# Sublime/Ridiculous.



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

68 flats have been bought to house the Grenfell people.

The flats already there are 2.5k per month. The complex has a spa, gym and cinema etc.
It's all Mercs and Jags, those already living there are objecting.

Has there ever been a starker example of the chronic Victoriana which besets us ??


----------



## Robin (Jun 22, 2017)

But the flats that have been bought up are the ones designated as 'affordable housing' So who did the jag/merc owners think were going to be moving in?


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Robin said:


> But the flats that have been bought up are the ones designated as 'affordable housing' So who did the jag/merc owners think were going to be moving in?



No idea,

It just adds more distaste to the whole appalling mess.

I'm not sure those housed there will feel comfortable or be able to fit in.

It's more inept garbage.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 22, 2017)

A load of nimby's
From what I've read these flats were always designated as social housing, their completion is being speeded up in response to those made homeless. These type of blocks have separate entrances for the 'haves' and 'have nots', they are not a new concept, there are many of these posh side poor side blocks in cities.
Perhaps the current residents are pissed as it's all over the media and they are worried about the impact of that on the value of their flats. Some compassion and empathy wouldn't go amiss


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 22, 2017)

I'm astonished the powers that be even allowed it. It's a leaf straight out of Lenin's to-do book. Stuff the rich.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Lucy Honeychurch said:


> A load of nimby's
> From what I've read these flats were always designated as social housing, their completion is being speeded up in response to those made homeless. These type of blocks have separate entrances for the 'haves' and 'have nots', they are not a new concept, there are many of these posh side poor side blocks in cities.
> Perhaps the current residents are pissed as it's all over the media and they are worried about the impact of that on the value of their flats. Some compassion and empathy wouldn't go amiss



Some of the residents have already expressed concern about losing value on the flats they have bought.
Lets be honest, it is not suitable for anyone.
I wonder if the fire victims were asked ??


----------



## Amigo (Jun 22, 2017)

It's apparently not true that the rehoused people will be able to use the gym, pool and cinema etc. 
They won't be paying service charges (which are probably astronomical) so it wouldn't be feasible.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Amigo said:


> It's apparently not true that the rehoused people will be able to use the gym, pool and cinema etc.
> They won't be paying service charges (which are probably astronomical) so it wouldn't be feasible.



It's a total utter mess up.

You don't have to be clever to see the incompatibility of it.


----------



## Steff (Jun 22, 2017)

A long as these poor people who have lost it all are rehomed either in an igloo or a mansion its better then sleeping on a floor


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Steff said:


> A long as these poor people who have lost it all are rehomed either in an igloo or a mansion its better then sleeping on a floor


Yes it is Steff.

After a week you would have thought all those heads of depts in Whitehall could have come up with a better solution.

Then again ,,,,,,,,


----------



## Steff (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> Yes it is Steff.
> 
> After a week you would have thought all those heads of depts in Whitehall could have come up with a better solution.
> 
> Then again ,,,,,,,,


Sorry im not into all that stuff I just give an opinion from my heart on these real life devastating events


----------



## Amigo (Jun 22, 2017)

With the huge numbers of people needing accommodation in the immediate area and the shortage of affordable properties, I frankly don't envy the Council this task (and by that I'm making no judgments or ignoring possible culpability for the dreadful incident). The reality is this is a massive task in one of the most expensive housing areas in London.
On an emotional level this can reduce me to a wreck but the practicalities cannot be ignored.


----------



## Robin (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> After a week you would have thought all those heads of depts in Whitehall could have come up with a better solution.


What better solution? There's a chronic housing shortage. There have been criticisms about a) length of time it would take to rehouse people and b) splitting up a community and sending them all over the place when what they need is to be together to help them recover from their ordeal. The fact is, that someone has come up with a solution, and quickly.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 22, 2017)

To be perfectly honest if I had been a survivor of this atrocity then the last place I would want to live is in another flat


----------



## Amigo (Jun 22, 2017)

Lucy Honeychurch said:


> To be perfectly honest if I had been a survivor of this atrocity then the last place I would want to live is in another flat



I have to agree Lucy but there seem few alternatives. I'd certainly be wanting assurances that the new place didn't have combustible cladding and see a full report on building safety from the Fire Service!


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Steff said:


> Sorry im not into all that stuff I just give an opinion from my heart on these real life devastating events



I'm not into "all that stuff" regarding this rehousing issue either.

Seems an awful plan to me. Would not surprise me if problems develop between the people, who will be responsible then ?


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Robin said:


> What better solution? There's a chronic housing shortage. There have been criticisms about a) length of time it would take to rehouse people and b) splitting up a community and sending them all over the place when what they need is to be together to help them recover from their ordeal. The fact is, that someone has come up with a solution, and quickly.



I have no idea re a better solution, I'm not privy to all the information.
Where they are being placed could not possibly be more opposite to the place they lived before. Just seems wrong to me.
Are these temporary placing ?


----------



## Steff (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> I'm not into "all that stuff" regarding this rehousing issue either.
> 
> Seems an awful plan to me. Would not surprise me if problems develop between the people, who will be responsible then ?


Well my only thoughts would be im happy to have a roof over my head, if theres any divisions I dont know who will be to blame


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Steff said:


> Well my only thoughts would be im happy to have a roof over my head, if theres any divisions I dont know who will be to blame



Consider this.

What if one of those who has forked out a huge amount to buy one of those flats launched a compensation claim because the value has now fallen ?

Who would pay ??


----------



## Steff (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> Consider this.
> 
> What if one of those who has forked out a huge amount to buy one of those flats launched a compensation claim because the value has now fallen ?
> 
> Who would pay ??


Then id cross the selfish pratts off my christmas card list.


----------



## Robin (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> Consider this.
> 
> What if one of those who has forked out a huge amount to buy one of those flats launched a compensation claim because the value has now fallen ?
> 
> Who would pay ??


Can't see there'd be any grounds for a claim. If I bought a house next to a field, and the farmer sold it off for social housing, there'd be no redress. The buyers of the luxury flats presumably knew there was going to be an affordable housing scheme on site, and if they didn't, they should be suing their solicitors.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Steff said:


> Then id cross the selfish pratts off my christmas card list.



As would I,,, however, in today's Guardian a resident speaks of how unfair it is because values will fall.
I just hope this has been factored in to the decision.
Whichever way you look at it there is a high chance of friction.

Those who went through the hell that raged around them have had enough of  tensions.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

Robin said:


> Can't see there'd be any grounds for a claim. If I bought a house next to a field, and the farmer sold it off for social housing, there'd be no redress. The buyers of the luxury flats presumably knew there was going to be an affordable housing scheme on site, and if they didn't, they should be suing their solicitors.


 
Maybe so, neither you nor I have forked out millions for one of those flats.
The flats start at 1.6M,,,, 

Maybe because it is the only choice it has to be a "good choice".
Time will tell.


----------



## trophywench (Jun 22, 2017)

Well it's time the ridiculous prices property is fetching, dropped, everywhere.  It's a caveat that anyone purchasing a property should factor in to the purchase and of course mortgagors always used to when establishing how much to lend.  People have been encouraged to borrow much more than they can really afford for nearly 50 years.

Before then - we could only mortgage ourselves up to the eyeballs.  Since then people have been allowed to borrow to about the height of Everest above the tops of their heads - and I have absolutely no sympathy whatever.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 22, 2017)

trophywench said:


> Well it's time the ridiculous prices property is fetching, dropped, everywhere.  It's a caveat that anyone purchasing a property should factor in to the purchase and of course mortgagors always used to when establishing how much to lend.  People have been encouraged to borrow much more than they can really afford for nearly 50 years.
> 
> Before then - we could only mortgage ourselves up to the eyeballs.  Since then people have been allowed to borrow to about the height of Everest above the tops of their heads - and I have absolutely no sympathy whatever.



I think the sub-prime debacle across the pond proved the good sense in your comment.


----------



## trophywench (Jun 23, 2017)

Florrie and Fred, Rosie and Jim, Janet and John, Lehman Bros, Bill Brewer, Tom Stewer, Dan'l Gurney, old uncle Tom Cobley and all, Bill - they were all at bloomin well at it, here as well as there, weren't they?

Yes - we would have liked a nicer house when we got wed, but couldn't borrow any more - but the mortgage was virtually my entire nett salary every month (picked up just over £31, unless it was a 5 week month which meant a bit less cos of the extra NI and paid the Halifax £27 9s 9d a month back) so TBH I'd have never slept if we'd borrowed more!


----------



## Northerner (Jun 23, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> What if one of those who has forked out a huge amount to buy one of those flats launched a compensation claim because the value has now fallen ?


Then that would speak volumes about how all the current talk of tolerance, respect and integration mean absolutely nothing to some selfish and ignorant people with more money than sense...


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 23, 2017)

Northerner said:


> Then that would speak volumes about how all the current talk of tolerance, respect and integration mean absolutely nothing to some selfish and ignorant people with more money than sense...



Absolutely,, it's not fair to just brush aside the concerns of those with wealth.
It is disappointing though that before they even get there the stricken know that there is some bad feeling.

Those stricken people lived in the shadow of great wealth, went through hell and now are being placed among the virtual palaces that made them feel so miniscule.  To them such things probably represent all that is wrong about 21st century England.

The only option is a good option ?


----------



## trophywench (Jun 23, 2017)

Do you honestly think considering whether such things represent all that is wrong with 21st century England, is going to be foremost in their minds any time soon?

And where the hell are the council supposed to house them otherwise?  Nowhere is or will be 'right'.  It just isn't possible, full stop because it shouldn't have happened in the first place - but they HAVE to house them somewhere - so stop agonising over it for Heaven's sake and let them be settled again so that the whole of society can start to help them in their rehabilitation and healing process.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jun 23, 2017)

No I don't think it will be uppermost in their minds,,, at first. Nobody seems to be looking at what may be in the minds of those already living there at great expense.

No idea where they are supposed to house them. Just highlighting a few things that aren't being said and in my opinion should be. 

I am not "agonising" over it. With most things I try take an all round view.

I will do my best to "let them settle"?


----------



## Steff (Jun 23, 2017)

Cannot believe people on this forum have managed to get a thread closed that's caused so much devastation (tower block fire) hope your proud of yourself.  Ridiculous
And your not even a regular poster or even come on here and talk anything diabetes!!!


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jun 23, 2017)

Steff said:


> Cannot believe people on this forum have managed to get a thread closed that's caused so much devastation (tower block fire) hope your proud of yourself.  Ridiculous
> And your not even a regular poster or even come on here and talk anything diabetes!!!



I know Steff, very bad form indeed. Especially given the subject matter


----------

