What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

18 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

Just on the way back from Manchester. Two days running! 🤔

Sounds more like a slow walk than a run 

4 hours ago, Cheese said:

Trump Tariffs = Genius

EU Tariffs = Bitter and twisted

Unusual for you to be correct about anything.

Bravo.

3 hours ago, Spider said:

Explain the benefit to the steel industry.

the Great British Steel Industry. 🇬🇧 

Don't be a dick (proof positive that I can indeed make ridiculous requests). I need explain fuck all to the likes of you.

Margaret Thatcher knew all those years ago that British steelmaking would always be a massive loss leader. At enormous expense to the British taxpayer it has been propped up for decades. One day the balloon will have to pop. It seems that a snidey ad vindictive EU may have the pin.

3 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Well just voted for deputy leader. C'mon Bridget!

Are you also contributing to a fund to buy her a coat?

They're all as bad as each other but it would be amusing if the other one won after U turn man potted her.

2 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Don't be a dick (proof positive that I can indeed make ridiculous requests). I need explain fuck all to the likes of you.

Margaret Thatcher knew all those years ago that British steelmaking would always be a massive loss leader. At enormous expense to the British taxpayer it has been propped up for decades. One day the balloon will have to pop. It seems that a snidey ad vindictive EU may have the pin.

You are a contradiction I will give you that.

3 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Don't be a dick (proof positive that I can indeed make ridiculous requests). I need explain fuck all to the likes of you.

Margaret Thatcher knew all those years ago that British steelmaking would always be a massive loss leader. At enormous expense to the British taxpayer it has been propped up for decades. One day the balloon will have to pop. It seems that a snidey ad vindictive EU may have the pin.

So we can add “traitor” to your list of bellowing nonsense.

Happy to watch folk hit the dole queue because it doesn’t affect mineral mining in the outback.

I wonder what Nigel has to say about it?

3 hours ago, DazBob said:

I hope Bolty is ok.  His recent repeated spamming of multiple threads and seemingly becoming very angry is a little concerning.

Thank you for your concern and you do make a valid point if from the incorrect angle.

It's since I liberated the ignored and the subsequent amount of bile being directed my way. It will always be give one out get one back from me but you already knew that.

Time for a rethink.

3 hours ago, Sweep said:

These Gammons are in a proper head spin these days, they don't know which way is up. I guess that's what happens when you're perpetually upset by "wokeism" stuff, even if you live the other side of the world, and it doesn't really affect you.

A perfect example is above from Cheese, Tariffs from Trump are great (great disruptor, the work of a genius) and Tariffs from EU are terrible

If you can point out precisely where I have said Trumps tariffs are genius it would be appreciated.

Thought not.

The only ones in a spin are those terrified of what is coming. Gets worse every day as the momentum continues to build.

17 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

But you agree we should be building more affordable housing?

Agreed but I believe we are approaching things wrongly by putting it in the hands of the mass housing developers.

The current set up is when Planning is awarded a "section 106" is put in place and the developer has to include up to 30% affordable housing. You can see this on all new estates, they're usually the small lower specification homes tucked away at the back of the estate... this is where the "poor people" live, how can that lead to an integrated community? Similarly the developer might be required to install play areas but these are not adopted by the LA as are the roads etc. and they fall into disrepair.

All this is being exploited allowing the developers to build on green belts, sometimes redesignated "grey belts" and build their more profitable palaces... mostly to very poor standards (I freelanced as a defects surveyor for over 10 years and what I saw was truly shocking).

In my view, the proportions should be turned around and at least 60% should be the "poor" houses, we need larger developments of affordable homes, not just hiding them away behind the posh folk where they can't be seen.

2 hours ago, Zico said:

not seen anything to suggest he's an absolute clown, from what i have, he seems like a decent guy who believes in the right things

he's certainly comes across a lot better than his predcessor jo swinson who was a walking disaster from start to finish

I won't bother listing them. If you haven't seen them then it's probably better you remain in a (non hallucinogenic) mushroom like state.

2 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

A rum do re. the Chinese spy scandal case

Labour Party sneaky stuff again. Could have proceeded if they wanted it to.

6 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

You are a contradiction I will give you that.

You confuse me with Cheese. Seems that you are confused generally.

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

So we can add “traitor” to your list of bellowing nonsense.

Happy to watch folk hit the dole queue because it doesn’t affect mineral mining in the outback.

I wonder what Nigel has to say about it?

 What a fucking spanner you truly are. Well done. You are the first.

5 hours ago, bolty58 said:

So you don't dispute Davey is an absolute clown then?

They have a great track record for this. The woofter who planned to murder his 'lover' Thorpe; Paddy Pantsdown.............just another undemocratic imbecile currently.

The Greens however take stupidity to a whole new level.

I like the LibDem's approach to health care etc. but I cannot see myself voting for Davey.

He was the Post Office Minister in the Coalition Government, what was his excuse? I wasn't told the full story...

Mate... you were the effin' top dog and it was your job to question everything people tell you, if I did that in my working day I'd have my pants pulled down and I wouldn't know if my arse was whitworth or metric by the end of the day.

Not PM material

5 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Thank you for your concern and you do make a valid point if from the incorrect angle.

It's since I liberated the ignored and the subsequent amount of bile being directed my way. It will always be give one out get one back from me but you already knew that.

Time for a rethink.

I think part of the problem is that whenever your glaring contradictions are highlighted, it sends you into a raging tailspin of bellicose witterings.

Instead of debating anything, you prefer to take the “angry piss head in the away stand” position and dig a deeper hole.

I genuinely thought you were just being your own parody for a while but the last few days have been like watching an ape trying to open a plastic banana.

7 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Labour Party sneaky stuff again. Could have proceeded if they wanted it to.

They are saying that to prosecute the Government has to list China as a hostile state?

I have to sign up to the Official Secrets Act and it doesn't mention this, it tells me I will be prosecuted if I divulge official information entrusted to me by blah blah... it says nothing about who I divulge to, just that I will be prosecuted if I divulge.

(PS... we only build the bogs, every Tracey Island needs somewhere to take a dump)

22 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

If you can point out precisely where I have said Trumps tariffs are genius it would be appreciated.

Thought not.

The only ones in a spin are those terrified of what is coming. Gets worse every day as the momentum continues to build.

Is anybody really terrified? - If so, they need to calm down a bit

15 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Agreed but I believe we are approaching things wrongly by putting it in the hands of the mass housing developers.

The current set up is when Planning is awarded a "section 106" is put in place and the developer has to include up to 30% affordable housing. You can see this on all new estates, they're usually the small lower specification homes tucked away at the back of the estate... this is where the "poor people" live, how can that lead to an integrated community? Similarly the developer might be required to install play areas but these are not adopted by the LA as are the roads etc. and they fall into disrepair.

All this is being exploited allowing the developers to build on green belts, sometimes redesignated "grey belts" and build their more profitable palaces... mostly to very poor standards (I freelanced as a defects surveyor for over 10 years and what I saw was truly shocking).

In my view, the proportions should be turned around and at least 60% should be the "poor" houses, we need larger developments of affordable homes, not just hiding them away behind the posh folk where they can't be seen.

Fair enough and some well considered issues and as expert in this area its an interesting problem you highlight. And agree about the building more affordable housing rather than large developments with a small section of smaller homes.

What do you also think about smaller affordable housing for older folks as well in areas they already live in so they not rattling around in larger family houses? Our neighbours are really struggling, two older folks in a 4 bed, want to downsize but struggling to find a suitable property in the area and quite right dont want to move away. If they could sell up its a perfect family house.

I think there is just an issue about people who have benefitted from housing being built in the not too distant past then complaining because more housing is required in their areas and that - say in a place like Whitstable- where they have also reaped the rewards from their own houses rocketing in value because over the last 20 years its become a desirable area to live.

23 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Agreed but I believe we are approaching things wrongly by putting it in the hands of the mass housing developers.

The current set up is when Planning is awarded a "section 106" is put in place and the developer has to include up to 30% affordable housing. You can see this on all new estates, they're usually the small lower specification homes tucked away at the back of the estate... this is where the "poor people" live, how can that lead to an integrated community? Similarly the developer might be required to install play areas but these are not adopted by the LA as are the roads etc. and they fall into disrepair.

All this is being exploited allowing the developers to build on green belts, sometimes redesignated "grey belts" and build their more profitable palaces... mostly to very poor standards (I freelanced as a defects surveyor for over 10 years and what I saw was truly shocking).

In my view, the proportions should be turned around and at least 60% should be the "poor" houses, we need larger developments of affordable homes, not just hiding them away behind the posh folk where they can't be seen.

This has happened near to me, a lovely new estate built, 4-bed houses starting at £800K, you know the sort of things. And for some reason, they built a load of smaller 2 and 3 bed houses right at the back, for the poor people - sadly, these poor people have to go past all the nice houses to get to their houses. There are some right fucking scrotes who live in those houses as well.

One of the little parks that was built, has been closed for about 6 months I reckon, as it's now unsafe, and nobody will come and repair it (I think it's owned by the householders/estate, and they pay an annual fee to a maintenance company for such things, but still nothing is happening)

If you're paying nearly £1M for a house, I'm sure that you don't want a load of peasants hanging around, conversely, if you're in affordable housing, I'm sure you don't want a load of larger houses overshadowing you either

 

7 minutes ago, Sweep said:

This has happened near to me, a lovely new estate built, 4-bed houses starting at £800K, you know the sort of things. And for some reason, they built a load of smaller 2 and 3 bed houses right at the back, for the poor people - sadly, these poor people have to go past all the nice houses to get to their houses. There are some right fucking scrotes who live in those houses as well.

One of the little parks that was built, has been closed for about 6 months I reckon, as it's now unsafe, and nobody will come and repair it (I think it's owned by the householders/estate, and they pay an annual fee to a maintenance company for such things, but still nothing is happening)

If you're paying nearly £1M for a house, I'm sure that you don't want a load of peasants hanging around, conversely, if you're in affordable housing, I'm sure you don't want a load of larger houses overshadowing you either

 

Yep this is on every new estate near me.  you don’t want to be paying fortunes for a new gaff that backs on to some affordable flats/homes. Makes no sense 

17 minutes ago, Dimron said:

They are saying that to prosecute the Government has to list China as a hostile state?

I have to sign up to the Official Secrets Act and it doesn't mention this, it tells me I will be prosecuted if I divulge official information entrusted to me by blah blah... it says nothing about who I divulge to, just that I will be prosecuted if I divulge.

(PS... we only build the bogs, every Tracey Island needs somewhere to take a dump)

Bonkers isn't it. The Conservatives didn't do it either, but I'm sure they'll be having a right pop about this over the coming weeks

 

I was really excited when I signed some OSA related paperwork many years ago, felt like James Bond  - I recently had to sign the Dutch version, which is called the "Voorschrift Informatiebeveiliging Rijksdienst" which sound much more exciting though

Note: I had to look up what it was I signed, no way could I remember that !

We dont want sink estates breeding crime, we don't want poor people living on our doorstep either.

What's the solution then?

Just now, Winchester White said:

We dont want sink estates breeding crime, we don't want poor people living on our doorstep either.

What's the solution then?

Gas Chambers or Lethal Injections. 

10 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Fair enough and some well considered issues and as expert in this area its an interesting problem you highlight. And agree about the building more affordable housing rather than large developments with a small section of smaller homes.

What do you also think about smaller affordable housing for older folks as well in areas they already live in so they not rattling around in larger family houses? Our neighbours are really struggling, two older folks in a 4 bed, want to downsize but struggling to find a suitable property in the area and quite right dont want to move away. If they could sell up its a perfect family house.

I think there is just an issue about people who have benefitted from housing being built in the not too distant past then complaining because more housing is required in their areas and that - say in a place like Whitstable- where they have also reaped the rewards from their own houses rocketing in value because over the last 20 years its become a desirable area to live.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert... contracting is more my bag but I did work for a defects surveyor for 10 years doing the inspections.

Smaller homes for older people is a good idea, both of our mothers became trapped in empty 3 bed houses after our fathers passed away and moving them into sheltered accommodation really did give them both new leases of life as these places really do have a community spirit.

In my village, the modern houses were built in the 80s and have a good proportion of bungalows obviously built with retirees in mind, however house prices in relation to earnings has made the family houses unaffordable and families are moving into the bungalows and extending (they have 1980s plot sizes).

I'm a "senior" these days and we want to downsize and keep some equity back, rainy day fund if you like... a bungalow would be perfect but finding what we want and finding something where we can squirrel some funds away is proving very difficult.

Could be a way forward here to release larger houses if more retirement homes at lower prices were available... might also take some burden away from long term care if the arrangement could be subsidised by Government and care vouchers or something offered.

 

7 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Gas Chambers or Lethal Injections. 

I live on an estate with affordable housing. I say affordable but they are those 25% owned by government jobbies, no idea how that works.

Anyway, all the problems we have going off our estate Facebook group, is kids riding their bikes in the way of cars and noisy parties. All of which are the "posh" houses.

I know it's different in the Shires and also Daubhill.