Guinness Trust plans for Loughborough Park Estate
- Thread starter lang rabbie
- Start date
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I empathise. But it does not change the facts.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
True. But, among the multitude of housing injustices, I don't think this a particularly good case.
editor
hiraethified
The lack of empathy for those at the bottom struggling with insecure tenancies seems to be an increasingly common theme from those people fortunate enough to own a property (or two).
Maybe - for some - it gets easy to forget what it feels like to not have any kind of security at all when you're sitting nice and comfortably in your 'hard earned' home.
editor
hiraethified
Perhaps if you were one of the residents facing eviction from a tightly knit community that you've been part of for over a decade you might think it a "particularly" better case.
Any case of long term residents being booted out is a good case to fight in my book.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Why?
Dorchester Court signed agreements that mean there landlord can up the rent to whatever they want and also many at Dorchestor Court do not have long tenancy agreements. According to your logic they signed up to that freely. Thats the deal.
If do not support GT ASTs then you do not empathise with them in my book.
editor
hiraethified
So a poor and desperate person being booted out with their family after ten years in the community - for whatever reason - appears as a 'weak case' to you? I guess you must have felt the same about Carlton Mansions as well, yes? And Rushcroft Road?
editor
hiraethified
I think the lack of general empathy may also spring from the way that Brixton has changed and split into a two tier community, with the 'haves' holding all the power and influence. Whereas, say 10 years ago, the majority of people living nearby would have naturally expressed sympathy and empathy for those losing their homes/squats/co-ops, there's a new generation who have paid a fortune to live here and don't like the idea of anyone getting it "easy."
I know you're well-intentioned.
What I don't understand about some people on here - you might even say the *culture* on here - is to conflate different issues to make a disingenuous and wholly bogus point.
In this thread and in the case of Editor it's to confuse squatters rights with tenancy contracts. He even goes so far as to post up a photo of squatters being evicted - and has the bollocks to ask other people where their "empathy" is. And then he wringing his hands at what *might* be imminent eviction when the law plainly states several weeks notice is required and GT is a responsible provider of social housing. It's all intended to feed his 'story', and fuck the threatened residents themselves.
And now Editor is on about "empathy" again. This time it's for another poster pointing out, perish the thought, facts - like legal facts. Empathy is helping vulnerable people, empathy is not knowingly conflating legal rights and posting up images intended to create entirely false uncertainty that only feeds a bogus narrative in BrixtonLolz.
These people need legal facts not some two bob photo-journalist rushing round to take images of a lorry removing a crane.
Classic case of conflating completely different rights and situations. This is after it's been pointed out time and time again.
< Insert another photo of squatters being evicted 24 hours after moving in >
And Mr Empathy is helping residents by doing that, right?
Because those places look nicer, or are less far down the road?
Help me out here please, I'm struggling.
What's being done by the Guinness Trust could be got away with elsewhere, so you need to either support all or support none.
BTW I'd love to stay and split hairs with you but, after a profiteering arsehole was snooping around here last night, and having had a night to think about it, there are some emails I need to get out.
Manter
Lunch Mob
//snip
I don't think this is true. It's not buy one protest get one free. (To borrow Winot's phrase). All of us can make our own decisions on what we support and what we don't- what we are against and what we aren't.
I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum. I do believe that everyone should have a secure and decent standard place to live. If I get involved in campaigning for the latter, do I have to sign up for the former? I don't think so.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I have repeatedly said that short-life properties should have been converted into proper council tenancies.
Last edited:
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Dorchester is a case of private landlord greed. Without justification and completely different.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I wish I had some 'power and influence'. And was not such a bad person.
Last edited:
This is as good a thread as any to put this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/12/800m-shortfall-social-housing-london
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
They should put a percentage levy on every newbuild. And use that cash to build council homes.
The current system allows developers to take the piss.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
...and can be unilaterally broken by the party with the most power with few consequences.
And other people don't.
You appear to be living in a parallel dimension where everyone has equal access to opportunities and assets.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Too many people nowadays find no percentage in "wasting" empathy on those less fortunate than themselves. It was always thus. Just note their name, mark a discreet "x" on their door, and wait for fate to take its' course...
editor
hiraethified
You appear to be comfortably off and - AFAIK - you own a house so have a secure tenure. That gives you considerably more power and influence over those who have neither.
editor
hiraethified
Instead of telling me this here, why not go down and put your beliefs into action and try to help the residents? Get to know them, talk to them, see what they want and if you can help in any way. It's not hard.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's a fundamental case, because it involves a fundamental need.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I hold no animus against anyone who has housing security. I do have animus against those people who see their housing security as marking their superiority to those who are insecure, because their position is as fatuous as someone lording it over you because they inherited a title - their actions signify nothing except their own small-mindedness.
I'm not talking about leanderman here, btw, but about those whodo seem to be an "increasing" blight in our communities.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So often the human side of the stories of such residents gets ignored in favour of the "legal" side. Yet it's the human side of us that makes those "tightly knit communities" that our town is rightly famous for. If people forget that, in favour of only caring about their own corner of Brixton, then they deserve what they'll eventually get - a bland monocultural Brixton peopled by identikit gits.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's not a "weaker" case, it's a different case. All three are very different, but Dorchester Court tenants could be said (by someone making a similar argument to yours early) to have a "weak case" because they freely chose their fate by signing up to ASTs, and Cressingham residents could be said to have a weak case due to resisting the requirements of their lawful landlord/freeholder.
It's all about perspective, and whether you believe that some people are more equal than others.
[ QUOTE="Manter, post: 13889632, member: 51952"]<snip>I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum.<snip> [/QUOTE]
I don't know where that came from, and I'd really rather not know.
The right to a roof over your head is a human right, as defined by the UN. Eroded housing rights for one person eventually leads to eroded housing rights for all, no matter what your worldview etc is.
In case you haven't noticed, there's a 5 year problem in Westminster right now, and it's a more deserving and dangerous enemy than the most obnoxious urbanite troll. Now can all of us (including me) please stop fighting each other when there are far more important targets outside?
I don't know where that came from, and I'd really rather not know.
The right to a roof over your head is a human right, as defined by the UN. Eroded housing rights for one person eventually leads to eroded housing rights for all, no matter what your worldview etc is.
In case you haven't noticed, there's a 5 year problem in Westminster right now, and it's a more deserving and dangerous enemy than the most obnoxious urbanite troll. Now can all of us (including me) please stop fighting each other when there are far more important targets outside?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No-one's asking you to sign on to the burning pitchfork brigade, are they?
I support the idea that "everyone should have a secure and decent place to live", and because I do, I support all lawful iterations of the struggle for that - even those iterations I find distasteful - because a "united front" against the exploiters of housing is IMO necessary.
So "you need to either support all or support none" seems rational to me, insofar as trying to pick and choose whether a housing struggle fits preconceived internal criteria actively detracts from the important issue - the housing struggle.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Similar threads
