Wednesday, 01 July 2015

Owen Hart's posts

  • Posted in: Given 2 hours to decide on a transfer

    Owen Hart's post | 20/10/2010 10:18 pm

    With regard to Paula's "Whatever Kass, you aren't worth the time or effort to point out all the attacks you have launched in this thread and every other", and point 2 above, in a word: Yes.

    It is totally pointless trying to have any debate with this individual as she is, what's the technical expression, ah, yes, "nuts" was the word I was looking for. Not to mention frivolous and vexatious. IH is generally relaxed and has a pretty laissez faire posting policy (which is great) but in the case of kass, a little more intolerance of the intolerable would be more proportionate position to take. Notice is given that no response will be made to a rebuttal of the part of kass as do so only encourages it!

  • Posted in: Your Rights to be Consulted Section 105 and 137

    Owen Hart's post | 17/10/2010 4:42 pm

    An S105 Consultation meeting is usually held prior to the commencement of a major works contract, usually around the time of issuance of the S20s to the leaseholders. An S105 meeting is open to tenants and leaseholders. As with all "consultation" surrounding the statutory obligations of RSLs, it is pretty meaningless. All the RSL needs to do is send the invites, hold the meeting, and say "that's what we're going to do, now you've been consulted". They may be required to "have regard" to observations but they are not required to take any notice of them. Tenants pay nothing for major works so the "you get what you are given" approach is usual. Leaseholders do pay and of course have recourse to the LVT to challenge bills; something that is not easy to do without the employment of counsel. The Deputy Head of Law at LBI came out with a corker an LVT a while back: "S20 Consultation is not meant to be meaningful". This caused some raised eyebrows with m'learned colleagues as of course the S20 is the sole legal remedy for freeholders to recover costs. They get this in the private sector of course but in the RSL sector, one is truly through the looking glass....

  • Posted in: Anonymous contributions

    Owen Hart's post | 27/09/2010 9:53 pm

    I agree. I thought it was a silly idea from the off. Create a user name at least. Otherwise there are dozens of anons posting everywhere and one looses all coherence in the threads.

  • Posted in: Democracy versus the Individual

    Owen Hart's post | 17/09/2010 7:52 pm

    PSR: "I believe that power should be as close to the individual as possible, enabling concensus and common will to be the force that directs those matters closest to peopled lives"

    Sound a bit like David Cameron's New Localism then? Like your idol Nick Clegg, I can see you have now seen the light then?!!

  • Posted in: Democracy versus the Individual

    Owen Hart's post | 16/09/2010 1:12 am

    In response to being constantly baited (Did I mention your lot lost?) PSR is now advocating "direct action" because his lot didn't win. I see. Scratch just below the surface of a Spart and you will find a Stalinist. Clearly the electorate don't know what is good for them. Because his lot lost. The only solution? Violent overthrow of the Government and sod the electorate. Because he knows better. Everything I ever suspected you were has just been proven...

  • Posted in: £95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

    Owen Hart's post | 08/09/2010 8:25 pm

    PSR, it should be obvious from the first letter (which was lead letter of the week) but it's James. We're a group, remember. And we find your views socially toxic. The electorate agreed, in case you didn't notice. Now then, who are you?

  • Posted in: £95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

    Owen Hart's post | 07/09/2010 10:52 pm

    For the avoidance of doubt, here is a more recent link that is somewhat closer to home than the rantings of a Spartist website from two years ago:

    The analysis may look as familiar as it is accurate...!

  • Posted in: £95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

    Owen Hart's post | 07/09/2010 0:18 am

    Clearly not zero, you daft Spart, otherwise you would not have received such a comprehensive kicking from the earlier poster. I do not post in the work day because I'm at work - you should try it sometime by the way. So in response to your daft SWP inspired rantings, it's not what I say or think about UK overpopulation that it important, it's what OPT are saying. As they have the data and are more informed than I. And certainly more informed than you "Kev" (what a bright sounding name that is). And this is a quote from the same link:

    "OPT chair Roger Martin described this as “a stark illustration of the unfortunate trade-offs between growing populations and sustainable livelihoods which we are currently seeing”.

    He said: “Some people may argue that in a world of international trade, national self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. We think that’s a very short-sighted view. You don’t have to be a little Englander or an eco-survivalist to conclude that in an era of growing shortages - food, energy, water - being so dependent on the outside world puts us in a very vulnerable position. With the rest of the world, including many countries much poorer than the UK, supplying three-quarters of our overall needs, it’s also morally questionable.”

    “ ‘Overpopulation’ is a much used and abused word, but we believe the index helps to anchor it firmly in the realm of sustainability – of people living within the limits of the place they inhabit. I think the index also clarifies what we really mean by sustainability and how important human numbers are to the concept.”

    “To reduce our impact on the planet, we need to think about both numbers of consumers and how much they consume, and the UK is doing exceptionally badly on both fronts. Had we published this calculation last year, my understanding is that the UK would have been in 19th position. In terms of numbers - and therefore in terms of sustainability - we are still moving in the wrong direction, both in the table and in reality. It’s about time we woke up to the fact that the UK has a real population problem.”"

    Got that numpty? Not what I say. What OPT. What David-Bloody-Attenborough says, to paraphrase Not the Nine O'Clock News!

  • Posted in: £95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

    Owen Hart's post | 06/09/2010 0:16 am

    No. Try again. Sticking to topic, can any lefties really come up with one decent reason why child benefit should be unrestricted and unlimited given the global population problem?

    "Singapore is the world’s most overpopulated state, followed by Israel and Kuwait, according to a new league table ranking countries by their degree of overpopulation. The UK is 17th in the table....A UK citizen, for example, has an average ecological footprint of 6.12 global hectares but because of the size of the population, their “share” of national biocapacity is only 1.58 global hectares. This gives the UK a self-sufficiency rating of 25.8 per cent – the proportion of its footprint it derives from its own resources –and a corresponding dependency rating of 74.2 per cent. If it had to rely on its own biocapacity, the UK could therefore sustain only a quarter of its population – around 15 million – and, at current consumption levels, is “overpopulated” by more than 45 million"

  • Posted in: £95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house

    Owen Hart's post | 05/09/2010 5:26 pm

    DM uncovers another corker:

    Surely it's about time child benefit was capped? How long is the taxpayer willing to provide perverse incentives for the feckless to breed and then demand ever larger houses at their expense?

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