Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

The people have spoken

Shayne said:
The corruption is blatantly obvious you can spit it in their face and they just smile at you because they know the only person you can appeal to is them .
Click to expand...

All good points. Same old story really, big fat dogs (party donors ?) getting most of the meat to feed shareholders and leaving the bones for others trying to feed their families. I can understand that, but I'm not too sure how an un or less regulated system would work in practise outside the EU. If say a UK government is so desperate for a trade deal with another country, and that country makes a condition of that deal that their factory ships can operate in UK waters, without adequate resources to police them properly the local industry and stocks would run the risk of being decimated.

Rob Cowell said:
Unfortunately it's way more complicated than that. The EU is a WTO member, remember.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that, but surely the argument is that we will have to negotiate a fresh agreement with the WTO and starting negotiations off with an act that in effect is considered against the rules is a bit iffy. Goves conservation payment ideas are all well and good, but how practical will they be for the small producers who will probably have to depend on already overstretched social security payments to get by.
 
Shayne said:
America has a president they can't buy .
Click to expand...
Yeah because he's already been paid for.Like Obama , Trump mostly campaigned on slogans & the only policy he's followed through on us massive tax cuts for the rich.Trump is a millionaire/billionaire property dealer , a spiv who inherited his daddy's money & has never done a days honest work in his life.How anyone can think he's out to look after the ordinary working folks is beyond me.
 
flint said:
Yes, I get that, but surely the argument is that we will have to negotiate a fresh agreement with the WTO and starting negotiations off with an act that in effect is considered against the rules is a bit iffy. Goves conservation payment ideas are all well and good, but how practical will they be for the small producers who will probably have to depend on already overstretched social security payments to get by.
Click to expand...

The WTO negotiations, I agree with you completely. It's not the car-boot sale some people seem to think it is.

How practical will environment focused payments be? No one has any idea because there is no detail. I would say right now all basic payment (the bulk of anyone's subsidy) is conditional on adhering to a certain level of environmental standards. And additional payments for more rigorous environmental schemes are well understood. I only know the detail in Wales but the most recent scheme hasn't paid much for what can reduce productivity through, for example, minimising grazing on certain areas, and reducing fertiliser use, and so uptake has been relatively poor. The payments are biased towards small farms though. You get so much for the first 20 hectares then less for more land. I don't think anyone can speculate at present whether the changes that will happen will affect small farms relative to the position today.
 
goodoldboy said:
Is the bad behaviour of some tenants the reason we have poor accommodation? I've been a landlord & know about bad tenants - and good landlords - but current legislation along with savage cuts to CAB , legal aid & environmental health have left folks at the mercy of the market.This is one of the reasons public housing was built in the first place.
Perhaps the landlords you work for are dealing with a higher end of the market? Or in an area where there isn't a large demand? At the lower end theres hardly any affordable housing & folks have to take what's on offer.The number of people living on the streets is rocketing & the lack of new builds isn't an accident or oversight.
Click to expand...
when a couple in there late 50s who have worked there backsides off all of there lives to bring up a family without asking anything from the state. put there heart and soul into a couple of properties, as part of there retirement, because they believe in financing there own retirement.. these houses are then duly trashed by young able bodied scrotes who have never done a days work in there life. choosing instead to scrounge off the state, because these low lifes truly believe they are owed a roof over there head, food on the table, heating, a mobile phone, sky tv and be able to get more drunk than I can afford to. payed for by hard working law abiding people..

they then stop paying the rent.. this must surely be seen as theft? the law is surely there to help hard working law abiding tax paying citizens? if I stopped paying the mortgage my house would be repossessed.
no no no no.. after building up a couple of months of arears and being issued a section 21, said scrote then drags it out to court where he gets legal aid. funded by hard working tax payers, much like the lovely people who he "rents" the house off...
oh dear, there has been a small, but completely irrelevant mistake made on the section 21 form. judge throws the case out. form needs re-submitting. another two months with no rent passes..
so, £5000 later and a trashed house, a lot of stress and anxiety. the pos is finally moved to his next tax payer funded abode where he can start to inflict his misery on the locals.
yes, new landlords soon become cynical. why should they do anything but the absolute bare minimum when this is how they are treated?
more rights for tenants? seriously?

higher end of the market? no.
not a large demand? im talking in and around stoke on trent. one of the "poorer" cities in England.
 
chapel gate said:
when a couple in there late 50s who have worked there backsides off all of there lives to bring up a family without asking anything from the state. put there heart and soul into a couple of properties, as part of there retirement, because they believe in financing there own retirement.. these houses are then duly trashed by young able bodied scrotes who have never done a days work in there life. choosing instead to scrounge off the state, because these low lifes truly believe they are owed a roof over there head, food on the table, heating, a mobile phone, sky tv and be able to get more drunk than I can afford to. payed for by hard working law abiding people..

they then stop paying the rent.. this must surely be seen as theft? the law is surely there to help hard working law abiding tax paying citizens? if I stopped paying the mortgage my house would be repossessed.
no no no no.. after building up a couple of months of arears and being issued a section 21, said scrote then drags it out to court where he gets legal aid. funded by hard working tax payers, much like the lovely people who he "rents" the house off...
oh dear, there has been a small, but completely irrelevant mistake made on the section 21 form. judge throws the case out. form needs re-submitting. another two months with no rent passes..
so, £5000 later and a trashed house, a lot of stress and anxiety. the pos is finally moved to his next tax payer funded abode where he can start to inflict his misery on the locals.
yes, new landlords soon become cynical. why should they do anything but the absolute bare minimum when this is how they are treated?
more rights for tenants? seriously?

higher end of the market? no.
not a large demand? im talking in and around stoke on trent. one of the "poorer" cities in England.
Click to expand...
I'm not unsympathetic with your friends far from it - injustice makes me enraged.If you're not wealthy the law is a lottery & it's pretty much impossible to sue a solicitor.I've been on the receiving end of injustice that has left me with no faith in the courts or police.The tenants in this case are almost certainly doing something on the side to be able to afford sat TV & pissups .As for not asking the state for anything , were they entitled to any benefits? Every year if I'm entitled to a tax rebate or any VAT back I claim every brass farthing - its my right.When I say landlords I'm thinking of those with multiple properties for whom any loss is like those of say car dealers .the occasional lemon won't sink the ship.When I was a landlord I looked into getting a management company who for a cut would guarantee my share of the rent & take care of things but I decided to go on my own in the end.Small landlords with 1 or 2 properties don't count in this system , its not designed for them.
A relative of mine works in the planning department of a well known British seaside town & has responsibility for rented property.Just trying to enforce the basic rules is a losing battle , never mind tackling abuses.
As I've said before no one is forced to be a landlord & your friends could choose to invest their savings in something else.This is not simply a tale of morality between two equal sides.Tenants are at the mercy of what's on offer & power lies overwhelmingly with the landlords.
 
Last edited:
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
Awesome move by Boris.

What's going on here? A leader showing vision, leadership and a set of balls??..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben
Or taking power away from our democracy and moving towards a dictatorship. Didn't leavers vote to "give power back" to our democracy? Rather than put an unelected leader in charge, surely this is more like the evil EU government we didn't vote for taking the power away from our elected officials.
 
Without getting into the for and against argument here, what I can see is the very real potential to draw a massive line in the sand. The poll result said leave. Some have accepted that and some haven't. However, despite the decision being legal, democratic and final, the energy expended on debating that which has been decided (in effect) could power a second Sun.


What leaving regardless on the 31st should at least do is to kill the debate. What happens thereafter is a new chapter. But until we reach some sort of definitive mile post, the arguments will continue to rage sucking the energy out of the country. Personally, I think this is what Boris is heading for. A leave at any cost but a leave guaranteed as he promised.

Now in fact he's on a win win footing here. He either takes us out (deal or no deal) and can say, see I said I'd deliver. OR he's thwarted by opposition and can turn around and say, well I tried but was stopped.

He can't lose. For me the real test is to come. Once we're out on the 31st barring some kind of miracle intervention, someone is going to have to come up with a plan. I dunno, maybe a clean sheet is better to start from. I do think that we should make 1st Nov a national holiday though.
 
Just one note there
The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.
 
Chris said:
Without getting into the for and against argument here, what I can see is the very real potential to draw a massive line in the sand. The poll result said leave. Some have accepted that and some haven't. However, despite the decision being legal, democratic and final, the energy expended on debating that which has been decided (in effect) could power a second Sun.


What leaving regardless on the 31st should at least do is to kill the debate. What happens thereafter is a new chapter. But until we reach some sort of definitive mile post, the arguments will continue to rage sucking the energy out of the country. Personally, I think this is what Boris is heading for. A leave at any cost but a leave guaranteed as he promised.

Now in fact he's on a win win footing here. He either takes us out (deal or no deal) and can say, see I said I'd deliver. OR he's thwarted by opposition and can turn around and say, well I tried but was stopped.

He can't lose. For me the real test is to come. Once we're out on the 31st barring some kind of miracle intervention, someone is going to have to come up with a plan. I dunno, maybe a clean sheet is better to start from. I do think that we should make 1st Nov a national holiday though.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The big FO reset the country has needed for decades.
 
Life moves on Chris and circumstances change. It's like buying a car you really like then finding out that it's crap after all. You'd take it back wouldn't you?
 
Indeed Steve, but I didn't say it was legally binding, just that it was conducted correctly. OK the campaigns may not have been, but the vote was constitutionally carried out if you get me. Probably a poor choice of words. It does still grind with me when people say the majority of the country voted to leave. They didn't. 25% of the living population did. But that's democracy. Children can't vote but they still feel the effects.

Anyway, enough of that.

C
 
steverjuk said:
Or the country carries on the way it's been doing, with a weaker international footing and having to sell out the NHS to get a trade deal with America. Per https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-48516196/trump-nhs-on-the-table-in-us-uk-trade-deal
Click to expand...
Steve, I think now it's apparent most people, leave or remain, are now entrenched in there opinions, and nothing will change that.
You will have a answer for any argument I put forward, and equally I with you.
I'll hazard a guess though, that we both agree, 80 series rock..
 
I prefer 1980's rock. Whitesnake, Deep Purple, Scorpions ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chas
The end of Humanity.
Replies
12
Views
3K
Mark N
M
mjmcgowan
Martin & Nicole - Overland Adventure - UK - OZ
2
Replies
22
Views
11K
clivehorridge
clivehorridge
YYY
Back
Top