Eric Blair's comments
Your comments page displays any comments you have made on articles or blogs on this website. From here, you can link to the original stories or blogs and view any responses or further comments added by other users.
Hmm - I'm surprised by this. I thought St Mungos was rather more ethical. Why, it's enough to make me cynical.
An extraordinary case. After all, who would believe one man's tale of a council conspiracy? But this one turned out to be truthful.
It shows how important the Human Rights Act is (the one the UK Government wants to repeal). It's also a massive endorsement for due legal process.
Incredible too that Southwark tried to erase this man's identify, destroying his possessions. My views about that are unrepeatable on here.
That most certainly isn't the right way to deal with pet problems. Think of the distress caused to both owners and animals.
All I can say is that there are plenty of ways to run a business, and I prefer social businesses over the other models. I've tried ALL the others - they were rubbish. The trouble is that this government thinks the private sector is somehow superior to any other approach. Not so!
@Gavin Rider | 03/10/2014 12:02 pm - Pleased to learn that you are so easily amused, Gavin. But I should remind you that this government has been in power for almost its full term, and it's still blaming other people for its own incompetence.
When, I wonder, will it stop behaving like a stroppy teen, break out the Clearasil and take responsibility for the devastation it's currently visiting on our public services? I think I have the answer to that too. Never! And it wasn't the public sector which caused our current problems.
I find it equally amusing that despite hard data from the ONS which states very clearly, in the same clear way that 2+2=4, that public borrowing has risen and is continuing to do so. Perhaps you are undeterred by the truth. If so, I'm not only amused, I'm rather puzzled.
The OBR hasn't been correct about public borrowing for years. The Chancellor claims that it 'frequently challenges me', etc. It does not.
The idea that our current deficit is somehow removed from the 2008 credit crunch is entirely disingenuous. It's like finding a disconnect between falling head-first off a cliff onto your head and ending up dead. 'Ah, but the two things are unrelated.' Amusing? You'll have them rolling in the aisles with that one Gavin.
Dear Gavin - no, I don't think massive national debt is 'just fine'. I'm making the perfectly valid point that this government's approach to it is completely wrong. In fact, our national debt is still increasing despite so-called 'austerity' (which is more of a brand than a real policy). Have a nice hot cup of Austerity (TM).
If you don't believe me I can do a lot better than George Osborne by actually providing some evidence for my statement. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_377958.pdf
Details, Gavin. Fine details. My point is that asset stripping is on the horizon that that HAs won't remain in the same hands following mass demutualisation. See the history of building societies for further information. I don't want to see HAs fall into the hands of private shareholders who don't care about tenants.
As for debt being Labour's fault, what complete nonsense! If you remember the recession of 2008 was global, and triggered by sub-prime mortgage lending in the US. The Tories are trying to reinvent history for their own purposes. And no, I'm not defending Gordon Brown here. I don't particularly like any mainstream political party. But I'll probably vote anyway ...
I think Brandon Lewis is really touting the idea of demutualisation here. That's the subtext to his views.
Once the family silver has been neatly sold off, assets can be quietly stripped out of housing associations by private investors (an overused phrase, perhaps as 'investment' isn't what those people want).
HAs are doing quite well financially. But wouldn't it be nice to unlock all that money and push the funding into a few well chosen Swiss bank accounts? Saving money isn't the point. We need homes which people can actually afford, and the idea of austerity is nothing more than a smokescreen.
The headline is extremely misleading. What would be wrong with choosing a social tenancy? It sounds like a very responsible option to me. This neatly segues into the strapline: 'Nearly half of the British public believe social housing tenants choose to claim benefits as a lifestyle choice'.
Terrible! There is a world of difference between choosing a social tenancy and choosing to live on benefits. And there is no evidence that most people on benefits choose this anyway.
An economist perhaps, WomanWithLexicon? Or a Chancellor.
Tenants do interesting things on rooftops.