Greedy landlords rub their hands with glee as Londoners queue in the cold to buy flats

[Diamond]

Yes

We're band 3 for antitrust last time I checked.

 

[Diamond]

Not 'inconvenient. ' More deceitful and dishonest with your sloppy, groundless racist/xenophobe slurs.

I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out. You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.

If you want to permaban me as a result, that is entirely your choice.

 

[Humberto]

I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out. You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.

If you want to permaban me as a result, that is entirely your choice.

I don't want to see you banned. But why should people be at risk in their housing by wealthy 'property' speculators. How is that a good thing?

 

[editor]

I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out. You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.

There is no 'underlying issue'. The suggestion of racism was entirely in your twisted and apparently easily confused noggin, as has been explained to you by several posters.

However, I would advise caution if you intend to make a habit of peppering these boards with any further groundless and offensive slurs.

 

[Diamond]

There is no 'underlying issue'. The suggestion of racism was entirely in your twisted and apparently easily confused noggin, as has been explained to you by several posters.

However, I would advise caution if you intend to make a habit of peppering these boards with any further groundless and offensive slurs.

Bugger off.

You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.

If you want to ban me, go ahead and get it over and done with.

If not, shut up.

 

[editor]

You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.

If you actually took the time to read the thread you'll see that several other posters have also made it abundantly clear that they saw through your cheap and deceitful racist slur. However, I can't help you if your arrogance or reading comprehension problems prevents you from actually acknowledging this fact.

 

[Diamond]

I don't want to see you banned. But why should people be at risk in their housing by wealthy 'property' speculators. How is that a good thing?

To clarify - I don't think this is a good thing. Not at all. However the solution, for me, is to build more accommodation to satisfy demand (supply-side), not to restrict further access to housing in specific areas (demand-side).

 

[Diamond]

If you actually took the time to read the thread you'll see that several other posters have also made it abundantly clear that they saw through your cheap and deceitful your racist slur. However, I can't help you if your arrogance or reading comprehension problems prevents you from actually acknowledging this fact.

So you're not going to make an argument and say "look over there", "others make the running for me..."

Pathetic.

Address the issues I have raised directly or retreat from your position.

 

[Humberto]

To clarify - I don't think this is a good thing. Not at all. However the solution, for me, is to build more accommodation to satisfy demand (supply-side), not to restrict further access to housing in specific areas (demand-side).

Build more accomodation where? In London?

 

[editor]

So you're not going to make an argument and say "look over there", "others make the running for me..."

I see no point in repeating what others have already told you, so sssssscch now.

 

[Diamond]

Build more accomodation where? In London?

Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).

 

[editor]

Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).

What if those people in public sector jobs don't want to be removed from their friends and families and shunted off to some far flung new work place?

 

[Diamond]

What if those people in public sector jobs don't want to be removed from their friends and families and shunted off to some far flung new work place?

Then I'm sure that there will be others in the intended destinations more than happy to fill them.

Having a job in a specific place is not a kind of birthright.

Moreover what is so terrible about moving out of London?

(And maybe that last point gets to the heart of the problem about how Londoners find the prospect of leaving as a fate worse than death when nothing can be farther from the case...)

 

[Humberto]

Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).

Nah I appreciate where your coming from but the government will never build on the green belt. Public sector jobs have been spread around the UK but are now being minimised.

 

[Diamond]

Nah I appreciate where your coming from but the government will never build on the green belt. Public sector jobs have been spread around the UK but are now being minimised.

Building on the Green Belt is a quick fix, admittedly, but I don't see why you can't have wider programmes that try and tug up areas that have had a rough time for decades, like Cornwall, by virtue of the fact that a lot of work can be geographically isolated now.

 

[Humberto]

Practically whole regions of the UK have struggled for jobs for decades. As have more relevantly, millions of Londoners. You are right, its easily possible, but the government are not going to countenence it.

Anyway building on green belt is not going to happen, and devolving public services has already happened and is being reversed.

 

[editor]

Then I'm sure that there will be others in the intended destinations more than happy to fill them.

Having a job in a specific place is not a kind of birthright.

Moreover what is so terrible about moving out of London?

It's called being part of a community and belonging to a real-life social network. It may mean little to you, but to some people, their family and their friends form an important part of their lives, and asking them to leave it all behind may have a dramatically negative impact on them.

 

[editor]

Building on the Green Belt is a quick fix, admittedly, but I don't see why you can't have wider programmes that try and tug up areas that have had a rough time for decades, like Cornwall, by virtue of the fact that a lot of work can be geographically isolated now.

Who's going to pay for the billions needed to being their transport infrastructure up to scratch? And who's going to pay for all the relocation costs of all these people you want to uproot>?

 

[maomao]

Bugger off.

You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.

If you want to ban me, go ahead and get it over and done with.

If not, shut up.

Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:

And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?

It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.

 

[kabbes]

Maybe because she is quoted as saying the following:

So? Now you're the one who wants to take one single translated attributed quote with no context and use that to devine an entire attitude. And there are many thousands of people who commute for over an hour into London who would like to live closer but can't, so why does this help your point in any way?

Care to comment about that or any other of the salient issues that I have brought up and that you have chosen to so carefully ignore?

Ah, but you haven't made any salient issues. At all. You've just insisted that the free market is king and any interference is disastrous. Everything you've said has been a microcosm of this fundamentalist belief. But that's a long-since discredited credo. I'm waiting for a robust defence of your unfettered free-marketism, but you've given us nothing but restatements of the same axioms, relying on isolated anecdotal, Ill-considered and irrelevant examples to make your case for you.

That's fine, but I'm not rehashing the last 20 years of economics for your benefit. If you want to cling on to free-market fundamentalism, go for it. Everybody else will continue to roll their eyes, though, and you should at least try to understand why.

 

[Diamond]

Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:

No, it's not. I think we've exhausted this now but to be clear, the point I was making is that someone from "outside" was coming "in" and therefore was the target of the newspaper and the editor's ire. Pretty straightforward...

 

[ddraig]

look, nearly everyone but you can see it was an insinuation/out of order claim
wind it in and apologise or fuck off, your wriggling is not working and your intellect not what you think it is

 

[ViolentPanda]

Build more accomodation where? In London?

Wherever it is needed. It's not like every town and city in the land doesn't have plenty of brown-field sites that can be developed, despite developers whinging about doing so.
The crux is that accommodation is built to accommodate, not to used primarily as a mechanism for wealth accumulation.

 

[maomao]

No, it's not. I think we've exhausted this now but to be clear, the point I was making is that someone from "outside" was coming "in" and therefore was the target of the newspaper and the editor's ire. Pretty straightforward...

I quoted directly and said which page it was on so that readers could judge for themselves. I've stated my opinion. It was a smear.

 

[Diamond]

So? Now you're the one who wants to take one single translated attributed quote with no context and use that to devine an entire attitude. And there are many thousands of people who commute for over an hour into London who would like to live closer but can't, so why does this help your point in any way?


Ah, but you haven't made any salient issues. At all. You've just insisted that the free market is king and any interference is disastrous. Everything you've said has been a microcosm of this fundamentalist belief. But that's a long-since discredited credo. I'm waiting for a robust defence of your unfettered free-marketism, but you've given us nothing but restatements of the same axioms, relying on isolated anecdotal, Ill-considered and irrelevant examples to make your case for you.

That's fine, but I'm not rehashing the last 20 years of economics for your benefit. If you want to cling on to free-market fundamentalism, go for it. Everybody else will continue to roll their eyes, though, and you should at least try to understand why.

You have not dealt with even half the points that I have put to you, mainly through the use of selective quotation.

If I was minded to do so, I'd level that you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:

He's never going to cop to it, though. His self-image won't let him.

 

[Diamond]

I'd also be interested to know what Kabbes felt about the prospect of more homes being built for badly needed supply in his patch of this green and pleasant land.

 

[Diamond]

I quoted directly and said which page it was on so that readers could judge for themselves. I've stated my opinion. It was a smear.

It's not an accusation of racism - the key angles are "foreign" and "British". If you think that's racist, then you probably need to get up to speed on what those terms mean in the modern world.

 

[The Boy]

Christ, it's like listening to those dull cunts who give it the whole "islam isn't a race, lolz" bollocks. You accused others of bigotry, you were called on it and are now trying to wriggle out of said accusation. It's rather sad, tbh

 

[Diamond]

Christ, it's like listening to those dull cunts who give it the whole "islam isn't a race, lolz" bollocks. You accused others of bigotry, you were called on it and are now trying to wriggle out of said accusation. It's rather sad, tbh

Yes, I called others on bigotry and I stand by that.

I think the singling out of the one foreign buyer and the misrepresentation of his words is bigotry, admittedly probably by error on the editor's part through relying on a cynical journalist.

But, yes, that is bigotry.