The lawyer who represented the residents of Lakanal House, following the fire in 2009, suggesting that the residents of Grenfell Towers ignore May's suggestion of a public enquiry, as it is too much for the government and can be dragged out for decades. She suggests they should push for inquests where members of the public, involved, can ask questions direct to those involved, and where the coroner is impartial. https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/16...e-truth-grenfell-residents-says-lawyer-video/
I referred to the petition covering the subject of Brexit. Found it if anyone else cares to sign. It's not about staying in. It's about staying in if the deal isn't satisfactory: https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/e...6f69f32d07da81bbc8d78910230e501d98d93d8290876
I have just read a comment on a friends Facebook page that I agree with so much that I just had to copy & paste it hereunder:- An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Corbyn's vision of socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Corbyn's ideological plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for £ 's )something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that. There are five morals to this story: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. The last one to leave turn the lights out.
I'm sorry, but that is idealogical hogwash. Not having a go at you for a second, Dave. Glad you posted it.
The idea that the mega wealthy (top 5%) are suddenly going to lose all of their wealth under Corbyn is quite laughable. They would still be getting richer but just a little bit slower than before. The poor however will be taken out of the indignity of sleeping on the the street and visiting food banks and given an incentive to earn a real living wage of not less than £10 pounds an hour with better schools NHS, police etc. We would not turn into the communist Soviet Union just a more compassionate and comfortable country for every citizen to live in.
Seen this absolute tosh before it assumes thar Corbyn is a fundamentalist communist and not a socialist. Nobody in the Labour Party is suggesting that everyone should be exactly equal but that wealth should be more fairly distributed.
And it's a load of rubbish sorry. You can't **** over the poor to keep the rich happy. The poor/sick/ disabled are the ones who need help not the rich. The rich have there house or houses. The rich can afford to feed their children The rich can afford to cloth their children The rich can afford to feed themselves The rich can afford care and to get therapy if they need it. Many poor can not do any of this and it is up to the people that have money to try and help the less fortunate. Losing a bit of money doesn't kill the rich like it kills the poor. No one is saying tax the rich a crazy amount. We are saying let's start treating the poor/sick/ disabled like humans instead of some scum that we group together in a run down estate.
Just as an alternative point of view, there are 1,399 homes within a stone's throw of Grenfell Tower standing empty. Some of them could be used to house those left homeless now, tonight. They won't, because that isn't the way our wonderful egalitarian society works. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...chelsea-luxury-properties-empty-a7791671.html
Are people seriously suggesting we breach one of the most fundamental, long-standing principles of English law and empower the state to seize the property of private individuals and make use of that property as it sees fit? Are we living in the USSR now?
Seeing as the Government hush up assassinations by Russia in the UK we already are like a lil Russia. But no. Just don't let the rich buy up everywhere and allow the places to stay empty.
No. People are calling for those who have, to show some compassion to those without. These are those unimportant people that make the world go round. They are the wealth creators. They are replaceable, underappreciated, forgettable. All they are asking for is a little recognition that they exist and are contributors to society. And in times of need, it would be good if those that have, were compassionate enough, and empathic enough, to realise that their wealth is borne up by people who make it possible. Does it really hurt your ideology that much that you'd rather not break a principle than help a fellow human being.? Don't worry, they'll go back to being the forelock-tugging working class soon enough, because they don't realise how much civil power they have. And anyway, the state does it anytime they feel the need.
"if your'e out there getting the honey then you don't go killing all the bees"....Joe Strummer One for the music thread I think.
Are you expecting MPs or councillors to approve a law that takes empty properties from people? If so you are expecting them to approve laws that could end up taking their own empty properties away. It is a nice thought but very impractical to implement because it would set a precedent that could spiral. Much better to put larger taxes on empty homes to reduce the numbers of "investors" buying Prime housing which would then reduce the incentive to keep building posh homes.
Someone is suggesting it. please log in to view this image I haven't suggested it would be a bad thing if the owners of empty properties allowed people to be live in them in this situation. In fact some have done so. Good for them. However I do object in the strongest possible terms to the idea that the state should be allowed to seize people's property. Anyone who believes in a free society should find the idea abhorrent.
