BS: Labour wants to confiscate property

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 17 - 06:28 PM

Stop flogging him, Dave? But he seems to love it. I thought I was helping him! Damn!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 01:15 AM

Masochist: Whip me, please!
Sadist: No. :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 06:55 AM

I have a theory about the 16 year gap, PFR. Back in 2000 Iains senior had a passing interest in folk music and made a few posts here. His son was then born and he lost interest due to family commitments. Move forward to April 2016 when Iains senior bequethes his old laptop to his 15 year old son, whom we shall call young Iain. Young Iain finds Mudcat in dad's browsing history and the cookie is still set. Young Iain decides to try to wind up the old folks on there using decidedly poor manners combined with youthful arrogance.

Most of the posts come across as those of a stroppy teenager so it makes sense. Picture Harry Enfield's 'Kevin' beavering away on here in between masturbating over his latest unreachable fantasy.

I reckon I am right :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 07:23 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sxAnejb9bs

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Stanron
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 07:34 AM

Well done guys. If you can't win the argument you can at least attack the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 08:04 AM

Oh, is it supposed to be serious? I assumed it was mocking the wild exaggerations of some of his opppnents.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 08:07 AM

There is no argument. There are two half-arguments separated by a fault line once Inanes realised that being inhuman wasn't going to go unnoticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 08:27 AM

Stan - but is he a man... ???

and not just a truculent man-child....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 08:34 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDdBY5sKAU

His singing is of the same standard as his politics.

No doubt he sang the following as he had just been re elected.

"
    The working class can kiss my arse
    I got the foreman's job at last.
    You can tell old Joe I'm off the dole
    He can stick his Red Flag up his 'ole!. "

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 08:35 AM

"If you can't win the argument you can at least attack the man."
The argument speaks for itself, what you can't do is inject humanity into someone who apparently been immunised against catching it
Iains is quite capable of insulting - he came to this forum dishing it our and has continued ever since
Easily confirmed or disproved - 'It's all in the book' as the old song used to say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 09:06 AM

Stan - ok.. serious...

A] "Stan you are wrong because......" - that is a fair disputation of your arguement

B] "Stan you make no sense because you are a known ***** *******" - that is an example of an outrageous ad hominen attack.

A and B are clear cut examples.

With Iaines here, it is not so simplistic or easy to make accustaions of unair ad hominen attack.

His opening salvo post was nothing less itself than a completely venomous ad hominen attack on a respectable individual.
That was at the foundation of his reason for starting this thread in the first place.
His 'arguement' is virtually non-existent as he completely undermined it with unecessary abuse himself right from the very begining.

We responded in typical sarcastic mudcat fashion by attacking the extremist hate ideas that underpin his need to be so obnoxious in a public forum.
If you are familiar with the concept "the personal is political",
then as his hateful views and personality are so meshed together and intertwined,
then it is fair game to respond to an abusive individual's insulting accusations in similar kind...

No longer can that be written off as simplistically as as Ad hominen atttack.

Free speech here is one thing, we should respect that as much as possible,
but if a minority of political / sociopath / extremists abuse the privilege
like little kids running into school staffroom and yelling vile made up accusations about the headmaster...???

There is a limist to what is tolerable behaviour.


Sorry for being so serious.. normal Pfr service will be resumed asap..

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 09:12 AM

Ah but Jim I do not have to travel with a pack of leftard lowlife hyenas that have yet to mount any kind of defense for their hero commie corbyn, and can only hunt in a pack. The fat little gnome and shaw are notorious for it, along with several others

You are the only person on this forum living in cuckoo land,that wishes things to happen without any kind of costing, assessment of legal process, or any kind of rational approach. You seem to think that putting your pathetic frothings into capitals and Bold 12time roman red ink solves all the problems of the world.
Some might say you are a dreamer.==That would be far too kind.
And if you have zilch to contribute to the argument, then like incoherant greg, you are only attempting to troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 09:19 AM

... see what I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 09:46 AM

"Large flock of hens strut past, gnashing their teeth..."

Well that's me told!

I have family from working class backgrounds who are lifelong tories, and indeed I was a Young Conservative myself until I met a socialist who came to give us a talk and I saw the light. Many people I know, like and respect would call themselves conservative, so this isn't unique.

I don't vote tory because I seem to share few values with them, or the values they seem to hold dear I don't. That said, I'm sort of off party politics anyway as it's way too divisive and not the best way to get things done, the only way to make a difference is to work within your community locally, with likeminded people and for the common good. Ignore politicians (local and national), deal with authorities only when necessary and keep them out of the way as possible of anything needing creative input or innovative ideas.

This approach works very well, and although local politicos try to tag on they're not part of it. It works a treat then, although you need some people with vision and drive to get these projects going and keep them on track over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 10:13 AM

The word I'd use is "cheap".

And not worth paying a moments attention to. We don't have any physical filttering system here, but that's not necessary. His (or of course her, let's not be sexist) have ceased to be visible so far as I am concerned, and I advise others to do the same..

There are people here with whom who I disagree profoundly, but I accept they belong here. Katie Hopkins clones do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 10:36 AM

"I do not have to travel with a pack of leftard lowlife hyenas"
Your chidishly spiteful behaviour marks you out for what you are
You take after your half - sibling in right wing extremism, only he had the nouse to piss of when he saw he was wasting his time
You really don't need coherence when it comes to childish name calling - any moron can do it, as you are proving
Grow up for christ's sake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 10:53 AM

We've seeen this sort of abuse so often before, it's almost as if the right are employing automated abuse bots on targetted forums...

spam bots pre-programmed with key hate words and phrases that can be perpetually ramdomly generated into sentences and posted in 'lefty' forums....

Iainsbot.v.2017.exe

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 10:57 AM

Jimmy. To quote your own words of several months ago. "you are only a Johhny come lately (2006)" Me 1999.
"You need to remember your place and don't argue with your elders."
Remember Jim or are you going to demonstrate your selective amnesia in front of us all. Now say goodnight, to quote incoherant Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 11:37 AM

Jimmy memorable quotes.
""Try not to talk to people and remember you are a mental midget Iaians
People with far more knowledge and experience have had their fingers burned on this forum by forgetting their place.
You really are an obnoxiously smug bastard, aren't you



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpZkKKbDgA

Where is your place Jimmy? By your own words my seniority to you on this forum must place me above you. Personally I think your criteria a joke, but it takes all sorts.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 12:20 PM

Stop wasting your energy, Iains. You'll only go upsetting yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 12:35 PM

"Try not to talk to people and remember you are a mental midget Iaians"
As you are - if you care to remember it was in response to a string to abuse from you
Since then, you have not ceased to be an obnoxious troll.
Just a point
Your use if the term Leftared (left retard) makes you th cultural thug you are
-retard is a disgusting term used only by lowlife
I always recall when you refer to the left, that your side of the house gave us the killers of six million Jews, the factories that used them as slave labour, heroes of democracy like Assad, mass murderer Augusto Pinochet (not forgetting his friend, Mad Maggie, who described him as "her kind of democrat", Pappa Doc, and every piece of fascist scum from Mosley's Blackshirts to the B.N.P. .... and rest of the dregs of humanity that have polluted this planet
So feel free to describe me as left as you wish - it's a compliment
"Jimmy"
Still haven't come up with anything more imaginative as that conjured up by the hirsute on, Bro Bruce, all those years ago.
You people really aren't the brightest buttons on the SS uniform, are you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 01:13 PM

Poor old jimmy. Still frothing nonsense in a timewarp I see. What Jews and Pinochet have to do with this thread totally escapes me. Even the brightest button on the ss uniform can see that was introduced because sensible contributions are not a part of his severely limited repertoire. Go and inspect your grass.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 01:42 PM

Any entertainment value left in this thread..
or is it now bogged down in the usual inevitable boring soul destroying bollox..???

At least Glasto is on the telly to have a laugh at the knobhead BBC presenters..

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 17 - 02:27 PM

"What Jews and Pinochet have to do with this thread totally escapes me. "
Pincochet was "Right" - the Nazis were "Right" you are "Right" (and proud of it) three of a kind
Doesn't take much Iaians - just a little imagination, which is probably why it's beyond you
Still "Jimmy"
You should ask the Bearded one" to see if he can think up something else
You fellers really have no self-respect, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 03:20 AM

Jimmy when someone like you takes such extreme positions you lend yourself to ridicule. Your namesake Lewis Carroll, when he was writing, was high as a kite on magic mushrooms, and opium. No doubt he was the original urban spaceman. He had a reasonable excuse for being away with the fairies, as an explanation for his bizarre scribblings.
What is your excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 03:45 AM

Knock it off, Iains. You're just being an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 03:57 AM

Why do you inevitably revert to a childish slanging match when you run out of ideas Iaians
You've moved from depriving refugees from a fire with a roof over their heads to childish name calling in the space of one thread - your mental scope, it would appear.
"Lewis Carroll" - think that might b one of the Bearded Blusterers as well - it's certainly been used and abandoned on this forum by the lesser intelligent before now (anybody who offers nothing but name-calling has to be a sandwich short of a picnic)
I thought I'd left that one in mid junior school - even your attempts at insulting show a total lack of imagination
I'd get back to stopping the fire survivors from being given shelter if I were you - it seems to be where you shine best.
I notice that residents in the area of the wealthiest borough in London where the survivors have been given homes are complaining bitterly about the effect that it might have on the price of their property - perhaps you might take up the cudgels on their behalf - seems to be your métier - mustn't abandon your wealthy friends in their time of need
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 04:15 AM

The reasoned view of the Financial Times.(strange they largely agree with me)

"If we were living in a movie, the ash-blackened cage looming over West London would be a metaphor for something. Instead, the Grenfell Tower disaster — so catastrophic that we are told we may never know how many people died — is a distinctly un-metaphorical national disgrace.

The least we can do now is learn the lessons of the fire, as we did not after the Lakanal House fire of 2009, which killed six people. Some of those lessons should emerge from the public inquiry. Grenfell Tower was built in 1974 but had recently been renovated. In a sane world such a renovation should have improved safety standards. Apparently we do not live in such a world.

But beyond the life-and-death details of fire safety rules and enforcement, a bigger picture has long been apparent: the British housing system, particularly in London, is in a shocking state. Decades of policy failure have left us with unaffordable housing. That is why the residents of unsafe housing feel trapped and voiceless, unable to afford to move, and powerless to demand change.

A better politician than Theresa May might have used this tragedy to justify housing reform, announcing a bold plan to build a million new quality homes before 2020. That target is less ambitious than it sounds, merely making up many years of undersupply. Having many more decent homes on the market would lower rents and make other housing policy goals — choice, fairness, quality, safety — easier to achieve. But perhaps that is expecting too much of Mrs May. Stronger prime ministers in luckier circumstances have failed to make headway on housing.

What of Jeremy Corbyn, the man who is keen to remind us that he'd be quite willing to run the country? The Labour leader certainly made a better job of appearing prime ministerial after the fire, showing concern where Mrs May seemed distant. But this — the performance part of the job — is not what matters most. Boris Johnson could also have played the necessary role to perfection, but that would hardly qualify him to lead the country.

What we really need from our politicians is a willingness to advocate and execute wise policies. Mr Corbyn, instead, focused on grabbing and redistributing property. "There are a large number of deliberately kept vacant flats and properties all over London," he told ITV journalist Robert Peston, arguing that these properties should be used to house the victims of the fire. When pressed for detail he added, "Occupy, compulsory purchase it, requisition it, there's a lot of things you can do."

This is a telling statement — even leaving aside the use of the word "occupy", which seems to wink at the idea of breaking into other people's homes. Since Mr Corbyn's remarks are often uncharitably interpreted by the British press, let us assume that was not his goal.

Still, there is little ambiguity in the word "requisition". This reflects a consistent theme in Mr Corbyn's thinking: that the British public can best be served by forcing others — including international corporations and foreign property investors — to bear most of the cost.

It's not hard to see why this seems appealing. It taps into the same ideals exploited by Donald Trump and the Leave campaign: that there's money being left on the table, that foreigners are rigging the game against us. Time to give the "Gnomes of Zurich" a poke in the eye.

Such xenophobia-tinged ideas have taken nations to very dark places in the past, but today it is more likely that they will simply lead to inept policies and bad outcomes. Seizing foreign-owned property in London — even proposing seizure — will reduce the tax base and do yet more harm to the reputation of the UK as a grown-up country."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 04:39 AM

Your namesake Lewis Carroll, when he was writing, was high as a kite on magic mushrooms, and opium

As a change of topic, there is no evidence at all for that, as far as I am aware, though low level drug taken was common in that period. What is certainly true is people tend to seek an explanation for his imagination and in the flower-power era quite a few books were written as 'evidence' he was taking drugs. However, the documented evidence shows the Alice books evolving over quite a long time, beginning with a tale told while boating with the Liddell family, a pastime I do not recommend while high.

Lewis Carroll wrote a large body of work. One I recommend is a series of formal logic puzzles where the matters being reasoned about are every bit as imaginative as Alice, but need crystal sharp reasoning - not easily written while drugged out of your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 05:27 AM

DMcG
difficult to prove or disprove. However taking drugs was widespread at that time with little regulation.Also the scenes portrayed suggest drug use,e.g. the shisha smoking caterpillar


http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carroll/aiwl5.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 05:37 AM

You will see I said in my post that low level drug taking was common. For that very reason a smoking caterpillar is no evidence that Lewis Carroll wrote under the influence of drugs.

I have not read that much about it, to be honest, but to the best of my knowledge no-one made a link between Carroll and drugs until the 60s, which is a great exemplar of confusing correlation and causation: "I see weird stuff when high; Carroll wrote weird stuff; he must have been on drugs". That is one of the invalid forms of logic known since the Greeks and as a teacher of logic he would have given it short shrift.

As you say, it is difficult to prove one way or the other. But the circumstantial evidence like that book of logic (have you read it yet?) shows he is at least capable of writing highly imaginative stuff while not high.

However, after all that, you did not start with "it is difficult to prove one way or the other". You started with the assertion he was on drugs. That is what I am picking you up in.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 05:47 AM

4000 residents in London have been removed from their homes due to safety concerns highlighted by the fire
Hotpoint have issued a warning on one of their fridges one of which was beleived to have been the initial cause of it
"strange they largely agree with me"
A less arrogant person would say you agree with them - but maybe you inspired their article - stranger things have happened at sea!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 06:05 AM

My belief is that he was in drugs. I cannot prove it. Likewise you cannot disprove it. I presented a kind of evidence and carefully pointed out it was ambiguous. You pay your money and take your choice. Another explanation proposed is the result of migraine auras. Who knows?It all happened a long time ago.

https://www.livescience.com/51444-alice-in-wonderland-syndrome-acid-flashback.html

Anyway I claim poetic license as I was using the analogy to make a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 06:47 AM

I agree neither of us can know for certain. That is precisely why it is a good idea not to make statements as if you do. Even the site you referenced which says that some people were addicts, like Wilkie Collins, but for Carroll they are careful to say "possible", "some say" and other phrases to be cautious

As you say, there are lots of possible explanations. I read on that site that drugs a possible explaination for Alive changing in size, the long neck and so forth. But it is equally possible that had been to a hall of distorting mirrors at a fair, and actually seen Alice Liddell with a long neck.

A possibility. Not a fact. So it is wiser to avoid suggesribg things as fact. Poetic licence won't do.


Anyway, no need for me to take this further.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 09:54 AM

"I see weird stuff when high; Carroll wrote weird stuff; he must have been on drugs".

And Socrates is a fish.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 10:03 AM

Iains seems to be an entirely different person today...???

is "Iains" one of those team names.. the right's eqivalent of the old "musket" band of brothers...???

or does Iains just have multiple personality disorder....????

Weird... and all this talk of drugs....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 11:01 AM

Just eaten some excellent coronation chicken from Sainsbury's, which was quite high on the shelves!! There are apparently some freely available plants in Tasmania, parts of which make you high! The Abos apparently eat them when on "walk-about"!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 11:11 AM

Where are all of the displaced surviving residents now? And those from other poorly-clad buildings determined to be fire hazards who have been removed from their own buildings since the fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 11:22 AM

"Where are all of the displaced surviving residents now?"
Some of those from the fire have been housed in empty luxury accommodation, much to the disgust of some of the wealthier residents, other are scattered all over the place, some in halls, others staying with residents.
Those moved last night (8pm) slept on the floor in local halls and some have temporarily put into hotels
Some of those put into hotels last week have told that they are being moved around at the whim of the owners.
There are hundreds of properties with suspect cladding to be examined yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Jun 17 - 11:43 AM

The tories beter hurry up building cheap drab 'New Towns'
to ship all those undesirables out of highly valuable redevelopable city tower block sites...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 02:50 AM

What pfr? No more calls from the "Great Leader" to "Occupy", "Requisition", "Compulsory Purchase" vacant properties legally owned by others as a "solution" to the "emergency".

As a general question to anybody still reading this. How many of you have had the fire prevention officer from your local fire brigade to carry out a fire safety check of your home? I would suspect very few of you. How do you know whether or not you are living in a dangerous death trap?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:12 AM

I have and haven't, Terebus. My brother-in-law was a senior fire officer for years, in the general community, and then moved to have specific responsibility for some of the chemical works in the north east (yes, it is a few years back now)

The consequence is he can barely walk into any building without continually assessing it against both the legal regulations and the best practice.

I can assure you I have received all sorts of commentary, including breaches of fire regulations in various rentals I have had.


One down, half a dozen regulars to go....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:18 AM

As a general question to anybody still reading this. How many of you have had the fire prevention officer from your local fire brigade to carry out a fire safety check of your home? I would suspect very few of you. How do you know whether or not you are living in a dangerous death trap?

Perhaps I'm reading things wrongly but that question does seem to be a bit of a deflection from what I'd consider the council's (or other landlord's) duty.

However, to answer your question. We've not had ours checked by the fire service. We do try to take a couple of small precautions, eg. there is a (battery) smoke detector in every room except the kitchen, there is a fire blanket in the kitchen and a fire extinguisher in the living room which has a wood burner. There are no other properties that would be at risk from a fire here.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:31 AM

Yes, it does sound a bit of a deflection, Jon, and. landlords do have specific fire responsibilities.

But having said that, and leaving all the general antagonism aside, as a straight question without any spin, Terebus' question is a good one. Whoever says it, an occasional reminder to check such things is a good idea.

Every office and workplace has to have all their moveable electrical stuff PAT tested. Does anyone do that at home? I certainly haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:35 AM

" a bit of a deflection from what I'd consider the council's (or other landlord's) duty."

Sorry Jon, no deflection, bit, or otherwise. YOU are responsible for your own safety at all times. Having said that life is not "risk free" risk has to be assessed and managed. In the case of the question I asked, you are responsible for getting the check done and putting things to right if you own the property, if you are renting the property YOU are responsible for notifying your landlord in order that he/she/they put things right. In the latter case if nothing is done you get the fire prevention officer who carried out the check to report the matter, you also withhold rent and report the matter to whoever is insuring the building.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:36 AM

Actually my father's laptop and possibly a usb charger (I'd need to check) were PAT tested recently but that's only because he was in hospital for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:44 AM

Ever lived in a tower block with hundreds of other families, Teribus? I have. And the last thing on my mind was the state of someone's fridge freezer several floors below or whether I should have been taking a exam to qualify me to carry out a structural survey of the building. Try not to be such an arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 03:58 AM

"What pfr? No more calls from the "Great Leader" to "Occupy", "Requisition", "Compulsory Purchase" vacant properties legally owned by others as a "solution" to the "emergency"."

...wtf.. you still going on about this...???

.. jezza was at glasto today, and all over the telly, solidifying the politicization of a mass new generation of young anti tory voters...

Corbyn has really got all you bitter old men worried.. really he has.. hasn't he..
whether you admit it to yourselves or not... 😎

definitely something worth celebrating...

..anyway, it's just gone 9.00am.. i'd better go to bed and get some kip...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 04:11 AM

Corbyn has really got all you bitter old men worried.. really he has.. hasn't he..
whether you admit it to yourselves or not... 😎


I have to say I found today's Sunday Express front page today a prime example of that (via reviews of the papers - I didn't buy it£

The full page was occupied with huge text that Corbyn was not at Armed Forces Day. "Corbyn snubs forces heroes".

No one says the armed forces are unimportant or don't deserve attention. But that approach demonstrates a profound dislocation between the papers view of their readers and the rest of the U.K. Presenting Jeremy Corbyn as either God or Satan is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour wants to confiscate property
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jun 17 - 04:13 AM

Teribus. You raise an interesting question about risk assessment, both in the home and elsewhere. By extension this would also include "the duty of care"
This extends right the way through from the individual flat dwellers through to those that:
1) have charge of the building
2) Those that proposed to clad the building
3)Those that had charge of specifications the suitability of the cladding material
3) those who signed it off(and what qualifications they had to                        legitimately sign it off
4)the method statement of the contractors both supplying and installing the materials.
5)The inspection regime of the council's building control officers.
6)The inpsection regime of the fire officers for the building

From the little we know so far it would seem that a coach and horses could be driven through the existing legislation and inspection regime concerning this sad affair.
Perhaps building control should be passed to central government and be a branch of the Health and Safety executive.( I believe after the Piper Alpha disaster the HSE took over certain powers from the the Dept of Energy-so the proposal is not without precedent)
I would think that as a result of the coming public enquiry the points above(plus numerous others) will be encapsulated in a comprehensive set of measures to attempt to prevent a repetition of this catastrophe.