ChatterBank8 mins ago
Should The Survivors Of The Grenfell Tower Fire, Move Into These Empty Properties?
79 Answers
http://
/// Survivor Amina Mohamed, 46, said: ‘They need to make this a priority. We need to rebuild our lives because at the moment we are in limbo.
‘We do not seem to be treated as well as others in the borough because we are not rich. It is not right that there are all these empty homes.’ ///
/// Survivor Amina Mohamed, 46, said: ‘They need to make this a priority. We need to rebuild our lives because at the moment we are in limbo.
‘We do not seem to be treated as well as others in the borough because we are not rich. It is not right that there are all these empty homes.’ ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Eddie....it isn't just residential tower blocks that are affected :::
John Radcliffe Hospital: Cladding review finds unit is 'high risk'
http://
John Radcliffe Hospital: Cladding review finds unit is 'high risk'
http://
>FF if they live in London and commute out the cost is the same as living outside and commuting in. Or are you saying only the retired or those on benefit should be able to live in London?
I think we are at cross purposes. Youa re talking about people who work and would pay rent. I'm talking about those that don't work but expect accommodation to be provided near their friends/families, (sometimes so they can then sublet it illegally ).
But anyway, that's more along term thing. The shorter term problem with Grenfell residents is a difficult one as the expectations are perhaps too high and there aren't many suitable free places- but i don't think commandeering a few mansions would be a good idea at all.
I think we are at cross purposes. Youa re talking about people who work and would pay rent. I'm talking about those that don't work but expect accommodation to be provided near their friends/families, (sometimes so they can then sublet it illegally ).
But anyway, that's more along term thing. The shorter term problem with Grenfell residents is a difficult one as the expectations are perhaps too high and there aren't many suitable free places- but i don't think commandeering a few mansions would be a good idea at all.
Eddie, //160 or so tower blocks so far declared unsafe!//
I don’t know if that figure is accurate, but whatever the figure, I don’t think it applies solely to London. Nevertheless, the occupants of those flats haven’t been moved out and aren’t in hotels awaiting alternative accommodation. No doubt the remedial works will be carried out without that requirement. Nothing like turning a disaster into a drama!
I don’t know if that figure is accurate, but whatever the figure, I don’t think it applies solely to London. Nevertheless, the occupants of those flats haven’t been moved out and aren’t in hotels awaiting alternative accommodation. No doubt the remedial works will be carried out without that requirement. Nothing like turning a disaster into a drama!
Eddie....it isn't just residential tower blocks that are affected ::::
John Radcliffe Hospital: Cladding review finds unit is 'high risk'
http://
This scandal is going to run and run.
John Radcliffe Hospital: Cladding review finds unit is 'high risk'
http://
This scandal is going to run and run.
What right does anyone to move into someone else's house, whether it's empty or not? None whatsoever. The "take take take" mentality is so descriptive of our parasitical society.
If I want to buy a home and keep it empty that is my damn business, and no-one else's. Mrs Mohamed included.
Those with means have donated millions towards funds to help the Grenfell survivors- the government should be doing all it can to ensure that the people who need this are getting it.
If I want to buy a home and keep it empty that is my damn business, and no-one else's. Mrs Mohamed included.
Those with means have donated millions towards funds to help the Grenfell survivors- the government should be doing all it can to ensure that the people who need this are getting it.
I am pointing out that this cladding scandal is very widespread.
For the record....no, I don't think luxury private homes should be used for housing the many people made homeless by the Grenfell Tower affair. But if more tower blocks, and other places are found to be unsafe, then its going to be difficult to find accommodation for the people affected.
For the record....no, I don't think luxury private homes should be used for housing the many people made homeless by the Grenfell Tower affair. But if more tower blocks, and other places are found to be unsafe, then its going to be difficult to find accommodation for the people affected.
//This scandal is going to run and run.//
Really?
AOG, no, houses do not need to be taken. Something needs to be done about empty properties but that is a different issue.
The problem is there is a growing army of self entitled, all for nothing of course, that think they should take from others.
As for Grenfall, terrible though it is, so long as people are not left on the streets then that is ok. If your house catches fire you will be put into digs until a suitable rented accommodation is found whilst your property is repaired. This happens to many people who just get on with it.
Really?
AOG, no, houses do not need to be taken. Something needs to be done about empty properties but that is a different issue.
The problem is there is a growing army of self entitled, all for nothing of course, that think they should take from others.
As for Grenfall, terrible though it is, so long as people are not left on the streets then that is ok. If your house catches fire you will be put into digs until a suitable rented accommodation is found whilst your property is repaired. This happens to many people who just get on with it.
No they should not.
Haven’t some of these people already rejected alternative properties?
I thought that if someone rejected a council property, then they went back to the bottom of the list.
These people were already in council accommodation, and should be grateful for that when you consider how many other folks are on the waiting list, and should be grateful for ANY alternative they are being offered.
It’s said that these people ‘lost everything.’ Well, maybe they did, but if my house burned down, I would be expected to claim for the contents on my insurance policy, not expect to be handed everything that needs replacing free and gratis, which is what seems to be the case here.
Hands out - me me me , I’m entitled, I deserve!
Haven’t some of these people already rejected alternative properties?
I thought that if someone rejected a council property, then they went back to the bottom of the list.
These people were already in council accommodation, and should be grateful for that when you consider how many other folks are on the waiting list, and should be grateful for ANY alternative they are being offered.
It’s said that these people ‘lost everything.’ Well, maybe they did, but if my house burned down, I would be expected to claim for the contents on my insurance policy, not expect to be handed everything that needs replacing free and gratis, which is what seems to be the case here.
Hands out - me me me , I’m entitled, I deserve!
There's one guy with an empty home who will "no doubt" want to fill it with Grenfell survivors- Labour Conspiracy Theorist, David Lammy!
"London MP, with a constituency only 28 minutes away by Tube from Parliament, claims £12,041 for a second home. Sounds a straight-forward case in the long line of London MPs who had their expense claims widely publicised and heavily criticised during earlier this year? Except this time, there’s one difference.
The expense claim was published back in October 2004, got a bit of local media coverage and that was that.
Lucky man, that David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham.
From the Haringey Advertiser, 27 October 2004:
HARINGEY taxpayers have been forking out for Tottenham MP David Lammy to rent a second home in south London.
Mr Lammy admitted the expense in the first published account of MPs’ spending, and is among 32 outer London MPs claiming the second home allowance, worth up to £20,333 a year…
Mr Lammy said he stayed at the second home for three nights a week when he was working at Westminster, spending the rest of his week at his main home on the Harringay Ladder, 28 minutes from Westminster by tube.
He claimed £12,041 for the home between April 2003 and March 2004."
"London MP, with a constituency only 28 minutes away by Tube from Parliament, claims £12,041 for a second home. Sounds a straight-forward case in the long line of London MPs who had their expense claims widely publicised and heavily criticised during earlier this year? Except this time, there’s one difference.
The expense claim was published back in October 2004, got a bit of local media coverage and that was that.
Lucky man, that David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham.
From the Haringey Advertiser, 27 October 2004:
HARINGEY taxpayers have been forking out for Tottenham MP David Lammy to rent a second home in south London.
Mr Lammy admitted the expense in the first published account of MPs’ spending, and is among 32 outer London MPs claiming the second home allowance, worth up to £20,333 a year…
Mr Lammy said he stayed at the second home for three nights a week when he was working at Westminster, spending the rest of his week at his main home on the Harringay Ladder, 28 minutes from Westminster by tube.
He claimed £12,041 for the home between April 2003 and March 2004."
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.