Guinness Trust plans for Loughborough Park Estate

[Manter]

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?

The first was from a banner shown earlier in this thread, used at theGuinness Trust blockade; the second is a trope of the class struggle (though I have seen it more often in the US than here) and the latter has been said on these boards- most recently in the arches thread iirc.

 

[Greebo]

The first was from a banner shown earlier in this thread, used at theGuinness Trust blockade; the second is a trope of the class struggle (though I have seen it more often in the US than here) and the latter has been said on these boards- most recently in the arches thread iirc.

You tar one protest with what you see as the faults belonging to another protest?

 

[Manter]

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.

I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. But we all know that doesn't happen. Nor perhaps should it- if I believe that the housing crisis is caused by capitalism and it needs to be structurally dismantled from the ground up I should be free to say that. Whereas if I think that the issue is not capitalism but the free spending oligarchs who are given tax breaks: or the influx of Eastern Europeans only coming here for benefits: or the scum middle classes taking place in social cleansing- I should be able to say that.

And also accept that my saying that has consequences: that some of the people listening may disagree or even choose not to engage with a particular protest or action because they are uncomfortable. That doesn't make either side bad people.

 

[Manter]

You tar one protest with what you see as the faults belonging to another protest?

Eh?

You said that if you support one you have to support all the others.

I said no, there are some parts of some protests that make me (and others) uncomfortable and we are not honour-bound to sign up to them wholesale. And provided examples, all pertaining to the housing crisis in London, one from a few posts ago that make me, personally, uncomfortable and that I do not want to be associated with.

The fact I don't want to stand behind a banner saying smash capitalism on the Guinness estate doesn't make me less of a supported of Cressigham.

 

[editor]

Eh?

You said that if you support one you have to support all the others.

I said no, there are some parts of some protests that make me (and others) uncomfortable and we are not honour-bound to sign up to them wholesale. And provided examples, all pertaining to the housing crisis in London, one from a few posts ago that make me, personally, uncomfortable and that I do not want to be associated with.

The fact I don't want to stand behind a banner saying smash capitalism on the Guinness estate doesn't make me less of a supported of Cressigham.

We all live in a system where we often find ourselves juxtaposed next to things we don't like. For example, I fucking hate the power and the greed of the big corporates and the banking system, but I often end up using their products and services.

To not come out and support those in most need because an individual is waving a banner you don't agree with seems a bit trite by comparison.

 

[Greebo]

I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. <snip>

That was attempted with some of the early ones for Cressingham Gardens. It didn't draw much attention or help.

FWIW I've even tried to keep all of those things out of the banners, certainly any which I may have had a hand in. There is no racist, xenophobic, classist, sexist, homophobic, hatemongering, or party political banner which I've ever made. What happens elsewhere is something for others to square with themselves, but very frightened and angry people sometimes do unwise things.

Please bear in mind that protest is not regimented and centrally controlled; it's often fragmented, organic, disorganised. You can't ask people to donate their own time, plus their own materials, and then expect a veto on what they make. I don't condone divisiveness or infighting - it does the enemy's job for them.

 

[Greebo]

<snip> The fact I don't want to stand behind a banner saying smash capitalism on the Guinness estate doesn't make me less of a supported of Cressigham.

You know what? I didn't want to be outside the Town Hall with Left Unity last winter - but if they turn up and almost nobody else does (others were far more ill than I was), am I supposed to tell them to fuck off, or give up and go home in disgust, but at least with clean hands?

I didn't want to have my voice hijacked to develop and support the travesty which has become the so-called Test of Opinion on this estate, and yet it's happened. Should I kill myself for trusting an offical and then doing something which can't be undone?

 

[Manter]

Completely agree Greebo- well said. (To post I liked!)

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. But we all know that doesn't happen. Nor perhaps should it- if I believe that the housing crisis is caused by capitalism and it needs to be structurally dismantled from the ground up I should be free to say that. Whereas if I think that the issue is not capitalism but the free spending oligarchs who are given tax breaks: or the influx of Eastern Europeans only coming here for benefits: or the scum middle classes taking place in social cleansing- I should be able to say that.

Sure, but everyone brings their own individual stew of political views to each facet of their beliefs - it's inescapable, hence my point of still trying to maintain a "united front", even with those whose "stew" I find foul-tasting.
Too often I've found that If we pick and choose too much, we do the work of those we're opposing for them.

And also accept that my saying that has consequences: that some of the people listening may disagree or even choose not to engage with a particular protest or action because they are uncomfortable. That doesn't make either side bad people.

Of course not.

 

[Greebo]

Completely agree Greebo- well said. (To post I liked!)

May you never have to make that choice yourself.

I think you missed my point that this estate's earlier independant and completely non-divisive protests attracted very little attention and bugger all support or help.

 

[leanderman]

Interesting debate, points noted and I'm happy to be able to disagree, without unpleasantness.

 

[Up the junction]

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.

Well at least that is finally acknowledged in this thread.

The situation of the residents is fundamentally different and the goals of the landlord/developer are also different (providers of social housing vs. private developers). Residents either have contracts (tenancy agreements) or not - statutory and contractual rights and obligations vary enormously.

So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.

 

[editor]

So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.

Any chance of you letting go of your weird and ultra tedious obsession anytime soon? Oh, and for the clarity of users, have you ever posted here under a different name?

 

[Up the junction]

I can see how accuracy would be tedious for you. tbh, I only signed up to comment on the Loughborough Rd proposed closure so no. But you just see much is out of whack with reality on here it kind of sucks you in: How could so many people be so emphatic in their acceptance of polling data for so long, and be so ardent in their views based on that ... thousands of messages on that alone. It's a fascinating culture of confirmation bias.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well at least that is finally acknowledged in this thread.

Finally?
If you hadn't been so busy with your monotonous tirade, you might have noticed that the debate has always been a bit more nuanced than you imply.

The situation of the residents is fundamentally different and the goals of the landlord/developer are also different (providers of social housing vs. private developers). Residents either have contracts (tenancy agreements) or not - statutory and contractual rights and obligations vary enormously.

So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.

As ever, your use of language is informative, as a correctly-formulated description would be "former tenants currently squatting their former homes". Of course, that doesn't have quite the same negative impact as just vomiting out "squatter" as if the majority of occupiers are dreadhead crusty agitators.

How long have you worked for Guinness Trust?

 

[Up the junction]

How long have you worked for Guinness Trust?

This is one of the funniest things about the mindset on here. It's like sixth form Paxman. Not only do you bark up every wrong tree but you can't even bark. How's the election polling thread coming along?

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

This is one of the funniest things about the mindset on here. It's like sixth form Paxman. Not only do you bark up every wrong tree but you can't even bark. How's the election polling thread coming along?

How would you know so much?

 

[Up the junction]

Well Dexter, I have been experiencing it for a couple for months and its not exactly difficult to observe *like*

 

[shifting gears]

Ignore this cunt - nailed on he's a returnee.

What shouldn't be ignored is the handwringing, the 'oh but it's the LAW', the comparing GT to other estates, or the simple inferences that those living there have nothing to protest about and should ship up and get out.

Well FUCK THAT. The law stinks, and if oppressed and disadvantaged people had stuck to the poxy fucking law then there'd still be apartheid, segregation, no gay rights.... The list is fucking endless.

So, you're either for the GT residents, or against them. Pick your side. And if you're against, fuck off out the thread to your comfy owned homes, and let those of us who give a shit, or face similar circumstances, support them and try and work out how to change things for the better.

 

[SpamMisery]

Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me

 

[shifting gears]

Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me

Nah, it's time for binary. In case you hadn't notice the most vulnerable and disadvantaged are getting shafted more than ever. There's no more time for nuance with cases like this - you're either for the developers, or the people. Just like today's proposed anti-trade union legislation offers a binary choice - pro-unions, or against the unions.

Knowing your online persona, I suspect I know which side you'll fall into line with.

 

[Up the junction]

Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor.

it seems so on this message board. The other poster has just demonstrated the way to build internet status on their chosen forum.

Most of them have thousands of posts on here and can't find the time to look up basic legal distinctions. But that's okay cos were, like anarchists, maaaan.

Anarchists: the only group to poll lower than the Monster Raving Looney Party. Maaaan.

 

[leanderman]

Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me

Marginalising moderates is a political tactic.

And it must be quite satisfying to classify oneself as good and others as bad.

 

[shifting gears]

it seems so on this message board. The other poster has just demonstrated the way to build internet status on their chosen forum.

.

If I'm the "other poster", it's interesting that you'd conflate 'building status' with 'actually giving a fuck, not wanting to see people forced from their homes' and empathising, because not other things, I'm in a precarious position, housing wise, myself.

So for someone banging on about conflating, give yourself a good star in.... Yep, conflating.

Knobs like you just can't get it through your head can you - concepts of solidarity, of fighting for justice, of community action, of taking the side of the oppressed and victimised; because you're so enslaved to 'the law' and outmoded justifications like 'that's just the way the world works' .

You're a no mark twat, and I'm pretty sure I've picked your old persona too.

 

[shifting gears]

Marginalising moderates is a political tactic.

And it must be quite satisfying to classify oneself as good and others as bad.

I've done a million shitty things in my life - but I know a just cause when I see one.

You... I doubt it.

 

[Gramsci]

//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.

This Inside Housing analysis of the the new housing struggles is worth reading.

Alex Hilton, director of Generation Rent, agrees: ‘A lot of these organisations used to be radical left. It’s amazing to see how these organisations have now sucked in more mainstream support. People who wouldn’t even see themselves as left wing are joining. It’s normal people – not just traditional activists. It’s people being put in harm’sway by the housing crisis.’

The recent housing protests have been supported by far left groups like RCG. IMO the protests have seen far left and more moderate people working together. Surprisingly harmoniously. Same thing goes for Reclaim Brixton. No one is saying that one has to sign up to the politics of groups like the RCG to campaign for secure decent ( truly affordable) housing. I don’t - though I have an open mind on the matter. My main issue with this is expecting people to be committed full time activists. Which is not how it should be.

Its an interesting phenomenon. Why has it happened? The mainstream parties like Labour party have long ago given up on taking up issues like this. So there is a political vacuum that is filled by some on hard/ far left. The only more mainstream reformist party that supports these issues is Green Party.

When a call out for support goes out its often groups like this who come forward. To their credit. They are often well organised and committed. I wish the Labour party would do this.

The other more mainstream group that supports recent housing struggles in Unite union. Who have realised that supporting communities is an important addition to there work.

The positive thing about all this is that its not about blaming immigrants or "dole scroungers". It show there are a lot of ordinary people out there who see where the real problem is.

Capitalism is the underlying problem. The difference is those who want to overthrow it and reformists who want to reform it.

Since the recession caused by City/ Wall street the people who have born the brunt of the mess they caused have been the less well off. Reminds me a poster here who I was chatting to recently who said its class war when you fight back. When the worst of it has been done by them.

 

[leanderman]

I've done a million shitty things in my life - but I know a just cause when I see one.

You... I doubt it.

Again, with the judgements.

 

[shifting gears]

Again, with the judgements.

What, like how you're implying I think I'm good where others are bad?

Keep digging.

 

[leanderman]

What, like how you're implying I think I'm good where others are bad?

The implication is all yours - ad nauseam - in your posts above.

 

[shifting gears]

The implication is all yours - ad nauseam - in your posts above.

Y'know what - one thing I did get right about you:

"I'm alright Jack"

So get stuffed.