Buy to let landlord of the year involved in prostitution!

[chem1st]

A buy-to-let investor hailed as a role model when he was short-listed as a national Landlord of the Year finalist is facing jail after he was caught running a brothel.

Parminder Janagle was lauded as part of a new breed of ‘socially-aware’ landlords after successfully turning around a struggling portfolio of 12 buy-to-let properties in 2009.

The married father-of-two was nominated as a finalist at that year’s national Landlord & Buy-to-Let Awards in two categories: ‘Achievement’ and ‘Landlord of the Year’, and was pictured with television presenter Konnie Huq, who hosted the ceremony.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256712/Property-developer-won-award-ethical-landlord-ran-BROTHEL-flat.html#ixzz2GweP1A6W

 

The Buy to let landlord of the year has been collared for running a brothel.

 

Hardly surprising if you ask me.

 

Women are increasingly being forced to turn to prostituting themselves in order to pay for their education. It is a deeply sad situation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16157522

 

Greater numbers of students in England are turning to prostitution to fund their education, the National Union of Students (NUS) claims.

 

A lack of access to affordable housing FUELS prostitution. Housing issues stop women from leaving prostitution in the first place.

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/housing-major-barrier-to-leaving-prostitution/6524572.article

 

Homelessness and housing problems are one of the most common barriers that stop women leaving prostitution, a three-year study has found.

 

Research carried out by vulnerable women’s charity Eaves for Women and London South Bank University concluded that more housing support is needed, including safe accommodation away from ‘sex markets’, and help in managing their tenancies.

 

In-depth interviews with 114 current or former female prostitutes in England revealed housing problems were one of the most cited barriers to ‘exiting’ cited by the women, second only to drug use.

 

‘More than 50 per cent were homeless or in unstable housing at the time of the interviews,’ said Lisa Young, exiting prostitution development officer at Eaves. The report showed 77 per cent of the women interviewed had experienced housing problems or homelessness, such as relying on prostitution to pay their rent and living in ‘red light’ districts.

 

Roger Matthews, professor of criminology at LSBU, said the question of where women in prostitution live has not been adequately researched.

 

With rents rising above wages along with the cost of living, we can only expect more women to be forced to turn to prostitution to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

 

I recently watched the film "love on the dole", based upon the book of the same name, the plot involves a working class family, with a pretty and respectable daughter. The father and son have gainful employment, but are thrown upon the dole in the great depression. In the end, the daughter prostitutes herself in order to allow for her father and brother to gain employment and have a better life.

 

Initially the film was banned, before being made into a film in the early wars years with the financial help and encouragement of the government, in this case, the film love on the dole can be seen as a piece of propaganda. It ends with the following text;

 

Our working men and women have responded magnificently to any and every call made upon them. Their reward must be a new Britain. Never again must the unemployed become forgotten men of the peace.

 

Why was the filmed banned from being made in the late 1930s?

 

http://ics-www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/2755/LotD.pdf

 

One of the British Board of Film Censors reports called it “a very sordid story, in very sordid surroundings.” They vetoed the proposal to turn Greenwood’s novel into a film. Apart from the coarse language, the most worrying parts of the text from the Board’s point of view were “the scenes of the mob fighting the police” and “Sally selling herself.”

 

One of the censors went on to note that such scenes might be fine in a novel or play, but the cinema was a different matter. Implicitly, in other words, if the authorities could afford to be nonchalant when it came to novels and theater productions—with their largely middle-class audiences—they would have to remain vigilant when considering the mass of spectators who flocked to the cinema.

 

This ruling was certainly consistent with other decisions made by the British Board of Film Censors in the 1930s. Thirty-seven films about sexual subjects— including prostitution, birth control, abortion, and bigamy—were prohibited during the decade, and Sally’s decision to trade sex for economic favors fell squarely into that category. The scene of the mob riot was condemned under a more general ban—the proscription of “stories and scenes which are calculated to ferment social unrest and discontent.”

 

So why was the ban lifted, and it made into a film?

 

Although it was not actually produced by the state, it did not pass under its radar: the Ministry of Information permitted the famous ban on the film to be lifted and, if Gow’s account was accurate, even went out of its way to ensure that the story appeared on screen. Such a decision raises more questions than it answers.

Why exactly would sources “higher up” suddenly decide that Love on the Dole should now reach the big screen? Clearly, the outbreak of war must have changed the state’s relationship to Walter Greenwood’s plot. But just what was it about this scandalous and radical story that made it seem harmful when the nation was at peace yet useful and constructive for the war effort?

 

This essay argues that Love on the Dole exemplifies the necessarily paradoxical character of propaganda made for liberal democracies at war. Specifically, I propose four motivations that are likely to have prompted the state’s sudden preference for the film in 1940.

 

First of all, the Ministry of Information was looking for ways to publicize the notion that Britain was a free society, but since propaganda itself was closely associated with the unfree states Britain was fighting against, the Ministry needed propaganda that did not look like propaganda. Second, it was crucial to the Ministry’s campaign to show that the nation was equal and fair, and a film that marked the distance between the poverty of the thirties and the full employment of wartime would be helpful for national cohesion.

 

Third, the film’s bleakly realist style suggested that Britons were allowed access to difficult truths and so lived in an open society. Finally, the film’s plot suggested that it was urgent for the individual to sacrifice herself for the collective.

 

At this point in time, policies of full employment had been resumed, and equality was much greater (inequality had fallen). There was bread and a roof for all who worked, and nobody was forced to sell their bodies or souls to put bread on the table and a roof above it...

 

It is very sad to see Britain become a place again where the film "love on the dole" becomes a very relevant film. And for what? So that people can pay ever increasing rents to people whom have used debt to speculate upon the property market?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Just shows how footling these spurious self-publicity "awards" are.

[Penistone999]

So this bloke is a lowlife ,we all accept that , but why the need to highlight the fact he is a BTL landlord. ? There are bad eggs in every walk of life , thats how it is, but their profession has nothing to do with the fact they are a lowlife.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 20:50 ----------

 

It wouldnt have anything to do with your open hatred of BTL landlords would it . ?

[chem1st]

So this bloke is a lowlife ,we all accept that , but why the need to highlight the fact he is a BTL landlord. ? There are bad eggs in every walk of life , thats how it is, but their profession has nothing to do with the fact they are a lowlife.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 20:50 ----------

 

It wouldnt have anything to do with your open hatred of BTL landlords would it . ?

 

These buy to let landlords thin they do some social good, they don't.

 

Using debt to speculate on renting out houses creates nothing, it adds nothing to society.

 

If they built to let it would be different.

[gym_rat]

nope, nothing new there, but I like how you got a dig in about university fees.

 

 

remind us, how much tax you put back into the economy last year, I may have to change my opinion of you (but somehow I doubt it)

[Penistone999]

These buy to let landlords thin they do some social good, they don't.

 

Using debt to speculate on renting out houses creates nothing, it adds nothing to society.

If they built to let it would be different.

 

I have no debt on any of my properties ,all paid for ,no mortgages or loans. I provide properties for students , there is a market for that ,and there always will be.Are you claiming that providing student accommodation adds nothing to society. ?

[gnvqsos]

So this bloke is a lowlife ,we all accept that , but why the need to highlight the fact he is a BTL landlord. ? There are bad eggs in every walk of life , thats how it is, but their profession has nothing to do with the fact they are a lowlife.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 20:50 ----------

 

It wouldnt have anything to do with your open hatred of BTL landlords would it . ?

 

Perhaps it is because some BTL landlords are well known for their avaricious conduct,letting homes which they would not occupy themselves,not carrying out repairs,and failing to return deposits.In addition some do not declare their rents to the HMRC.Given this background it is therefore unsurprising that an entrepreneur has become too cavalier in their decision-making.