 years ago and many other benefits.

 

Unfortunately, there are downsides, but they are outweighed by the benefits.

 

Obviously, being socially responsible, I'll never have more than one!

Edited June 21, 20179 yr by boltondiver

Further to my earlier question. Out was asked on a closed fire service facebook group and someone vvitk has said the death toll is already known to be 160ish but they aren't releasing this to the public.

That sounds to me as if the media have an embargo on the info.

Further to my earlier question. Out was asked on a closed fire service facebook group and someone vvitk has said the death toll is already known to be 160ish but they aren't releasing this to the public.

That sounds to me as if the media have an embargo on the info.

 

Video on facebook stating all donations are going to the red cross... not the homeless...