Tent thread

kittiej

Ah now then - protection/insurance is more like it.

dopester

sp1987 wrote: »

The radio 5 guy is actually very diplomatic.

In a few parts he does pretty ok.

Especially pointing out the tenant hasn't broken the law, and at the very end saying "it will be a situation a lot of decent people/tenants up and down the country will find themselves in - "re rent arrears".

In other parts, given that he obviously knows a bit about renting/laws, he's weak. Very weak.

Firstly he introduces the piece:

"Now, next up, a woman who runs a charity for homeless children in Peru has found herself without a roof over her head, after returning back home to the UK.

Suzy Butler and her four year old son had been rebuilding with the charity XXX Survivors, when they returned to their home in Sussex, a squatter had moved in."

Later he became very aware it wasn't a squatter but a lawful tenant. He never reversed back to point out that the description which very much had led to the landlord even being on the radio "squatter" was not true.

He did make some attempts at balance, saying in fairness that with a tenancy agreement, she's the tenant, and a lot of tenants wouldn't let landlords in (on their instant demand) to their homes.

He should have focussed more on the fact the landlord was ignorant, and had her own blame for the situation she was in.

He didn't seem to realise there was anything wrong that Suzy Butler had been to the tenants home, and had given her 10 minutes to make a decision about whether she'd leave today (after all her own, pressure, with the media pressure too.)

Stephen Nolan: (towards the end of the piece) You sound like a strong lady to me but an incredible stressful time. There's nothing, there's nothing more comfortable than getting into your own home."

She rented it out Stephen, with a tenancy agreement in place, which charged a monthly rate of £1,235 per month. There are procedures to follow if the business meets a problem.

He even ended the conversation with the landlord, after she thanked him for his support (lol), by saying "more room to you" to the landlord, and was excited to find out if there was a "successful result" on the day.

sp1987

dopester wrote: »

In a few parts he does pretty ok.

Especially pointing out the tenant hasn't broken the law, and at the very end saying "it will be a situation a lot of decent people/tenants up and down the country will find themselves in - "re rent arrears".

In other parts, given that he obviously knows a bit about renting/laws, he's weak. Very weak.

Firstly he introduces the piece:

Later he became very aware it wasn't a squatter but a lawful tenant. He never reversed back to point out that the description which very much had led to the landlord even being on the radio "squatter" was not true.

He did make some attempts at balance, saying in fairness that with a tenancy agreement, she's the tenant, and a lot of tenants wouldn't let landlords in (on their instant demand) to their homes.

He should have focussed more on the fact the landlord was ignorant, and had her own blame for the situation she was in.

He didn't seem to realise there was anything wrong that Suzy Butler had been to the tenants home, and had given her 10 minutes to make a decision about whether she'd leave today (after all her own, pressure, with the media pressure too.)

She rented it out Stephen, with a tenancy agreement in place, which charged a monthly rate of £1,235 per month. There are procedures to follow if the business meets a problem.

He even ended the conversation with the landlord, after she thanked him for his support (lol), by saying "more room to you" to the landlord, and was excited to find out if there was a "successful result" on the day.

To be fair I was comparing him to the GMTV journalist who was about as diplomatic and assertive as a jar of pickled onions left out in the sun.

Compared to any other non-journalist species he was pretty poor, I grant you, lol.

julie03

red40 wrote: »

What happened to the webchat, was that a no show as well?

looks like the webchat has now moved to tuesday the 31st at 17.00

when everybody is at work or on their way home, so put at another time when nobody can ask questions

mynameisdave

I (unfortunately) do not have a job to go to. I might just have to visit their web chattaroo.

felix-b

Of the many, many things that don't stack up in this story is the 'school' thing. Initially, it was all about needing the money to go to Spain for a better life for her child. Now it turns out he starts school in Hove next week, which presumably has been planned for some time. If the tenant hadn't fallen behind with the rent which enabled the illegal eviction, where would Suzy have lived?

oldone_2

felix-b wrote: »

Of the many, many things that don't stack up in this story is the 'school' thing. Initially, it was all about needing the money to go to Spain for a better life for her child. Now it turns out he starts school in Hove next week, which presumably has been planned for some time. If the tenant hadn't fallen behind with the rent which enabled the illegal eviction, where would Suzy have lived?

It would be interesting to know if the school in question is oversubscribed and is only taking in pupils from its catchment area. If so it would put a whole new light on the actions of Ms Butler.

tbs624

Pr1madonna wrote: »

I know this is probably mean and unfair...

Yes, it is. Not only that but, IMO, it contains errors and detracts from the thread's real topic. It really isn't beneficial, especially when the original thread got deleted.

felix-b

oldone wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if the school in question is oversubscribed and is only taking in pupils from its catchment area. If so it would put a whole new light on the actions of Ms Butler.

I did post a comment about this on the original thread. Primary school allocation in Hove is a major local issue...

Pr1madonna

tbs624 wrote: »

Yes, it is. Not only that but, IMO, it contains errors and detracts from the thread's real topic. It really isn't beneficial, especially when the original thread got deleted.

The old thread got deleted because it was making too much work for the mods with the addition of people's personal addresses etc

As for factual errors, I think you need to do your research!
(All in the public domain) 20/10/2009 FINAL GAZETTE: DISSOLVED VIA VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF