Jump to content

fake

Members
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About fake

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Only met him once and found him very polite. Sad news, so R.I.P mate.
  2. Don't believe all that is published, especially about the Thatcher era. The simple fact is that the majority of the people that have bought council properties still live in them. Although now there may be a shortage of council housing all that means is that there is a shortage of stock. Many people that have bought them still live in them so have no effect on the housing demand, the only difference is that the now own them and are classed as private. A person selling a RTB will still have to live somewhere.
  3. Not exactly as the costs are from around 50 years or so years ago so it is difficult to quantify. But I do have details of some of the costs to build the high rise flats, maisonettes and Vic Hallams in Norfolk Park that were subsequently demolished as I was part of that management board. Yes, although that has changed and been updated. Yes, But again that has changed and details are available on the Govt. web site under the RTB. Which tenant? That depends on the current value. For instance if I was to buy my flat it would be valued at around £75,000. BTW I agree that social housing should not be sold off, and would say that in fact building them needs to be increased.
  4. They don't, or rather they haven't for many decades. The rents charged over the years have paid for the buildings many times over and no new homes have been built from that money so no one is subsidising them. Any RTB money goes to the governments central pot and not returned to the local authority. Moneys from the RTB forms part of the main government budget so taxpayers end up (in theory) gaining from that extra government income. The reason why government past and present have liked the RTB. Just to add, creating a demand for homes also keeps the private house prices high, thus creating more profit for the brokers and more debt for the buyers.
  5. That's why they need to be accompanied by the police who will be the ones with a warrant. The TVL people only have the right under the law to read you your rights and then question you after doing so.
  6. The only way to show it was true would by naming a group and identifying several people which under the terms of the SF rules is not on, so request denied. You can say what you like as this thread is about free speech and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. What actually happened is clear in my mind. Far from weaselling out of the debate I have realised the fact that this can happen and is generally something the leftie do gooders don't like admitting. The fact is that what I described happened and as I did nothing about it shows how bothered I was at the time.
  7. Did the BBC touch on the subsidies that dairy farmers get for producing that milk or the reason why they don't stop production is because of said subsidies received?
  8. Oh god.. There is solid evidence but I am not going to share that on this forum as it would be wrong to do so. I'm just pointing out that sometimes these situations do happen and are by no means a myth. I know it happened, she knows it happened so I don't care what others think as I have nothing to prove.
  9. I can tell you that it did in fact happen as the person involved was my daughter. She worked there and came home very distressed one day and told me exactly what had happened. She was on a placement doing her NVQ or whatever in Nursery teaching. It can be substantiated, the nursery itself could be named and also the names of the people involved. I can probably provide the dates as well as its all in with her NVQ stuff. Now, any apologies going?
  10. I can tell you that it was banned at one Burngreave nursery and rainbow sheep had to be used instead. When the person complained that saying rainbow sheep would confuse the kids as there are no rainbow sheep she was then given a warning. As for true free speech in that you can say anything without fear of prosecution that only applies to a few places, in the Houses of Parliament, courts of law the coroners court and some other I have forgotten.
  11. And a fact that is wrong. Council rents and sales under the RTB have until recently been taken by central government and only a small proportion given back to the councils. One of the reasons councils have not had the money to build new properties. The government have taken the rest and used that money for other things which means that council rents and sales have effectively been subsidising taxpayers. Not forgetting that the properties have in most cases already been paid for over and over again and not forgetting that a lot of the refurbishment programs that have been carried out have also been funded by the EU. While they may be cheaper than private rents they are not subsidised. People with mortgages are being subsidised though through the bailout of the banks thus ensuring that their mortgage lender is still viable and they can carry on with the loan.
  12. I agree, its just a waste of money and also according to the same article would also require a big change in the law as ministers cant dictate what benefit money is spent on. So its really just another sound bite from a bitter politician. How the hell would changing the system give the taxpayers better value for money when it will cost more to implement? It seems the abuse is so bad that the Mail had to get models to pose on camera as the couldn't find anyone in real life.
  13. The important bits above are in bold. No crime has been committed, no fraud has been committed and the social have not asked for footage. As said before, in a case where a crime has been committed then its a different situation but so far there has been no crime.
  14. I'm not 100% sure that they can do that under the Data Protection Act or that the company can respond by identifying an individual without their consent. I do know though that if an unemployed person is sent to a workfare provider they will ask you to sign certain forms of agreement and one of those is to sign away your rights under the DPA. That then gives them the right, if you get a job, to check up to see if you are still employed after a certain time. That way they can then claim extra bonuses to line their pockets.
  15. Yes but I did say probably. I believe that under CCTV legislation a person recorded on private premises, in this case a work place where public have access, must be aware of them being recorded first and signs must be clearly visible stating so and for what purpose. As freeman78 says you are not breaking the law by filming them, its what you do with that film that matters. To use any images the company recording them must then get permission from the person in the image for it to be used. They cant take an image and just pass it on to whoever they want as I think its then in breach of privacy laws. In case where a crime has been committed then the police can use them without consent.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.