Seize The Homes Of The Rich?

[youngmafbog]

Now the true colours are showing.

I dont see how this can help those who are homeless TODAY. They need housing now not after loads of legal wrangling or does Corbyn believe a Government can just march the troops in and take anyone's property ignoring any laws of the land?

I am getting just a little fed up of people using this terrible tragedy to score political points. It's disgusting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4607894/Homes-rich-Kensington-SEIZED-says-Corbyn.html

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444
/// Perhaps we should try asking the owners of empty properties
first ? ///

No matter how much an act of 'coming together' in times of need that would be, let's be practical, if you owned a vacant ultra luxury apartment would you care to offer this out to persons that you do not know or who you could trust to hand it back to you in the same condition as it was when they took it over?

[Old_Geezer]

2000 homeless as a result. Are there not already sufficient b&b, guest houses, hotels, etc. in the Greater London area (or beyond) to cope until something more permanent is arranged ? If folk wish to offer their property for use, I'm sure that they are capable of doing so for themselves.

[Barmaid]

The power already exists for local authorities to issue an EDMO (Empty Dwelling Management Order) so JC isnt exactly talking nonsense. Unfortunately, the procedure takes time.

Yes these poor victims need housing immediately, but I do not believe "requisitioning" legally held property of others is the answer. That's a slippery slope.

I certainly do not know what the answer is and it appears neither does JC. Given that feelings are understandably running high, he would be better advised to collaberate and come up with a practically workable solution rather than making daft political comments which will only seek to increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.

This building must have been insured by the landlords - no one appears to have mentioned what, if anything, the insurers are doing about this.

[naomi24]

Barmaid, //This building must have been insured by the landlords//

The landlord's insurance wouldn't have included cover for the contents of individual flats, nor life cover for the residents.

[TheChair]

"I dont see how this can help those who are homeless TODAY. They need housing now"
Can't wit to hear your INSTANT solution - tents?

[jackthehat]

I should imagine most Insurance companies are afraid to open their e-mails or answer the telephones, at the moment. But they ught to step in and requisition a hotels/hotels (travelodge, etc) for the interim so at least the homeless have somewhere warm and safe and as a base from which to operate.
That seems more sensible than JCs plan.

[naomi24]

TheChair, //Victims are being housed in a combination of council homes and local hotels, while others are staying with friends. Government ministers have promised to rehouse everyone who lost their home in the same area, but a lack of available council homes means this could take weeks.//

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-latest-donations-fundraising-money-victims-charity-items-a7792676.html

[Barmaid]

I am not suggesting it would Naomi, but it would have covered damage to the fabric of the building to the extent that if someone's flat is rendered unusable that is an insurable risk. I also have no doubt that seeing as this was a tower block with some 120 flats, there will have been block management fees paid by either the residents or the flat owners. This will undoubtedly have included some form of block insurance policy (at least when I dealt with this type of thing many years ago, that was the "norm").

Furthermore, I understand in excess of £1m has been raised so far. As a short term solution, could some of this not be used to give immediate shelter in terms of hotels/guest houses?

Politicising it and suggesting a "land grab" is not really a sensible or workable solution.

[naomi24]

Barmaid, //could some of this not be used to give immediate shelter in terms of hotels/guest houses? //

See my post at 11.44.

[youngmafbog]

Why should I have the answer TheChair? I am not trying to turn this into political point scoring like Corbyn is.

AOG, empty properties do attract council tax - even if being refurbished. You used to get a year with most councils but that has now stopped.

The problem of 'land banking' needs addressing, but suggesting seizure without following legal process is hard core communism.

On the subject of JC's garden, to be fair he does have an allotment he tends, perhaps he doesnt want a nice garden so he avoids his own 'garden tax'?

[trt]

# perhaps he doesnt want a nice garden so he avoids his own 'garden tax'?#

Well he should have gone to live in a Tower Block then!!!!

He makes enough money to hire a gardener.

[Old_Geezer]

"empty properties do attract council tax"
They actually charge more than for an occupied house despite supplying less in the way of service; because they have no moral sense of right and wrong and can bully whomever they like, and claim it's ok because the Westminster lot says abuse of owners of empty property is ok you can mug them for whatever you can and they can't do anything about it. Thus are the dregs who get the power.

[fender62]

saudi's own a lot of property in london, why not help out their fellow muslims, as for buckingham palace that's an historical building with priceless relics furniture paintings etc, it's not really fit for people although the queen lives there part time, and only in a small part made for living in.

[EDDIE51]

It may not be 'practical' but it is doing wonders for Corbyn's and Labours image, which is exactly what was intended!
Meanwhile May and the Tories need to learn that once you are in a hole you stop digging!

[cassa333]

I really didn't know which thread to post in as mine is a combination.

Corbyn is a 'people person' May is not. There is a big difference in their ability to SHOW empathy but doesn't mean they don't have EQUAL amounts of it.

He talks the talk but she walks the walk. She has the responsibility to make sure things are done to help from the government. She has to do that and all the other stuff of government. And where it might have been better for her to 'show a tear or two' it is not very nice to force it out of someone if The you are not the 'show a tear or two' sort of person.

Corbyns call for empty property's to be annexed is a political point scoring exercise in the face of a tragic event. They will all get emergency housing of some sort and will, I am sure, get permanent housing when available so 'steeling property' from the rich just feeds into the socialist mantra.

[youngmafbog]

//It may not be 'practical' but it is doing wonders for Corbyn's and Labours image, which is exactly what was intended! //

Yes, scoring political points of the back of tragedy. How truly disgusting, and you seem t. be all for it. Although we often disagree I held you in higher esteem than that.

It may also backfire. It is no use appealing to the converted, if he is to win he needs persuade middle England and I think you will find they are appalled by his electioneering on the back of these poor people.

[Old_Geezer]

Perhaps more to the point is that it is losing respect for the Tories that they don't do similar, losing political points on the back of tragedy; which one wonders, was that their plan ? Still the hospital visit may take the edge off of it, if the security justification is accepted.

[naomi24]

Eddie, //It may not be 'practical' but it is doing wonders for Corbyn's and Labours image, which is exactly what was intended! //

We know. I think most of us recognise that this is not genuine altruism but shameful exploitation of a disaster. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it!!