No Fault Evictions

[Phil Pascoe]

Sounds like a rum story to me.
Are you sure that your neighbour wasn't required to clear her loft out prior to the insulation firm's visit?

She is disabled. Her neighbour (the one between the two of us) went into her loft to check roof tank overflow - he told me, as he wondered if they done the same to mine.

 

[Spectric]

Yes Labour are the party of cronyism and freebies, it has been questioned about the fact people have to pay tax on such gifts which it seems many / most have not but something else that has not been mentioned is security. Security vetting is an ongoing process and one of the things that comes up is anyone offering gifts which if that happens has to be reported because it is seen as a potential threat to security, you could then be seen as being in someones pocket or a threat to security. So the PM must have at least basic security clearance so why has he not been pulled up as in other places that security clearance is needed you would be in big trouble for taking those gifts ?

 

[John Brown]

Yes Labour are the party of cronyism and freebies, it has been questioned about the fact people have to pay tax on such gifts which it seems many / most have not but something else that has not been mentioned is security. Security vetting is an ongoing process and one of the things that comes up is anyone offering gifts which if that happens has to be reported because it is seen as a potential threat to security, you could then be seen as being in someones pocket or a threat to security. So the PM must have at least basic security clearance so why has he not been pulled up as in other places that security clearance is needed you would be in big trouble for taking those gifts ?

I think Lady Mone will be sad that you've forgotten her so soon..

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, I know you just enjoy the discourse, but I think in all honesty you have defined your own version of socialism that differs from how others see it. It's a bit like two people having a debate, each in a different language, where neither understands the oth

....not defined, just described. It's the attempts to define which confuses everybody on both sides.
It distracts attention from the simple fact that we are all socialists now, unless you have retired to a wilderness somewhere with no contacts and non of the benefits of modern society around you. Not "utopian socialism" - who needs it, whatever it is?
Have you got a personal definition of your own, or one you would recommend?

er. Amusing to watch but ultimately unhelpful.

You are much older than me, and maybe have developed more tolerance of the people who make little or no contribution to society, whether by laziness or lack of ability.

Would you want them working for you? Better off where they are. We've had 200+ years of industrial revolution supposedly reducing the need for work and its about time it was appreciated and taken seriously. Why has it not happened, why are we not all on the 3 day week as widely forecast in the past? Why do we still have poverty and homelessness?

But I think we are both old enough to know that any system with millions of people in it is never going to agree on the universal application of some label.

I agree. Who needs a label to say that so many of these issues need addressing?
We don't need an imposed "system" from left or right, we just need to use the system we've already got
Why the obsessive attention on Marie Buchan, who seems to have an unusual but fairly pragmatic approach to life and isn't doing anything illegal? It's a distraction from the real issues. Are she and her children really "parasites to be stamped on" as has been repeated on here many times?

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think Lady None will be sad that you've forgotten her so soon..

Quite right that Starmer is feeling the heat. Meanwhile, Robert Jenrick is probably quite happy that his “cash for favours”episode has been forgotten.

 

[John Brown]

Quite right that Starmer is feeling the heat. Meanwhile, Robert Jenrick is probably quite happy that his “cash for favours”episode has been forgotten.

And I agree that Starmer has been silly, naive, call it what you will, but I don't feel he's corrupt.
Not yet. I could change my mind...

 

[Jacob]

And I agree that Starmer has been silly, naive, call it what you will, but I don't feel he's corrupt.
Not yet. I could change my mind...

It's not corruption so much as not having a moral compass / solid principles / judgment / political nous - he's new to it all and has only ever been an obedient civil servant. There's something a bit simple minded about him, and slightly unpleasant. Not clever enough to be seriously corrupt.

 

[Blackswanwood]

And I agree that Starmer has been silly, naive, call it what you will, but I don't feel he's corrupt.
Not yet. I could change my mind...

I agree. He’s adhered to the letter rather than the spirit of the rules IMO.