Displaying emotions

Just wanted to add that I thought TM looked dreadful on the news tonight. Unwell in fact. I hope she's managing her diabetes during this unprecedented time. We saw what happened to Diane Abbott when she recently struggled to manage her diabetes. I worry about my 82 yr old diabetic FiL in this heat, but it's well known stress can affect blood sugar levels. Sometimes he gets the fluid filled undereye bags TM has at the moment. It's not the same as when you're lacking in sleep.

I am not sure that they could use the ground around it, Wilma. There was a woman on channel4 news who said that some of them have moved back in because their flats are not too badly affected, but they have no water, no gas or electricity and the air is toxic.
Nobody has been to see them about alternative accommodation.
It sounds pretty horrific round there.

It's interesting about assumptions isn't it? It must be a Labour council if things go wrong.
The ridiculous price of housing in London is fuelled by investors getting a higher return by buying property in London (and the south coast for example) than they would on other investments. We've been reading for some time about foreign investors buyin up huge properties and leaving the to fall into disrepair as their value rises. I don't know what legislation could prevent this but I'm sure any number of Housing specialist lawyers could find a way, if it's possible. Meanwhile, I wonder if those wealthy foreign owners could find the heart to offer to help by allowing empty property to be used. This happen d in Manchester when the Neville brothers and other former Man Utd players allowed homeless people to live their n a huge buying they owned and planned to renovate. The building was used during the cold winter weather.

I've wondered that, Iam.
Any foreign owner who wanted gratitude from our government could easily allow families who have lost their homes to live in their mansions.

I thought Richard Murphy might have an answer. He was talking about it on radio 4's PM programme. This is his plan.

If you can't enlarge it enough on there, look at his taxresearch website.
The essential question is which is more important, people or property?

I can't see an insurmountable reason why land could not be requisitioned or repurposed on a temporary basis dj.

The families who have returned can only have lived on the 1st 3 floors because the fire started on the 4th. They will have to leave again soon because the utilities will not be reconnected and the building will be condemned. Perhaps they're protecting their belongings.

My suggestion means the residents can stay in the area if they choose.

I think in London the land not the property is the real investment for overseas buyers.

Wilma no families have returned to Grenfell Tower, only to some of the nearby blocks.

I read of a developer who has just finished building/refurbishing 30 flats in the area. She has offered their use for 3 months before putting them on the market.
She was told that if families accepted her offer of temporary housing their names would be removed from the council's rehousing lists.
A practical,generous offer turned down because the rules won't allow this.

I remember a (relatively minor by comparison) emergency that occurred some years ago when my grandparents were having their home modernized. The contractors managed to sever a main drain pipe and there was some kind of dangerous issue with the gas too which meant that the whole area had to be evacuated rapidly. The landlord (I believe it was the William Sutton Trust) provided around 20 fully equipped caravans and put them at the top of a nearby school field which enabled them to move the effected families into temporary accommodation whilst the work was completed. The caravans were so lovely and fully equipped that some people (my grandad included) didn't want to go back home. Just wondering if something like that could be a temporary solution.

Kensington Gardens not far away?
However, requisitioning houses is quite legal when they are empty.

It isn't legal in peacetime, it was done in the two world wars

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said councils already had the power to requisition property, using compulsory purchase orders, to find places for people to live.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvj7f

50 minutes in here. The law exists.

That makes more sense Riverwalk. I was surprised by dj's post because I didn't think anyone would be allowed near the building.

mcem I've heard about that stumbling block a couple of times now and tbh, I do wonder if it's the whole story. There must be a way around the rule, but I would be worried about people refusing to move out after the 3 months if the next offer is unsatisfactory. It could create legal problems. Another offer was for a large-ish number of student studios over the summer. The issue could be the same - potential legal problems if residents decide to stay put.

gillybob static caravans were mentioned the other day, but I don't think using school playing fields was mentioned. I like that idea (as long as the schools can make alternative arrangements).

I'm sure experts are on the job now that Gold Command have taken over.

Yes, sorry, misheard that. Moving back into a block 20 ft. away.

"Some families who live in low-rise blocks adjoining the tower, who were initially given hotel accommodation, were told on Monday they should return to their homes, despite the absence of hot water, and residents’ concerns about pollution and the risk of falling debris.

“The people who were evacuated are being asked to go back to flats that have no hot water and where there has been no risk assessment. There needs to be a printed copy of the fire safety risk assessment,” Blakeman said.

Beinazir Lasharie, another Labour ward councillor who lives in a block at the bottom of the tower, said she had not received the reassurances she needed about the safety of her flat, which is just 20ft from the ruined building. She said she felt officials had treated her “like a nuisance” when she asked questions about air quality, fire safety and the risk of falling debris."

Would you?

What's wrong with requisitioning empty mansions, or mobile homes on Kensington Gardens? Don't need to use school playing fields then.
126 families, by the way.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/grenfell-tower-survivors-put-in-bb-with-no-shower-says-councillor

Compulsory purchase order is different to requisition of a property and what council has all those spare millions to buy mansions

I guess it depends on where the local schools, etc. are when it comes to deciding what is a close enough location for alternative accommodation.

Annie not that I'm suggesting it happens, but the council has reserves of £300 million. That's why it's called the wealthiest in the country.

Careful, Annie, your socialist principles are well hidden here.
What do you suggest as a solution to housing over 120 families?

Sorry that was last year's figure. It was £274 million this year.

Looking at my map of London, there don't seem to be many school playing fields around, and like I say, 126 families to be rehoused, all in the same area.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/grenfell-survivors-will-be-re-housed-in-local-area/

This is a meeting last week, and it was all about making sure other blocks were safe, but nothing about those homeless families apart from rehousing them in the same area. Where? They say it could take months to even go through Grenfell Tower. After that it will need to be pulled down. That will be next year.
What about them now? They are not just going to disappear.
A fairytale ending would be a group of rich people who own those mansions saying that the council can have them to put the homeless in.
Why not if they are not using them?
Imagine what power you would have over an eternally grateful Tory government.

Jen, nothing to do with my politics , are you no longer capable of a civil post?

Compulsory purchase orders can take a long time, the council first have to discuss purchasing the properties, this can take quite some time, if no agreement then the compulsory order which takes time, are the homeless to remain homeless for a few years?

If the properties are an eyesore , meaning been allowed to become inhabitable I think councils can move faster,

So just common sense Jen.

My common sense says the same as McDonnell's and Corbyn's. You CAN requisition in emergencies.
And of course it's to do with politics.
The reason these people are homeless is to do with politics. Shame you can't see that and be on their side.

theconversation.com/yes-the-grenfell-tower-fire-is-political-its-a-failure-of-many-governments-79599

Civil Contingencies Act 2004, section 22, subsection 3b gives the government the right to provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation) in an emergency.
It can be done under the Royal Prerogative.