London has developed 'Apartheid' style properties

The-Joker

That young woman from the poor side who met the bloke from the rich side at the end of the program, well she did not look like what has been referred to on here as the stay up late smoking and drinking type.

Most people on the poor side of what they were talking about are hard working, min wage jobs, or low income sure. But they work just as hard as those who were born into money or for other reasons have high paid jobs.

JencParker

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They aren't poor doors. These are generally managed apartments where the owners, as well as paying a fortune to live there are also paying a few thousand a year in management fees. The concierge entrance is part of this.

The 'low cost' apartments might be low cost for the socially housed tenants, but they arent low cost for the taxpayer. i.e. working people who can't afford to live in London themselves.

Not much sympathy from me, and the sooner the government stops meddling with private developers having to build social housing the better IMO. They ruin many of the estates they are placed on and are probably responsible for restricting new developments much more than planning restrictions.

So what is your answer to building low cost homes?

JencParker

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

I am a hateful person that for no reason at all has a hatred of out of work scum bags who think it is ok to party all night on a Tuesday, with windows open, music blaring out and thousands of cigarette butts thrown on the floor next to their clapped out motor with no tax and three flat tyres.

How dare I have any issue with these local "salt of the earth" types who love their mother - and would probably have loved their father if they had a clue who he was.

I am deeply snobby for thinking it wrong that I should spend all day at work and then an hour commuting on the train each way to pay council tax for these people in "affordable" housing to live the high life, have their refuse collected, have street lights and anything else they want.

And if you ask these people nicely to refrain, you get a lovely mouthful of abuse in return and fear for your property, as they know where you live.

No need for out of work low lives to be living in London (or home counties near stations). They can all be resettled into an upnorth sink hole where they can smoke and drink themselves into oblivion without disturbing decent people.

But we are not talking about 'out of work lowlifes' as you put it, we are talking about working people on low wages who cannot afford the commute either. Or are no such jobs required in London - I guess the wealthy just do all the menial jobs themselves do they?

caronoel

The-Joker wrote: »

Most people on the poor side of what they were talking about are hard working, min wage jobs, or low income sure. But they work just as hard as those who were born into money or for other reasons have high paid jobs.

Really? How do you know that? This is a lazy Liberal assumption

I work far far harder than someone on minimum wage, and get paid commensurately.

JencParker

caronoel wrote: »

Really? How do you know that? This is a lazy Liberal assumption

I work far far harder than someone on minimum wage, and get paid commensurately.

How do you know that? That is a lazy, arrogant !!!!!!'s assumption!

cells

JencParker wrote: »

So what is your answer to building low cost homes?

build low cost home

how many nobel prizes in economics do I get?

cells

JencParker wrote: »

But we are not talking about 'out of work lowlifes' as you put it, we are talking about working people on low wages who cannot afford the commute either. Or are no such jobs required in London - I guess the wealthy just do all the menial jobs themselves do they?

24% of the homes in London are "social" already

London does not need more than 24% of its workforce to stack shelves so there is no need for more social homes in London.

In fact London has more than the national average of 17%, (and the national average excluding London is even less)

So stop building social homes in London, ask the developers for a cash bribe instead and build more homes elsewhere

cells

We don't need social homes, just like we don't need social bread

What is worst is that we definitely don't need selectively giving out social homes, just like we do not need social bakeries ONLY giving subsidised bread to those approved by the council deemed on a points bases of how skinny you are

Instead we need amply supply of New homes so prices for new homes are affordable for the majority (80% of the population) and second home homes even more affordable yet

JencParker

cells wrote: »

24% of the homes in London are "social" already

London does not need more than 24% of its workforce to stack shelves so there is no need for more social homes in London.

In fact London has more than the national average of 17%, (and the national average excluding London is even less)

So stop building social homes in London, ask the developers for a cash bribe instead and build more homes elsewhere

Where do you get that figure and how do you define 'social homes'? The London Borough I live in owns NO social housing. There is a small amount of housing association homes but other than that 'those in need of social housing live in private rentals.

CLAPTON

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

What if one door said "no blacks"?

that would be illegal

currently it is legal to pay differently for different jobs and it's legal to charge differently for different products and services

why does this come as a surprise to you?