gwhite78

If somebody is willing to pay me more than its worth I will snatch their hands off.I do actually live in a middle class area if I am honest.

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....

Coventry - the ring road at least - is far worse.

 

(And it's difficult to think of a city that had more of a "blank canvas" than that one)

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.

I do not think that there is a lot that can be done about that.Stopping people from buying homes as investments is the only way to stop that but what government is going to be brave enough to do that.I do not even think Jeremy Corbyn would consider doing that.Holiday makers keep places like Padstow going.We cannot earmark areas as only for people born there.

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

Yes you can. You are incontravertibly wrong.

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 ----------

I am a little puzzled as to why people want an area to stay rundown and unloved instead of being improved.If people want to spend their money renovating an area and bringing new life to it then why is this a bad thing.Stocksbridge is having a new shopping and leisure village built which I will be glad to see instead of the rundown shops that we have at the moment.I haven't seen anybody protesting about it in Stocksbridge,i think most of us are looking forward to getting more upmarket shops.I appreciate that there are a lot of people who cannot afford to pay £2.50 for a coffee or £4.00 for a toastie but there are a lot of people who do want to.We can surely not have segregated areas with signs saying poor people this side wealthier people the other side.Thats even more demeaning and offensive to the less well off.

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'

Such a small town ? Sheffield is one of the biggest citys in the country and is a city, i agree that the road planning in the city centre is a complete mess and must have been disigned by a right pilok.

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 ----------

No cycle infrastructure in a city built across the foothills of the Pennines? Shocking.

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.

What are they doing - coming round with baseball bats and forcing you to sell up at low prices?

 

Of course not - don't be so silly. People are choosing to move out and then whining when they can't move back in. Did the fat wedge of cash you got for the house when you sold not tell you that perhaps, the cost of moving back if you wanted to was going to be a bit higher?

 

No it's far more fun to just have a bit of a riot and whine when things don't go your way. Story of the left that...

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 ----------

 

Seriously it is sad that this is what London has come to. A once great city turned into a playground for geeks with rich parents.

Spot on, the estae where I grew up is mostly full of people like these....

Consent?

 

To what? More Freeman on the Land woo?

 

As for a site that thinks you can copyright your name well words fail me.

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.

I had a telephone call to enforcement who upheld the ticket (they would wouldn't they) then made a written submission requesting a tribunal hearing. it never got as far as a tribunal because I fought back as I was in the right.

write the letter, then worry about tribunal hearings. if OP is in the right, they will hear nothing more, probably not even a response.

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 ----------

I've recently been issued a parking penalty for parking on what was genuinely not known to be a yellow line as it was beyond any reasonable state of repair.

 

When I returned I was issued a ticket and the penalty stated parking in a time controlled zone which there is none in operation what's so ever on the top end of Granville Road however it's quite likely at the bottom near the colleges there is.

 

When I contented this I was then told it is due to the yellow lines and not the timed zone marked clearly on my ticket and surely a picture of me parked on badly and broken in over 70% of the total line and now told my penalty is for this and is still being upheld. And in the Dark this line had no chance of ever been seen as in my case.

 

Soooo.... 3 weeks later after them not receiving any feedback or fine payment guess what there is now a solid bright yellow newly painted line! Hiding there tracks however not only does there photo proof my point but I also had taken my own photos of the entire line..

 

Any advice or suggestions regarding the law here as citizens advise website gives reasons for a ticket to be invalid one of which says poor state of the line or a wrongly issued ticket which mine covered both but they still demand now £105 which increase by 50% each month but they can prey as they wont be seeing it, I pay road taxes for maintained roads and this certainly wasn't and I feel there using scare tactics with someone that doesn't scare so easily.

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.

ta

 

Seems a bit bad though. I don't want to live in a locked house! I bought my house so I could have more freedom and peace, not this ****!

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. Yes you can.

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 ----------

Now you're being theatrical!

 

There are plenty of places in London where you can get a bacon butty and a mug of tea for a reasonable price - I went to such a place in Camden last year.

It isn't about diversity, it's about choice. Your heroine, Margaret Thatcher would've praised these 2 hipsters as showing their entrepreneurial spirit & offering the public choice.

If the said shop was offering punters a choice of left wing mags such as Socialist Worker or The New Statesman with their mug of tea you'd be on here griping about left wing hypocrites. If the protest was about an upmarket café serving exclusive red wine and foie gras on toast for the well heeled, you'd be on here whining about leftists who enjoy a bit of 'class war'.

Who are you for HH? Or are you just in it for the whinge? You seem very provincial in your outlook and rather narrow minded

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

Have a look at some of my other posts if you think I'm a leftie.

 

UKIP are absolutely entitled to support as they're not supporting violent crime.

The BNP and a bunch of moronic socialist bigots, but I'm not convinced that supporting them is supporting violent crime.

The EDL, I don't know enough about but to be honest , so far I've been content to ignore them.

 

IS are in a completely different league. This is an organisation devoted to murder, rape and all the worst things of which humanity of capable.

There should be very few limits on free speech, but nothing is absolute.

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 ----------

It has been a while since I was accused of being a lefty! It is reassuring to know that my political neutrality - where I make up my own mind and don't follow a left or a right wing crowd - means I can still get up the noses of people from across the political spectrum!

 

I fail to see how someone saying London should be 'weeded' of Jews and making distasteful jokes about it being 'a gas' is any less inciteful than saying you think they should all be killed.

 

As it happens, I agree that we are over-zealous when it comes to trying to silence criticism of religions and cultures. It is just that offering up genocide as a solution to perceived problems crosses a line for me and, n my opinion, should indeed be considered incitement to commit a crime.

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.

Tell that to the subject of this article. He is currently on remand... court case later this month for inciting racial hatred. Personally, I think this case is weaker than if you SAY (verbally or in writing) that you think all members of a race or religion should be killed because the later clearly endorses a crime. The fact is that your example could encourage or persuade others to commit the crime, which is exactly why incitement is a crime.

 

Nobody is suggesting policing thoughts but communicating your thoughts turns it into a statement, which is something else. Putting 'I think' into a statement doesn't magic it back into a thought. You probably think adding 'allegedly' protects you from slander and libel laws... it doesn't!

 

Anyway, dragging this back on subject, the person in question wasn't thinking support for IS but showing it by wearing their flag. IS is a banned organisation and it is illegal to support it or be a member. It is an embarrassment that he wasn't challenged by members of the public. Too many people justifying their own cowardice by pretending they are simple tolerant and guardians of free speech. It is just excuses for not having the courage to stand up for your own beliefs and values... He might hurt me or even worse I might be called racist!!! Pathetic.

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.

I find it odd that I'm on this side of the argument.

I have strong objections to the incitement to whatever laws which I have previously expressed. I make a distinction between "hatred" and the promotion of violence and other crime against minorities. I do not find the current incitement laws to be clear enough in that distinction, perhaps because the framers disagree with me.

 

However, expressing public support for a gang of rampaging murderous rapists crosses the line.

You can think good things about the game of rampaging murderous rapists all you like.

But parade your support publicly and you're supporting and encouraging, murder and rape. So you're not allowed. If I were in charge of reforming the incitement laws to protect free speech (which I would do), you still wouldn't be allowed.

 

If you think that's Orwellian, I suggest you re-read 1984 as you've missed the point completely.

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 ----------

It's got silly now.Any quality Philosophy Textbook will demonstrate to you how much of a popular conceit is the notion of unrestrained free speech and free will.

Yes banning peoples thoughts is silly.

Nobody is policing thoughts.

 

There always have been and probably always will be, some limits on the use of free speech in extreme cases. You can think whatever you want, but if it's extreme enough and you express it in public, you'll be in trouble. Get over it.

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 ----------

Nobody is policing thoughts.

 

There always have been and probably always will be, some limits on the use of free speech in extreme cases. You can think whatever you want, but if it's extreme enough and you express it in public, you'll be in trouble. Get over it.

I want your views banned as I find them fascists and extreme.

You are plain and simply wrong. Propagating a view that people of a particular religion or race should be murdered in inciting racial hatred. I'd advise you against testing your interpretation.

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've ignore the bulk of my last post. I presume that's because you can't counter 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 ----------

Saying you think all Jews should be killed would likely be seen as inciting racial hatred... which is a crime.

 

IS is a banned organisation and supporting it is a crime. There is no freedom of speech trump card.... it is illegal.

 

Anyone who is not offended by someone supporting IS should take a long hard look at themselves. They are not shining examples of tolerance... they are nothing more than cowardly capitulators.

No, inciting hatred would be using threatening, abusive or insulting language. ‘I think’ is not (yet) deemed threatening, abusive or insulting under UK law.

In traditional organised crime, the boss doesn't pay. He is in fact in receipt of a cut of the crime proceeds of the crimes of his subordinates. It's a quasi-governmental arrangement.

 

What is the purpose of showing an IS flag if not to encourage support, either financial or direct, for that organisation and its criminal activities?

What makes IS different from a domestic organised crime syndicate?

Is advising somebody how to join IS, or encouraging them to do so a crime?

Is giving money intended to reach IS, or facilitate somebody who wants to join in doing so, a crime?

 

I don't believe that the clear disconnection you envisage between words or expression and action exists.

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.

You can say what you want except for advocating crimes.

 

By your standard an organised crime boss who routinely orders that crimes be committed would be guilty of nothing, only those following the orders would be subject to prosecution.

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.

Rubbish.

There is a standard in these cases that you would have to have a reasonable expectation that the murder you were advocating would be carried out.

In the case of IS, there is clear evidence that by supporting them you're meeting that standard.

As a matter of principle if you did what you did in your example, and one or more of the people you were talking to acted on it, you'd be guilty of ordering a genocide and be among the worst criminals in history.

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?

If I point somebody out in the street and say, in all seriousness, that they should be killed; and the person I'm talking to goes and kills them; I've committed a crime.

This is no different.

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.

They're expressing the right to treat women as sex slaves.

They're also expressing the right to murder homosexuals by throwing them off buildings.

And the right to destroy our collective heritage.

Also, the right to behead people on TV.

Basically the right to do anything they want to anybody they take against.

 

These are not exceptional things which are committed in the heat of battle by a minority. This is their way of life. It's the nature of the world they're trying to create.

 

They can sod right off.

 

Anybody displaying an IS flag is supporting these horrific ideas and supporting such crimes is, in of itself, a crime.

If somebody wants to express support for the idea of a caliphate, that's their right. If they want to express support for a huge gang of murderous rapists I want them locked up.

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

IS have no interest in other peoples' freedom.

Quite the reverse in fact.

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.