You mean forcing people into abandoned houses? Setting aside the issue of it being illegal, the next question would be why only for the Grenfell tower victims? Lets force every single homeless person into an unused apartment. Wait, not just homeless, let's take anyone who's living in less-than-desirable conditions and put them into expensive unused apartments.
There are many reasons why this is not a good idea, but it's a great way to distract from who was actually responsible for the tragedy.
When basic human decency becomes a ‘tell’ that someone’s a burgeoning Chávez, it’s time to dial back on what may have become an unhealthy fixation. You’re going to hate President Warren.
I'm no sure I get the point. I'm perfectly happy helping people who need a home. I will gladly pay taxes for the government to build housing for people who need it. I would even be happy to volunteer living space I own and I'm not using to help out. But the government forcing me to do it is not acceptable. What happened there is not my fault, it's the council's (i.e., the government's) fault.
Edit: It's hard to grammar with a kid hanging from your neck.
My sarcasm filter isn’t good enough to work out when you’re just trying to wind me up and when you’re not. So assuming this is more on the level than that business about a demagogue forcing poor people into abandoned buildings, you’ll be glad to know these flats are being sold to government for purpose. Check the related links. It’s not that government must never, nor ever has found homes for the homeless. It’s just that it’s not only Chavistas that give a shit about survivors of disastrous fires. I’ve escaped from a fire with nothing but the clothes on my back and then stank of house fire at school the next day, and probably a few days after that. You haven’t, I’m guessing. Perhaps if you had, you’d be less sanctimoniously apoplectic about condemning the property of rhetorical, absentee, money laundering, foreign criminal interests.
I know, my sarcastic nature is also compounded by not being a native English speaker. I just find that using the /s tag kind of defies some of the purpose of sarcasm.
I didn't see the part about them being sold. Offering to buy or rent them to house the victims is definitely ok. Just forcefully taking over them is not. In a different situation I might have a different opinion, for example if the government didn't have any other option, but we're talking about the Council of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I'm pretty sure they have enough money to find alternative housing for the victims without forcibly taking it from private owners.
You mean forcing people into abandoned houses? Setting aside the issue of it being illegal, the next question would be why only for the Grenfell tower victims? Lets force every single homeless person into an unused apartment. Wait, not just homeless, let's take anyone who's living in less-than-desirable conditions and put them into expensive unused apartments.
There are many reasons why this is not a good idea, but it's a great way to distract from who was actually responsible for the tragedy.
When basic human decency becomes a ‘tell’ that someone’s a burgeoning Chávez, it’s time to dial back on what may have become an unhealthy fixation. You’re going to hate President Warren.
I'm no sure I get the point. I'm perfectly happy helping people who need a home. I will gladly pay taxes for the government to build housing for people who need it. I would even be happy to volunteer living space I own and I'm not using to help out. But the government forcing me to do it is not acceptable. What happened there is not my fault, it's the council's (i.e., the government's) fault.
Edit: It's hard to grammar with a kid hanging from your neck.
My sarcasm filter isn’t good enough to work out when you’re just trying to wind me up and when you’re not. So assuming this is more on the level than that business about a demagogue forcing poor people into abandoned buildings, you’ll be glad to know these flats are being sold to government for purpose. Check the related links. It’s not that government must never, nor ever has found homes for the homeless. It’s just that it’s not only Chavistas that give a shit about survivors of disastrous fires. I’ve escaped from a fire with nothing but the clothes on my back and then stank of house fire at school the next day, and probably a few days after that. You haven’t, I’m guessing. Perhaps if you had, you’d be less sanctimoniously apoplectic about condemning the property of rhetorical, absentee, money laundering, foreign criminal interests.
I know, my sarcastic nature is also compounded by not being a native English speaker. I just find that using the /s tag kind of defies some of the purpose of sarcasm.
I didn't see the part about them being sold. Offering to buy or rent them to house the victims is definitely ok. Just forcefully taking over them is not. In a different situation I might have a different opinion, for example if the government didn't have any other option, but we're talking about the Council of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I'm pretty sure they have enough money to find alternative housing for the victims without forcibly taking it from private owners.