Wednesday, 08 July 2015

F451's posts

  • Posted in: Query re RTB and affordable rent

    F451's post | 24/02/2015 4:38 pm

    It would be so great to be allowed to discuss things in these areas again.

  • Posted in: email address shown

    F451's post | 10/11/2014 9:44 am

    Good Job the Information Commisioner's Office did not get to hear about the mass release of personal data or IH would be in such deep do-do that their owners would be stretched to afford the fines.

    Worth remembering next time they consider Tory Central Office as natural bed fellows.

  • Posted in: Would you please fix your website?

    F451's post | 22/09/2014 1:11 pm

    You are welcome Rexroth

  • Posted in: Would you please fix your website?

    F451's post | 17/09/2014 9:26 am

    The fix:

    Select the return to the page that directed you here option (do not use the back function instead). Wait. Your typed text will reappear in the message box. Select this text and press 'ctrl' c. Refresh the page and immediately reinsert the text into the message box and press submit to post it.

    The IH system appears to allow you up to 20 seconds to read the post, consider it and draft a comment before timing your connection out. As a result you are trying to access a closed link when posting. The refresh starts the clock ticking again.

    Maybe I am cynical (well actuall there is no maybe) but this is yet another way IH are showing that they no longer want debate - perhaps their friends are growing tired of the opposition to the wholescale slaughter of social housing. It is telling that less and less pro-social housing pundits are contributing to IH.

  • Posted in: What makes some estates worthy of regeneration while a lot are being demolished?

    F451's post | 22/08/2014 12:45 pm

    There are plenty of history of social housing resources available, but for our purposes you should look up 'The Street', if I remember the series title well.

    High Rise is not naturally British. It was a case of developers wanting to have their systems used (see Costain, Minister for Public Works, and Siporex as a system deployed by his brother's construction company.) It was also not the case of choice - people did not want to give up their homes for demolition and move into a flat. Those with options fled to other places, and took advantage of the New Town route of escape, leaving nice new Towers with plenty of vacancies. The vacancies were thus filled with newcommers and those without options. No communities in the sky developed because the dynaic was wrong. Then of course the short cuts and profiteering of developers meant that build quality issues, and systems not made for our weather, combined with the social dynamic to create the high-rise nightmare we are familiar with.

    Council estates that we low to medium rise worked much better - but these were the first losses to the Right to Buy. This means that the residual homes here are more likely to be regenerated, unless of course there are a bunch of extremist nutters in charge who want everything levelled so that the right people can be moved into the new homes.

    So the short answer to your question is 'It is Politics' and 'It is Capitalism' and 'It is not a fixed situation, nor cause and effect.'

    Hope that helps.

  • Posted in: Forums on the front page

    F451's post | 15/08/2014 9:38 am

    The use of Forums since removal from the front page has all but dried up.

    And now 'Comments' link has fallen of the front page - obviously debate does not figure in the brave new future for IH. Maybe Shapps, who of course never reads IH, reckons this should be the case, so of course IH have jumped to instruction for fear of tanks on their lawn!

    Why doesn't IH just close the site down if they are so frightened of feedback or comment against their editorial position.

  • Posted in: Jobs for Relatives in Housing Associations

    F451's post | 17/07/2014 12:54 pm

    Now you are presenting a different case Andrew.

    I have no experience relating to the issuing of contracts to other family members as you allege has occured, but am aware that the organisation will have had to follow procurement procedures or will be noncompliant with those procedures and so open to just the allegation you are suggesting.

    If you have evidence of such practice then as a good citizen you should put them into the hands of the appropriate authority or regulator.

  • Posted in: Jobs for Relatives in Housing Associations

    F451's post | 16/07/2014 2:15 pm

    Having seen a father sack a son for failure to improve I cannot see why family connections should be a problem in the housing sector. It is not as if we behave like the aristocracy and public school boys, covering each others backs regardless of the offence. We, in most cases, do actually behave with proper conduct under policy and procedure for recruitment and performance management

  • Posted in: Tenancy agreements social housing/housing associations

    F451's post | 16/07/2014 2:10 pm

    Just one is acceptable - but which one?

  • Posted in: Housing Troll Banned

    F451's post | 30/04/2014 5:34 pm

    I think you will find little response as hardly anyone comes here anymore.

    There have been issues since the 'improvement' to the servers blocked out a number of accounts, including mine as 'Chris' so perhaps it is not personal.

    Interesting though this was directly after I reported numerous spam, that Tom used to clear up very quickly before his demise, and since then appears to have been left to fester. As some of the spam seemed to fit the 'illegal activities' category then this is very poor having money laundering adverts and the like hanging around for ages. The only defense could have been that as the Forums have been marginalised, those adverts never reached much of an audience.

    I only come here now once every couple of weeks, and rarely contribute as there seems little point to the Forums as currently constituted.

    Doesnt stop me airing my views on the politics channel, otherwise known as 'Comments'.

  • Posted in: Inside Housing mandtory registration to view full content

    F451's post | 31/03/2014 4:21 pm

    The Newspapers that have gone down this line I now refuse to view. In part, these are publications that I would not have wished to pay money to, but when particular items of interest were highlighted would have accessed the views and details available that way.

    I can understand then that some potential subscribers will be deterred from accessing the site, and so may never become customers either. This is a business call for the company itself, but at least the content remains 'free' to access unlike News International who actually have people volunteer to pay to read their 'news'.

    However, I am fast approaching the feeing that the agenda shift here means visiting is less worthwhile. But equally there will be whole regiments of right-wing apologists keen to read and enjoy having their world view confirmed, so all around IH is onto a short term winner with both political and operational directions now being taken.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 2:07 pm

    Of course, every relet following a downsizing will be at 80%MR, accelerating the government's abolition of social housing and massively increasing the cost to rent. Thus the outcome of this government measure will be primarily persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in Shapps Housing, and persons dependent on even higher amounts of benefit, trapped in private housing.

    If this is about giving tenants options then it seems 'choose which tenure you wish to be trapped into and then have the government point at you as the cause of economic blight!'

    If people are to be punished for underoccupation then the government should allow them time to seek out realistic alternatives - and at least morally the government should be making some attempt to improve the housing supply so that some realistic alternatives exist - but then that would spoil their evil plan, wouldn't it.

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 21/02/2012 10:24 am

    It is interesting that none of the many Tory apologists, who elsewhere chomp at the bit to say how fair the benefit punishments and tenants taxes are, have been strangely silent when asked to contribute real effects in their area or within their housing provider, in terms of the legislation in real terms effecting real people.

    Where are those normally strident individuals with their examples of how these pieces of legislation are going to help people - or is it because they know that the reality is that their government is destroying people and families, condeming the poor to even greater suffering simply so that they themselves can hope for the promise of a little tax cut somewhere along the way.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 5:28 pm

    They gather together their pocket change at a cabinet meeting and then divide the sum by the number of unemployed, pensioners and persons with disabilities, subtract 50% to take into account single parents and those under 35, subtract 10% of the remainder for teas and biscuits (rechargeable of course), and then the resulting figure is the daily sum for an average family of four to live on.

    To get the individual person rate, simply deduct the current child benefit payment value and then divide by 100 and times by 65 to get what an individual needs.

    However, it must be noted that the contents of Mr Pickles pockets are for the exclusive use of those who are poor but located in Birmingham.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 4:12 pm

    Perhaps looking it the other way around. If the government says it can not afford to pay the rent of someone such that they have more than £70 per week to live on how do they expect anyone, disabled or otherwise, to afford to pay the high rents the government are now sponsoring but will not make affordable. As rent is now the highest single element within a low income person's expenditure (just think, that used to be food, then fuel, then housing cost) then failing to enable a person to afford such a basic expense means that the person concerned will not be able to afford to live in this society.

    Oddly, in a third world society, where fuel may be gathered for free, food may be gleaned from the countryside without landlowners demanding arrests be made, and housing may be self built without accusations of squatting or failure to pay the planning department enough, people can live on lower sums. Expecting people here to live on such sums is just not practical without also granting the freedom to return to being hunter gatherers as well.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:50 pm

    An interesting thought that when the sitting MP next comes to stand they may not be returned to sitting once more because of the poor standing the appalling position, that they fell in behind, gave them.

    All that is needed is a cast iron pledge from any who are standing who, when sitting, may be held to and deliver in the interest of the everyday folk who entrusted them with their vote in the first place.

    Perhaps this trusting to representatives has done its day and we should all just take power as Jono keep asking us to do, although who would look out for the less strong in that set up.

    In the words of my election trainer many years ago - tell your voters to vote early and vote often!

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 3:06 pm

    May your minders begat further minders who too begat minders of their own, until their enough minders to get rid of the bloody Arthur Daley figure pretending to run the country!

    [tell your minders they are very special people, and much loved for all that they do.]

  • Posted in: Under occupation

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:53 am

    People will be forced into house shares, and even room shares, as the only alternative to street homelessness or comitting benefit fraud. This is a highly backward step for our society and one that could be avoided if rents were reduced to more realistic levels and housing supply increased so people could actually move into a home more closely fitting their size requirements.

    Yes, the 'freed' up housing that results from this will be available to let out at 80%MR to a new family (until their make up changes) but the extra HB to fund this will totally blank out any saving from forcing out the smaller family - especially when that smaller family will either be in more expensive private rented housing or more expensive B&B temporary homeless housing.

    It is a sad statement on our nation that this is not only being implemented but with the consent of the nodding classes.

  • Posted in: Benefit levels

    F451's post | 20/02/2012 10:20 am

    Cause for celebration - Rick is still with us.

    I'm so pleased to know you are still in the land of the living Rick. I was honestly beginning to fear the worst, and such a loss that would be.

    I was also hoping you'd be back on-line before I put out my flame at the end of this week (other time demands arising for a while, but then the odd alter-ego will still be able to pop up every now and again, and I did announce that this hot little chap could only ever last till Spring - well the bulbs are coming up in Somerset at least!)

    Thanks for making my week already Rick, simply by still breathing!

  • Posted in: Building stronger communities

    F451's post | 17/02/2012 5:41 pm

    Fair enough Tricky - I do refute the denial claim, but accept it in the spirit of Friday.

    If your motivation is to learn from what others put perhaps commenting less and questioning more would help you achieve that.

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

About My Posts

Here you can see your forum posts, see who has replied and add to the comments.

Newsletter Sign-up

IH Subscription