Jump to content

Aggy

Members
  • Content Count

    4,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Aggy

  1. RWNJ who dislikes foreigners and wants to take back control of our country in doesn’t understand how democracy works shocker.
  2. But not relevant to the real world?
  3. Why stop there? Why are you paying council tax to fund social care for someone born in, say, Blackpool who has moved?
  4. The point was that there is a difference between those who put forward fair arguments based on economics for instance, and those who have to bring “indigenous people” into it - which usually suggests a different motive.
  5. I think you missed the point, again.
  6. Not sure if it has changed in the last year or two, but even getting a holiday visa to the UK is painful. Shambles.
  7. I’ve always found quite odd the idea that you have more “right” than someone else to live somewhere based on the absolute pot luck of where you were born. References to “indigenous” and the like always make me chuckle - usually used by people who have very little idea about human history and/or by those who need to justify their ‘interesting’ opinions. There are of course justifiable reasons for limiting net immigration and ‘illegal’ immigration, but the use of language is often very telling when trying to understand people’s real motivations.
  8. Joined June 2020, averaging one post every 1 hour 42 minute ever since. Good effort tbf.
  9. In the 18-24 age bracket, support at 37 percent… and on that sliding scale until you get to over 80 per cent support in the over 65 age bracket. Pretty clear that in a couple of decades the majority will be against it. https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/ The idea of a president boris or sunak is certainly a more compelling pro-monarchy argument than tradition!
  10. Official bank holiday since 2006 apparently.
  11. St Andrews day and St Patrick’s day are already bank holidays in Scotland and n Ireland.
  12. I mean there are actual philosophers and scholars who can’t agree on a definition of atheism so probably not one to get too worked up about on here! The initial point LYB was trying to make though seems to be correct - the ruling has created no legal precedent to get rid of faith schools or stop faith schools from forcing children to pray in assembly. It has merely established that if a school wants to be ‘secular’ and ban all forms of religion and praying, it can.
  13. Haven’t really seen much about it but all seems a bit nanny state. Given the number of smokers has almost halved in the past decade and, I imagine, is as low as it ever has been in the younger generations, probably see it as something that won’t get much opposition. Which makes you wonder whether alcohol is a few decades behind. It already results in more cost to the NHS and society than smoking, and is becoming less and less popular with younger generations….
  14. Like the peaceful Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar in recent years? You and Broadstairs were agitated before you knew the “facts” simply because you saw the suspect didn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes. You stopped caring when you realised the “facts” were that he wasn’t a Muslim terrorist but some Australian bloke with a European surname and mental health issues. I am sure people will “draw their own conclusions” as to why…
  15. Certainly can’t be any worse and you’d hope there’d be fewer ‘controversies’ at least. I’m not convinced there’ll be as much change as we would like, partly because there isn’t the money to do it but partly because I’m not entirely convinced by the current Labour Party leadership either.
  16. Understood. The developers building park homes to ‘get round the law changes banning ground rents’ are developers who were unaffected by the ground rent law changes and who were building park homes before those changes anyway. Makes sense.
  17. Yes. Nobody has said they don’t exist. The “not really” was in response to your claim that developers are using park homes to get round the ground rent law changes. You still haven’t shown one example of that. You do though continue to post posts like this.
  18. As for park homes more generally, I’ve already posted my thoughts on them. Are they exploitative? Possibly yes to an extent but for the reason that they need to have some form of income generation to be developed. They are predominantly retirement schemes (both links you posted above operate sites for over 50/55s). One of the main other retirement scheme models sees people buy a long lease for a premium, and then have to sell it back to the developer when they move out (or their estate sells it if they die) for 90 per cent of what they bought it for. Most retirement development schemes need some form of income generation to be viable/to attract investors to fund - if they had to sell up front with no future income generation, the developments wouldn’t get off the ground. So if park homes were unable to charge the fees they do, I suspect there would become even fewer of them The flip side with park homes is that you get to live in something that cost you a lot less upfront than a “traditional” house, which is useful when you’re a retiree downsizing and unable to get a mortgage. As I mentioned though, the reality is that for this reason (and the fact you can’t get a mortgage on one) park homes aren’t close to becoming a solution for the housing shortage. They are though a potential option for building much needed retirement living stock, which in turn would free up residential accommodation.
  19. I suspect you’re back in wind up merchant mode to try and avoid saying you were wrong, as I think you’re probably intelligent enough not to be as confused as your posts suggest. If I owned an off-licence and the government banned pubs and bars in order to stop people consuming alcohol on site, would you suggest my continued use of my shop as an off-licence was trying to get round the law change banning alcohol consumption on-site? Park home developers are unaffected by the ground rent law changes, so don’t need to “get round” the change in ground rent law. Developers of traditional homes are affected by the ground rent changes but are not building park homes to get round the ground rent changes. So one group isn’t and the other doesn’t need to. Park homes also continue to be a tiny percentage of the market and almost exclusively aimed at over 55s- no developers are using them as an alternative to traditional housing because they can no longer charge ground rents. So, I’ll ask again, which developers are developing park homes to get round the ground rent law change as you stated?
  20. That’s just a list of park home operators. Which ones were not operating park homes before the ground rent rules changed?
  21. So… which developers are doing this to get round the changes to the ground rent law? Edit: and I don’t see any excessive pedantry. You claimed developers were getting round changes to ground rent laws by building park homes. Your “evidence” is park home operators who operated park homes before the law changes continuing to operate park homes after. Your claim is simply wrong.
  22. While I agree with your last two sentences, it isn’t just thinking about where you build the houses as such. It’s also whether new jobs can be created in the area and things like whether you can rejuvenate high streets to make it a more appealing place to live. You might not mind a longer commute if you’ve got nice things to do near you at the weekend. Often you get planning issues stopping the first point… Near me recently there was a run down, old council estate whose inhabitants raised all sorts of objections to a proposed development turning an abandoned car warehouse (which was bordered up and frankly just looking a mess) into life science labs and a couple of shops and bits and bobs like that. It was virtually city centre and the estate was on a main road near the university and hospital - so not countryside quiet. Would have created hundreds of jobs (many of which could have been filled by locals) but still got objections. A bit further out, an industrial development on greenbelt land (which I appreciate is a bit more controversial) would have created over 1,500 jobs near a deprived area. One I’ve been involved in in the West Midlands saw a large industrial estate built as well as a large housing development around it - with schools, pharmacies, shops etc. The industrial estate has created thousands of jobs plus those in the schools, shops etc. and the houses are very popular. And then you see city centres and big towns trying to rejuvenate high streets by turning the old abandoned retail into more “activity” based things - can that filter down into the smaller towns? Can there be tax / rates cuts to attract businesses and retailers? Etc etc.
  23. So which developers are getting round the ground rent law change by setting up park homes? So far you’ve only mentioned one park home operator who was operating park homes before the ground rent law changes anyway. And you’ve tried to dismiss the stats showing park homes continue to be a tiny fraction of new builds. There aren’t any are there?
×
×
  • Create New...