Jump to content

General Politics Thread


Granny Danger

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, strichener said:

You are sounding rather Toryish here.  A professional has looked at this objectively and the Council have not only said that they can't provide suitable accommodation.  They have doubled down on the implications by taking it to the absolute extreme and never going to happen situation on using CPOs, demolishing houses and rebuilding.  If it got near that stage then it would be far easier for the council to purchase a property on the open market.

Anyway, looks like the rhetoric of a warm welcome only extends to those without specialist needs.

On this occasion, I agree with welshbairn.

Ludicrous that people fleeing for their lives can’t accept such a property.

If it’s no good to them, there’s always the option of returning to whence they came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawson Park Boy said:

On this occasion, I agree with welshbairn.

Ludicrous that people fleeing for their lives can’t accept such a property.

If it’s no good to them, there’s always the option of returning to whence they came.

That comes as no surprise that your opinion is odious.  I'm sure Welshbairn will be along to confirm that you are not actuly in agreement.

If this were a local family in the same circumstances then they would be entitled to the same housing.  Recommending discrimination based on where you happened to be born isn't a good look for anyone.  In your case it probably doesn't even rank in the top 100 of your repulsive opinions.  The only thing I am surprised about is that you didn't discuss this with your wife a make a joint declaration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, strichener said:

That comes as no surprise that your opinion is odious.  I'm sure Welshbairn will be along to confirm that you are not actuly in agreement.

If this were a local family in the same circumstances then they would be entitled to the same housing.  Recommending discrimination based on where you happened to be born isn't a good look for anyone.  In your case it probably doesn't even rank in the top 100 of your repulsive opinions.  The only thing I am surprised about is that you didn't discuss this with your wife a make a joint declaration.

Ach, he can always go back and edit his post to include her input - shouldn't be a problem, what her being imaginary and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strichener said:

You are sounding rather Toryish here.  A professional has looked at this objectively and the Council have not only said that they can't provide suitable accommodation.  They have doubled down on the implications by taking it to the absolute extreme and never going to happen situation on using CPOs, demolishing houses and rebuilding.  If it got near that stage then it would be far easier for the council to purchase a property on the open market.

Anyway, looks like the rhetoric of a warm welcome only extends to those without specialist needs.

GCC don’t have any properties (thanks Labour)

They’re totally reliant on the local RSL’s 

5 bedroom property don’t come up very often with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

GCC don’t have any properties (thanks Labour)

They’re totally reliant on the local RSL’s 

5 bedroom property don’t come up very often with them

It doesn't matter if they have properties or not.  They have a statutory obligation to provide housing.

I wish I could avoid my tax bill by just stating that I transfer all my earnings to my wife.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, strichener said:

It doesn't matter if they have properties or not.  They have a statutory obligation to provide housing.

I wish I could avoid my tax bill by just stating that I transfer all my earnings to my wife.

 

 

Of course it matters 

You can’t give what you don’t have. 

Labour sold off the housing stock back in 2003

GCC are forced to rely on being provided homes for Temporary Furnished Flats from the local RSL’s as a result 

5 bedroom property are very rare.

They can’t give GCC what they don’t have.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Of course it matters 

You can’t give what you don’t have. 

Labour sold off the housing stock back in 2003

GCC are forced to rely on being provided homes for Temporary Furnished Flats from the local RSL’s as a result 

5 bedroom property are very rare.

They can’t give GCC what they don’t have.

 

It doesn't matter.  You are completely missing the point here.  GCC have a legal obligation to provide housing based on local needs, it doesn't matter if the don't have houses because they transferred them to a housing association.  The legal responsibility remains.  Hence the judgement against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, strichener said:

It doesn't matter.  You are completely missing the point here.  GCC have a legal obligation to provide housing based on local needs, it doesn't matter if the don't have houses because they transferred them to a housing association.  The legal responsibility remains.  Hence the judgement against them.

It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, strichener said:

This is one of the occasions where it is black and white and shown by the judges comments.

Have to agree with Strichener here. The court has clearly set out GCC's duties to this family. It's up to GCC to comply with the ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Have to agree with Strichener here. The court has clearly set out GCC's duties to this family. It's up to GCC to comply with the ruling.

He’s suggesting GCC have some anti refugee motives behind this, when the reality isn’t they have a 5 bedroom house and are refusing to give it to this family.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clown Job said:

He’s suggesting GCC have some anti refugee motives behind this, when the reality isn’t they have a 5 bedroom house and are refusing to give it to this family.

 

I wasn't discussing his motives for posting the story, more pointing out that GCC cannot dodge their duties because they don't currently have the right size of house available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GCC ruling is far from an unusual scenario in Scotland. It's happening day in day out in the population generally, not just with refugee families. The usual "solution" is that the LA unable to house the family basically find an LA that can and the family are forced to move. The reason this judgement is important is that the previous solution was acknowledged as acceptable ie it was basically accepted that as long as the family were accommodated somewhere in the country then that was fine. This ruling changes that which is surely a positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Clown Job said:

He’s suggesting GCC have some anti refugee motives behind this, when the reality isn’t they have a 5 bedroom house and are refusing to give it to this family.

 

Ehm no, the family happened to be refugees which is just a fact.  I even clarified this by saying that local people would have the same entitlement.  I could just as ludicrously accuse you if having an anti-refugee agenda in defending GCC but I don't read agendas into everything, so I haven't.

It was pretty clear what the intention of posting this was to show.

You keep getting hung up on the fact that they don't have a 5 bedroom house.  I am pretty sure that there is one available in the private sector.  However due to the crazy housing benefit rules, only HA and Council housing is eligible for 100% payment regardless of the rent amount.

You are clearly trying to excuse the council for showing a blatent disregard for the law on the basis that it is all Labour's fault.  I'll wait on you coming back to now say it is the UK government's fault for ... Reasons

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, strichener said:

You are clearly trying to excuse the council for showing a blatent disregard for the law on the basis that it is all Labour's fault.  I'll wait on you coming back to now say it is the UK government's fault for ... Reasons

Ok… you’re just making things up now to start an argument 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

Ok… you’re just making things up now to start an argument 

The only made up part of this conversation is your post - 

 

12 hours ago, Clown Job said:

He’s suggesting GCC have some anti refugee motives behind this, when the reality isn’t they have a 5 bedroom house and are refusing to give it to this family.

 

I never suggested that GCC were anti-refugee nor did I state that they have a 5 bedroom house that they are refusing to release to this family.

What I did do was claim that "You are clearly trying to excuse the council for showing a blatant disregard for the law on the basis that it is all Labour's fault" based on your previous posts -

  

19 hours ago, Clown Job said:

GCC don’t have any properties (thanks Labour)

 

17 hours ago, Clown Job said:

Labour sold off the housing stock back in 2003

It isn't even factually correct that Labour sold off the housing stock, it was transferred and only done so after a tenant vote took place.  Regardless, the point stands that the current council have under the current Housing (Scotland) Act the legal requirement to provide adequate housing based on the family's circumstances.  There is no avenue in this act for a Local Authority to delegate this legal responsibility.

Edited by strichener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

On this occasion, I agree with welshbairn.

Ludicrous that people fleeing for their lives can’t accept such a property.

If it’s no good to them, there’s always the option of returning to whence they came.

I'm with you and Welshbairn on this.

Plenty hardworking people who've been on the housing list for years would love such a property.

We are meant to provide them a safe haven, not the Ritz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...