gwhite78

Most natives (like myself) lived in social housing which was sold off by various london borough councils and housing associations under the guise of Urban Renewal. Which is in fact Urban Removal. Many clauses meant we was forced out into private accommodation we couldn't afford. However some council tenants did buy their property and make a quick buck, but even with council discounts most properties are unaffordable to most working class people. London is fast becoming a playground for the wealthy, the mix of tenures in different areas is what made London socially diverse, interesting and vibrant. We might see change when migrants are now longer willing to live in 12 to a room and do jobs for yuppies such as clean the toilets, serve them coffee, drive the buses etc etc....

I've drove on Coventry's ring road and didn't find it a problem, it looks intimidating as its raised up high but it does allow traffic to flow.

A lot of the new apartments in London are also bought by people from abroad and left empty most of the year.

No you're incontrovertibly wrong. I was born and raised in north London and still regularly visit. You cannot get traditional eastend grub at reasonable prices in Shoreditch. The next nearest place would probably be Walthamstow - where even the dog track is now been converted into luxury apartments! ---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 22:10 ---------- Gentrification doesn't create wealth, it just moves it. How you would feel if your neighbourhood improved and then was forced out of your home because middle class Guardianist want it?

I went to a school with no uniform. I was severely bullied because my mum could not afford to buy me Nike trainers, and for been a white kid who didn't talk 'street black'

Yes Sheffield 'technically' is a city because has a town hall and cathedral. But it's tiny. The hills make it appear bigger than what it really is. Sheffield at best is a overgrown racist parochial town. Apart from traffic caused by insane inept planning, it doesn't feel, act, operate or offer many city attractions at all. It's only strong point is the accessible surrounding rugged countryside. ---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 02:48 ---------- San Francisco is just as hilly, if not hillier than Sheffield and must be at least 10x bigger. SF like many Scandanavian cities and towns has plenty of well used cycle infrastructure and bike pullies /lifts to take you up hills so you don't have to pedal.

Please do not lie and make silly insinuations and believe media spin about Londoners from ex-social housing accommodation now all living it large. Yes we was forced out by thugs. We was living in a Southern Guinness Counties housing association property, the (small print) tenancies meant they, nor the council had to re home us. Private rents are too high so we like many thousands of other working class Londoners have been socially cleansed out our homes and city. ---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 02:32 ---------- Spot on, the estae where I grew up is mostly full of people like these....

Not seen anything on their website about FOTL nonsense? To cut several long stories short.....All I know is myself and another friend took their advice about several bailiff threats and outstanding Warrants Of Executions, used their template letters and all debts, threats absolutley EVERYTHING immediately ended. I didn't pay a penny. No courts, no fines, no hassle. Thousands of others who've took advice also report the same.

Never known such a small town have so many badly designed road junctions, roundabouts, insane road planning with almost no cycle infrastructure. If Sheffield was full of grade 1&2 listed buildings I could slightly understand. But this town is almost a blank canvas, it has an abundance of empty space and half empty non listed buildings which make it very easy for planners to improve traffic flow, junctions, roundabouts provide space for pedestrians and segregated cycle paths.

Agreed, I'm that confident the OP will win if these goes to a tribunial that I will pay him / her the fine myself if I'm wrong. If you've received a NTO make sure to mark your response as formal appeal. SCC Parking services are known on Pepipoo as some of the nastiest and most corrupt in the country. Councils never admit that they are wrong, until you want to take it to tribunal. Until this point they will keep on with their cleverly written responses in order to claim money from you. ---------- Post added 28-09-2015 at 00:38 ---------- Post all your details on this forum >> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30 I'm that confident you'll win this PCN if you appeal properly. if I'm wrong I'll pay the fine for you myself.

There is templates on their website you can use to stop any nuisance visits. They ask for £5, if you're skint PM me and I'll email you them for free.

Fail. No you can't- Shoreditch is the probably biggest example of social cleansing the UK has ever seen. I'm from Haringey which is also undergoing mass social cleansing. Just google - Gentrification - Sweets Way, the Aylesbury, E15 mums, Brixton 5 Storeys. For a few more examples. ---------- Post added 28-09-2015 at 00:01 ---------- What do you call reasonable prices? I doubt these are reasonable for working class Londoners. Nearly all the social cleansing evictions have now mostly been replaced with wealthy guardianist hipsters. Working class Londoners like myself could never afford to move back home.

Ignore it. They have no powers whatsover unless you consent. All the info you need is here >>> http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/Bailiffs

You want a forcibly silence other people you disagree with, which is the self-defeating tactic lefties use. We've been through this before, you can't put limits on free-speech and pick and choose who you think it should apply to, or you destroy the whole purpose of it. Remember this: if today you try to silence someone you find offensive, tomorrow you may be the one someone finds offensive who will try to silence you, until nobody can say FA. Re ISIS: The above is you opinion, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. For many ISIS are freedom fighters protecting their homelands against the aggressors stealing their oil - the UK & US. ---------- Post added 27-09-2015 at 23:41 ---------- There is clear threats on that poster which state it’s time to ‘Round Up’ Jews and clear them out with gas. I really shouldn't have to point this out to you. If he was to say ‘I think’ Golders Green needs Jews weeding out then this just an opinion, not a threat. Stating ‘I will’ use genocide gas as a solution to weed out Jews is a direct threat. It really is quite simple. For someone like yourself to say they’re an advocate of free-speech is as silly as saying the Nazi’s represent the Jews.

There is clear racial incitement on that poster. Do I really need to point it out? No one expressing an opinion can be held responsible for other people’s actions. If I express an opinion that all Jews should be killed, I then cannot be held responsible if you kill all Jews. What terminology do you suggest people use to express their thoughts? Saying ‘I think’ is probably the most simple, accurate universal way to start expressing your thoughts. As I have already explained, saying what you think is not (yet) illegal. It is you lefties whom have made the extreme right like ISIS, UKIP, EDL etc martyrs of free-speech due to you forcibly silencing others you disagree with, which ironically actually makes you lefties, fascists! Your silencing PC methods are also self-defeating, it only strengthens the extreme rights beliefs and encourages division and more polarisations. You are responsible for enabling this weak society where people are too scared to speak out and challenge others, just in case someone says something you dislike, or the wrong word and commits a ‘ incitement PC crime’ The leftie censorships you forcibly inflict on others has enabled a society to turn a blind eye if certain minorities go out and do heinous crimes, such as Rotherham, Rochdale child abuse and now IS for example.

You haven't answered my post. How is pointing out the numerous flaws in your argument of limiting free speech and peoples thoughts defending ISIS? It is you who wants to police the thought and minds of individuals with views you consider extreme, so it is you should re-read 1984. I ask again who should decide what is extreme and offensive, and what isn't? What EXACTLY are people allowed to think? Is putting limits on free-speech still 'free' ? I consider your views to be extreme, should they also be banned and punishable? ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 13:10 ---------- Yes banning peoples thoughts is silly.

When you put limits on what people can think you are policing their thoughts. Who decides what is offensive, and what isnt? Should only those people with thoughts similar to yourself be allowed to express them? Who should and who shouldn't have free speech? ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 12:41 ---------- I want your views banned as I find them fascists and extreme.

No you're wrong. Saying what YOU THINK should happen to a person or group of people is not (yet) punishable. The state cannot police the minds and thoughts of individuals. Although I'm sure our Orwellian govt is working on it...

You really should already know the answer, it really is quite simple. You can (or AFIK are allowed to) express an opinion about anything you like, you cannot be punished for what you think. Thought crimes are not (yet) illegal. You can (or AFIK are allowed to) show support for any legally registered organisation you like, it is ONLY illegal ACTIONS which are punishable. Agreeing with an organisation is not (yet) illegal. ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 11:29 ---------- No, inciting hatred would be using threatening, abusive or insulting language. ‘I think’ is not (yet) deemed threatening, abusive or insulting under UK law.

Of course there is a clear distinction. I pay / order someone to kill = Contract killing - a crime! I express an opinion " I think all Jews should be killed" just an opinion - no crime.

Organised crime and contract killing is totally different to expressing an opinion. I shouldn't have to explain the difference, but in your case it seems necessary. I express an opinion "I think all Jews should be killed" I pay you > To kill Jews - is contract killing.

Expressing an opinion you consider extreme should not warrant a custodial sentence, we should judge and charge people on what they do, not on what they say. What you're advocating is charging people with thought crimes, very 1984, however without unrestricted free-speech you may not be allowed to express this opinion. He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Are you seriously suggesting I or others should imprisoned for expressing an opinion that all Jews should be killed? If so what are you smoking?

You can express an opinion that said person should be killed. It is then up to the person if they choose listen to you and follow it through. It is up to us as individuals to pick and chose who we listen to, who we follow, and what we choose to beleive, not those that say it. Eg - I might say "I think all Jews should be killed' my opinion. You choose to listen to me and kill all Jews. We should judge and charge people on what they do, not on what they say.

We should judge and charge people on what they do, not on what they say.

In your opinion, IS have just as much right to express their ideologies and beliefs as much as you or anyone else. We should judge and charge people on what they do, not on what they say.