Tent thread

kittiej

There is an awful lot to this that just doesn't 'sit right'.

Suzy Butler makes things up which aren't true and appears to have no clue about renting property out- but she's a founder and MD of a charity in Peru and gives detailed talks about her work in order to raise funds. Clearly she's not a stupid person and I expect she could be quite gutsy when she has to be, so why didn't she check about her duties as a LL? It doesn't fit.

Carmen we haven't seen or heard from since the camera crew episode. Where is she? How is she doing?

There are mettings and discussions planned - why is this when all you would do in this situation is be glad to have your home back. Would people normally want to carry on with any media attention afterwards or would they let it settle down?

Why didn't the tv behind the scenes people check the credibility of the story before giving it airtime?

None of this makes sense to me, there are to many questions rather than answers.

dopester

john539 wrote: »

£6000 up-front, that is the sort of tenant you want.

Suzy wanted to let for the 2 months she was in Peru, so why accept £6000.

The monthly rent was around £1000 pcm.

The whole thing is crazy.

The monthly rent was £1,235. That included (rent of course) council tax + TV licence and water.

Tenant had to incur, (rent of course) utility bills of electricity and gas + contents insurance and phone (although stated to be used for incoming calls only)

I think we should be prepared for the possibility Carmen Nobre was trying to explain to the reporter and Suzy that she'd paid over £6,000 to date during her legal tenancy, and perhaps not upfront in a lump sum. It's not clear either way yet.

Pr1madonna

kittiej wrote: »

There is an awful lot to this that just doesn't 'sit right'.

Suzy Butler makes things up which aren't true and appears to have no clue about renting property out- but she's a founder and MD of a charity in Peru and gives detailed talks about her work in order to raise funds. .

Her charity work actually involves her bringing the art of baby massage to the poor people of Peru who don't have baby massage, poor things.

http://www.massage4baby.org/aboutsuzy.htm

Wee_Willy_Harris

Pr1madonna wrote: »

Her charity work actually involves her bringing the art of baby massage to the poor people of Peru who don't have baby massage, poor things.

http://www.massage4baby.org/aboutsuzy.htm

I'm filling up here (flaps hand at face)

kittiej

I don't want to pull her charity work to shreds tbh as there's more to it than baby massage I think

I was trying to point out that if she is capable of founding a charity and running her own business then why is she not capable of being a LL?

RAS

Pr1madonna wrote: »

Her charity work actually involves her bringing the art of baby massage to the poor people of Peru who don't have baby massage, poor things.

http://www.massage4baby.org/aboutsuzy.htm

off topic

If you read the Trust site, it seems that they may do rather more than that - not quite clear what though.

Basic kind human touch is one the most important things that can be offered - check out the Kid's Company. They found that a lot of their children had no experience of kind touch. They had to offer massage over clothes and baseball hats to get near kids. When one lad finally removed his shirt, they found that his back was a complete mass of scar tissue where he had been whipped repeatedly by his father.

Lack of kind touch is damaging to children and adults. However, I am not sure it requires lessons in baby massage to remedy the situation.

Trollfever

are shooting a video update!

I was expecting a live Stickam broadcast integrated with Facebook and Twitter.

Goes away to sulk.

red40

Do we really need to dissect the charity?.........I think not :embarasse

john539

Trollfever wrote: »

I was expecting a live Stickam broadcast integrated with Facebook and Twitter.

What are you talking about, that's over my head.

john539

dopester wrote: »

I think we should be prepared for the possibility Carmen Nobre was trying to explain to the reporter and Suzy that she'd paid over £6,000 to date during her legal tenancy, and perhaps not upfront in a lump sum. It's not clear either way yet.

I thought I'd seen/heard the tenant had paid £6000 up-front, but maybe I'm wrong & just read into or misinterpreted.

She looked a decent woman, was co-operative & deserved better.