London, again (poor Londoners)
- Thread starter whitewave
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Messages
- 12,331
BAS2348
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 63
It is so terrifying what is happening to the world...I live in VA, and last night a 17 year old young woman was kidnapped and beaten to death by a man while she was walking back to a mosque that is literally right in my backyard. They found her body dumped in a small pond about a mile away from the mosque. The man has been arrested and charged.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ice-Searching-for-Missing-Teen-429249943.html
This has to stop.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ice-Searching-for-Missing-Teen-429249943.html
This has to stop.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 7,580
Yes, another lunatic taking 'revenge' against 'terrorists'. These people are ignorant scum.
There's a lot of unrest in the U.K. at the moment, not helped by Comrade Corbyn and his cronies trying to stir up civil unrest because he didn't win the election, and obviously doesn't believe in democracy. It's sickening that people can't see what he's doing. He promised everything to everyone, with no hope whatsoever that he could deliver, and having not won, they feel they've been cheated out of what they consider should be rightfully theirs. He's even saying that any vacant privately owned property, should be forcibly requisitioned to house those affected by the tower block tragedy.
There's a lot of unrest in the U.K. at the moment, not helped by Comrade Corbyn and his cronies trying to stir up civil unrest because he didn't win the election, and obviously doesn't believe in democracy. It's sickening that people can't see what he's doing. He promised everything to everyone, with no hope whatsoever that he could deliver, and having not won, they feel they've been cheated out of what they consider should be rightfully theirs. He's even saying that any vacant privately owned property, should be forcibly requisitioned to house those affected by the tower block tragedy.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,720
I completely agree, Austina. At a time when we should all be coming together to find solutions to the huge problems of recent times (terrorism and Brexit chief amongst them) there is no place for divisive politics.
And whilst I whole-heartedly agree with Corbyn that it's morally wrong for multi-million pound properties to be lying empty a stone's throw from the hundreds of people made homeless by the fire, forcibly requisitioning private property is a very slippery slope in my mind. I appreciate the government has always had the right to compulsorily purchase private property, but that seems very different to what is being suggested.
And whilst I whole-heartedly agree with Corbyn that it's morally wrong for multi-million pound properties to be lying empty a stone's throw from the hundreds of people made homeless by the fire, forcibly requisitioning private property is a very slippery slope in my mind. I appreciate the government has always had the right to compulsorily purchase private property, but that seems very different to what is being suggested.
And also, what about that terrible fire? Not a terrorist attack, but the UK has now had four terrorist attacks (three in London) plus the worst fire since the Second World War, all in the last few months. And the unrest of a hung parliament. Tough times.
I believe the properties that Corbyn was talking about have been completely abandoned. So why not use them? The UK has some weird laws about "squatting" - basically, it's allowed, I was reading. There are many people in terrible need right now after that horrific fire, so if the properties are not to be used, a) the owners shouldn't have abandoned them and b) the Tory government should have outlawed squatting. I rather like Corbyn. He seems much more human than May. Guess I'm just an ole' socialist at heart! Actions and inactions have consequences, and the owners of those properties are nowhere to be found. People do abandon properties - it really happens. I once lived next door to a house like that. Putting the newly homeless in some of those - providing the properties were truly abandoned - seems like a sensible solution to me. But there might be some issues with electricity, water, dampness etc. In that case, not a good idea - but for practical reasons, not because I don't agree with the principle.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,720
Jambalaya - it's not houses that have been abandoned that he's proposing be requesitioned, but rather some of a number of expensive, second homes. Kensington property is extremely expensive and has attracted huge amounts of foreign investors in recent years who buy homes as capital investments and rarely use them. I've heard the term 'ghost area' used for some areas as so few people actually live permanently in some streets.
Abandoned houses, fair enough to use. But I'm not sure people would take kindly to their second home/holiday home bring requesitioned at no notice and for an indefinite period when they legally own the property!
Abandoned houses, fair enough to use. But I'm not sure people would take kindly to their second home/holiday home bring requesitioned at no notice and for an indefinite period when they legally own the property!
Oh, I see. If they are not actually abandoned, then no, I wouldn't agree.
Does the UK's squatting laws allow it, legally, though? I was reading that if no one lives in a property, and squatters "move in," it's allowed and you can't get them out. Is that true? Perhaps Corbyn was thinking of utilizing those laws. I'm not saying that I think this is right, I'm just curious to know if such actions are allowed by law.
Does the UK's squatting laws allow it, legally, though? I was reading that if no one lives in a property, and squatters "move in," it's allowed and you can't get them out. Is that true? Perhaps Corbyn was thinking of utilizing those laws. I'm not saying that I think this is right, I'm just curious to know if such actions are allowed by law.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,720
I'm pretty sure you can't legally squat in residential property, only non-residential.
I don't know how Corbyn was proposing it would work legally. In fact, I've seen a few articles that suggest it wouldn't be legal under current laws. Government can forcibly buy property if necessary to build railways etc, but owners must be fairly compensated. For government to buy-out highly expensive central London property would be totally unfeasible I would have thought!
I don't know how Corbyn was proposing it would work legally. In fact, I've seen a few articles that suggest it wouldn't be legal under current laws. Government can forcibly buy property if necessary to build railways etc, but owners must be fairly compensated. For government to buy-out highly expensive central London property would be totally unfeasible I would have thought!
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,228
I am struggling somewhat with the labelling of this attack as 'terrorist'.
With the classic internet caveat that "I'm no expert, but..."
In my mind, the aim of Terrorism is to target random people indiscriminately - yes, the attackers may be looking to target 'the decadent west' (or whatever choice of words is appropriate) but they care not whether the victims are young, old, black, white, sikh, Christian, muslim, atheist, gay, straight, trans, disabled... just as long as it creates fear and causes damage on a wide scale. They are often supported or encouraged by large organisations with an agenda to promote, and killing 'their own kind' who are living 'incorrectly' (defined as such because they are not following the set of practices that the attacker(s) feel should be applied) is an acceptable risk and/or a desired outcome.
To me, this attack is a racist attack - it specifically targeted a specific group of society, one different that that of the attacker's, and it does not appear to be anything other than a lone man with mental health issues.
But then, as Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of Finsbury Park Mosque is quoted as saying in the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960
one can take the view that "an attack on one faith is an attack on all faith and communities", so perhaps it is a terror attack?
I don't know... We should all be standing side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends and local communities, regardless of what boxes they might tick on a census form, so I think he is right when I stop to think about it. Why should I think "it's alright, I'm not being targeted so I don't have to worry"?? That sort of thinking is what caused the trouble in the early 40s in Europe... [/Godwin's Law]
I'm not even sure where I'm going with this post, really, other than I'm always interested in hearing others' views so I can reconsider my own from a different perspective. As I sit here and think about it, perhaps I'm actually (and up until now subconsciously) labouring under the misguided assumption/viewpoint that only majority-white, 'western' populations with low percentages of 'religious' people are targets of terrorism under the (self-described) definitions above, because the majority of terrorists in recent times seem to come from non-white ethnic/religious groups with a strong desire to effect change towards a more controlled, more religious, more middle-eastern (as per the seemingly generally accepted politico-geographic definition of the term) society, rather than let the (usually) peaceful co-existence of many and varied groups of people continue in the West.
But then attacks on innocent civilians all-too-regularly take place within that area of the world itself, where different religious and ethnic groups seemingly are trying to gain dominance through the application of blunt force - often through setting off car bombs and suicide bombs in crowded market areas, with no consideration of who may be there. (IIRC one of the latest killed something like 80 people, yet only made the news briefly over here.) Is that not a terrorist attack rather than a racist attack?
Does that make any sense?
Am I actually a closet racist??
I do wonder/fear that I have some sort of ingrained racism in me, borne out of growing up several decades ago, when the world was a less tolerant place and parents passed on to their children the bigotry of the past because it was just what was done, with snide comments and stereotypes openly thrown about 'amusingly'. I can only hope that the work that is being done in schools now to encourage inclusivity and acceptance of others, regardless of their characteristics or beliefs, is having and will continue to have a positive effect over the longer term.
Thanks for sticking with me if you made it this far. It's 30+degrees Centigrade over here today so I think I need to go and have a cold shower to clear my head...
With the classic internet caveat that "I'm no expert, but..."
In my mind, the aim of Terrorism is to target random people indiscriminately - yes, the attackers may be looking to target 'the decadent west' (or whatever choice of words is appropriate) but they care not whether the victims are young, old, black, white, sikh, Christian, muslim, atheist, gay, straight, trans, disabled... just as long as it creates fear and causes damage on a wide scale. They are often supported or encouraged by large organisations with an agenda to promote, and killing 'their own kind' who are living 'incorrectly' (defined as such because they are not following the set of practices that the attacker(s) feel should be applied) is an acceptable risk and/or a desired outcome.
To me, this attack is a racist attack - it specifically targeted a specific group of society, one different that that of the attacker's, and it does not appear to be anything other than a lone man with mental health issues.
But then, as Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of Finsbury Park Mosque is quoted as saying in the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960
one can take the view that "an attack on one faith is an attack on all faith and communities", so perhaps it is a terror attack?
I don't know... We should all be standing side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends and local communities, regardless of what boxes they might tick on a census form, so I think he is right when I stop to think about it. Why should I think "it's alright, I'm not being targeted so I don't have to worry"?? That sort of thinking is what caused the trouble in the early 40s in Europe... [/Godwin's Law]
I'm not even sure where I'm going with this post, really, other than I'm always interested in hearing others' views so I can reconsider my own from a different perspective. As I sit here and think about it, perhaps I'm actually (and up until now subconsciously) labouring under the misguided assumption/viewpoint that only majority-white, 'western' populations with low percentages of 'religious' people are targets of terrorism under the (self-described) definitions above, because the majority of terrorists in recent times seem to come from non-white ethnic/religious groups with a strong desire to effect change towards a more controlled, more religious, more middle-eastern (as per the seemingly generally accepted politico-geographic definition of the term) society, rather than let the (usually) peaceful co-existence of many and varied groups of people continue in the West.
But then attacks on innocent civilians all-too-regularly take place within that area of the world itself, where different religious and ethnic groups seemingly are trying to gain dominance through the application of blunt force - often through setting off car bombs and suicide bombs in crowded market areas, with no consideration of who may be there. (IIRC one of the latest killed something like 80 people, yet only made the news briefly over here.) Is that not a terrorist attack rather than a racist attack?
Does that make any sense?
Am I actually a closet racist??
I do wonder/fear that I have some sort of ingrained racism in me, borne out of growing up several decades ago, when the world was a less tolerant place and parents passed on to their children the bigotry of the past because it was just what was done, with snide comments and stereotypes openly thrown about 'amusingly'. I can only hope that the work that is being done in schools now to encourage inclusivity and acceptance of others, regardless of their characteristics or beliefs, is having and will continue to have a positive effect over the longer term.
Thanks for sticking with me if you made it this far. It's 30+degrees Centigrade over here today so I think I need to go and have a cold shower to clear my head...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,628
wow these are both horrible. I heard the person who died was an elderly man who collapsed in front of the mosque. As people gathered to help him they were mowed down and it was the elderly man who died (not released of what cause). Hadn't heard about the 17 year old girl. What kind of coward does that?
AnnaH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,262
Oooh, don't think you should stress over this as I don't think there is a widely accepted definition for terrorist. From bystander reports he was after Muslims, so sounds like a hate crime for sure and terrorism depending on the definition employed. Beyond horrible if this turns into a tit for tat situation.
All beyond horrible. It's heartbreaking to see so much hate, so often, in so many places.
And I think, equally, you could argue that divisiveness and hate were also stirred up by Mssrs. Farage, Johnson and Gove around Brexit, and no one's really found much of a way to calm the waters.
Re the housing thing - Obviously you can't just requisition people's empty houses and use them, and I believe the squatting laws have changed in recent years to make it illegal to squat in residential property, which is a good thing. That said, many years in a row of governments, both labour and conservative, held onto policies that made London an extraordinarily favourable place for foreigners to park their money. And we're not talking investors, as in people buying rental property, or even second home owners, as in people who spend part of the year in one place and part of the year in another, but extraordinarily wealthy people who buy prime real estate and literally leave it sitting empty for years at a time. We used to live in a neighbourhood that is known for this, and I would say, in the ten years we lived there, it did indeed turn into a ghost neighbourhood. We had one neighbour who did indeed come to London occasionally - and they stayed at the Connaught, never even setting foot in their massive house.
All of which has contributed mightily to a massive housing shortage here. In our neighbourhood, the average sold price is over £1.7m (about $2.1m). Clearly, increasingly nurses and teachers and electricians and policemen and women and even doctors and lawyers can't touch property here. And every piece of empty land goes to developers who bang up cookie cutter flats that sell almost exclusively to foreign investors and then, you guessed it, sit empty.
There really are no easy answers.
And I think, equally, you could argue that divisiveness and hate were also stirred up by Mssrs. Farage, Johnson and Gove around Brexit, and no one's really found much of a way to calm the waters.
Re the housing thing - Obviously you can't just requisition people's empty houses and use them, and I believe the squatting laws have changed in recent years to make it illegal to squat in residential property, which is a good thing. That said, many years in a row of governments, both labour and conservative, held onto policies that made London an extraordinarily favourable place for foreigners to park their money. And we're not talking investors, as in people buying rental property, or even second home owners, as in people who spend part of the year in one place and part of the year in another, but extraordinarily wealthy people who buy prime real estate and literally leave it sitting empty for years at a time. We used to live in a neighbourhood that is known for this, and I would say, in the ten years we lived there, it did indeed turn into a ghost neighbourhood. We had one neighbour who did indeed come to London occasionally - and they stayed at the Connaught, never even setting foot in their massive house.
All of which has contributed mightily to a massive housing shortage here. In our neighbourhood, the average sold price is over £1.7m (about $2.1m). Clearly, increasingly nurses and teachers and electricians and policemen and women and even doctors and lawyers can't touch property here. And every piece of empty land goes to developers who bang up cookie cutter flats that sell almost exclusively to foreign investors and then, you guessed it, sit empty.
There really are no easy answers.
AnnaH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,262
J, I knew London housing was high but didn't know about foreign property owners contributing to that. That's unfortunate. Don't recall enough about what I read to say where, but I understand that there are some areas in the US where foreigners own a lot of real estate and businesses. This is a big country, but nothing to say that what is happening in London couldn't happen here.
300x240.png)