Staniforth Road Police incident

[Delbow]

11 hours ago, cressida said:

Is there anyone on here,  ex council who can clarify this because I can understand both points of view,  it has been mentioned on other forums that youngsters can't afford to live in places they were brought up in - have one child and they will get the parental home eventually,  have two or more and

it becomes a case of dividing the sale of house profit.

 

This is called 'succeeding' to a secure tenancy (i.e. a Council tenancy). It used to be that you could only 'succeed' once - so if you had a council tenancy and you died and your child had lived with you when you died (if I remember right) then they could succeed to the tenancy, i.e. they would become the tenant. But if they had a child and that child was living with them when their parent (your child) died in the same property, they couldn't succeed to the tenancy. I remember the coalition government talking about removing the right to succeed entirely, but I can't remember what happened about that.

 

There is a real problem of younger people not being able to afford even in the area they grew up in, let alone the same property their parent(s) lived in.

 

This is because there used to be lots of social housing that people could afford to live in, near family, even if property prices in the area went up a lot;

 

That pool of social housing started to reduce from 1979 when the right to buy was introduced - and the higher the house prices in an area, the more likely it was that people would buy their council property because they could sell it at a profit later (e.g. almost the whole of London);

 

Because Councils were forbidden by legislation to use the money gained from the sale of Council properties to build more Council properties, by far the main route that any more homes would be built would be via the private sector;

 

The private sector has no interest in building a number of homes to match demand. That is because if they did so, the sale value of each property would be less - that is a fact of economics, not some left-wing conspiracy theory. Therefore, the private house building sector is by definition unable to build the number of homes that we need. And that means that the only way to build the number of homes needed is by building social housing;

 

This means that year on year, since 1979, the ability to meet housing demand in the UK has reduced. Even in the heydays of the 1950s when social house building was at its height, the UK was building fewer homes per person than other western European countries. That has meant that housing has got more and more scarce;

 

It also means that the ratio of privately owned housing to social housing in the UK has massively shifted. In 1980, over 30% of people lived in social housing, now that's about 18%. Social housing rents are controlled, whereas private rents are not - so young people find themselves priced out of areas that their families have lived in, sometimes for decades;

 

This fuels resentment. A lot of right wing politicians across Europe are saying to people "You can't get somewhere affordable to live - it's because of people of non-European origin. Get rid of them and you can have somewhere to live". The Netherlands is a good example of that - they have also left house building to the private sector, which has failed to keep up with demand in order to keep their profits up.

 

There is a solution to this - build social housing again. But that requires politicians with some vision and ability to plan ahead. Much easier to blame it all on migrants;

 

The Conservative party is ideologically against social housing, which makes it pro-homelessness, since social housing is the only way that enough homes can be built. Michael Gove had offered out money to private house builders to build 'affordable' housing. They didn't want it, because they don't want to build affordable housing. Instead of using that money to build social housing instead, Gove gave £1.9bn back to the treasury - that's £1.9bn that could have gone to housing associations and councils to build affordable housing and land to build on, but the government didn't want to do that.

 

 

 

 

[cytine]

On 11/06/2024 at 13:27, SheffieldForum said:

Yes they are — it has been demonstrated in threads here that people in the communities are trying to improve things, promote tolerance and inclusivity.

 

You obviously do have some kind of problem with races or cultures, because what you are effectively doing is tarring everybody in a whole race, culture or area with the same brush rather than recognise that some people are good people and some people are just bad people. You’re (and other people here and elsewhere) are dismissing the good people within communities because it doesn’t suit your prejudice.

 

And that inclusivity goes both ways — we have to integrate with them as much as we need them to integrate with us. Otherwise everyone on all side of the debate will continue to stand from afar going “they’re wronguns over there”.

Sheffield Forum,  Your personal comments about me are deeply offensive and untrue I am NOT racially or culturally prejudiced and resent your accusations made on a public forum. As I said previously I'm well travelled, all over the world not just here,  I see and hear what is going on

around me and form my own opinions. Maybe you re the one with the problem as you make personal attacks on something you don't agree with?

[peak4]

One thing Delbow didn't mention is No Fault Evictions.  This is a serious issue affecting security of tenancy, and can have a major impact on a tenants life.
As it happens the was an article about  it in The Grauniad yesterday
Why were we evicted? I had to ask the new tenant to find out – and the reason cuts to the heart of the UK’s housing crisis

The Tories have betrayed renters, and Labour’s plans don’t go far enough. Here’s how they can fix our broken system   Opinion Piece

Section 21, or “no-fault”, evictions are one of the cruellest facets of the housing sector, and they’re increasingly common: recent figures show a staggering 52% rise in these evictions in London in the past year. The right to evict a tenant for no reason, with almost no legal recourse, was introduced in Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Housing Act. It doesn’t matter how long the tenant has lived in their home, or if they’ve always paid rent on time – a landlord can remove them, usually with just a few months’ notice.

The Conservative party promised to ban these evictions and create “a fairer rental market” in its 2019 manifesto. Almost five years on, it has failed to do so. Since the pledge to scrap these evictions, households have been threatened with homelessness at least 80,000 times. After the election was announced, the renters (reform) bill, which had its second reading in the Lords in May, was in effect scrapped, because parliamentary time was cut short before the bill could reach its final stages.

The bill had promised to ban some no-fault evictions. First it was delayed, then it was watered down by backbench Conservative MPs, who tried to defer any section 21 ban and make it easier for landlords to evict tenants for antisocial behaviour, weakening the legislation so much that the Renters’ Reform Coalition, a large group of housing charities, withdrew its support for the bill in April. Landlord lobbying groups, on the other hand, lauded the “pragmatic” amendments.

[Top4719]

12 hours ago, SheffieldForum said:

Social housing allocation is based on need, not on migration status or nationality.

 

Councils use a point system, or bands, to decide who gets priority for homes. Priority groups are those who are homeless or fleeing violence, live in overcrowded or very bad housing conditions, and those who need to move for health or welfare reasons—regardless of nationality.

 

And - for the avoidance of doubt because I've seen it trawled out a number of times despite it being obviously wrong that 'illegals get given a council house straight away'.... People here illegally are of course not entitled to any benefits or social housing at all. 

 

There's a good Full Fact article here: https://fullfact.org/immigration/illegal-immigration-council-housing/

 

 

 

Using sites like fullfact as evidence, oh dear oh dear oh dear. 🤣

[peak4]

34 minutes ago, Top4719 said:

 

Using sites like fullfact as evidence, oh dear oh dear oh dear. 🤣

Try reading it; the cyan underlining denotes a link, often directly to government legislation.
Unlike some on here, they evidence their claims.

[cytine]

1 hour ago, Delbow said:

 

Is that your  idea of a counter argument?

It's my idea of a complaint but I don't expect the courtesy of a reply or apology.

[Delbow]

11 minutes ago, cytine said:

It's my idea of a complaint but I don't expect the courtesy of a reply or apology.

 

Are you confused? My post was about your reply to mine in which you said 'What a load of supercilious left wing claptrap'

[Martin C]

I think it's pretty much universally acknowledged that successive governments ( especially the last Tory government) has failed to faciltate/support/promote the building of social/affordable housing,

Whatever "priorities" or government policies (as linked above) come into play when assessing the allocation of the inevitably reduced supply of social/affordable housing it's surely not unreasonable to suggest that the numbers of people relying on the availability of same has significantly increased by recent ever-higher levels of immigration (both legal and illegal). 

Not all these people are the oft-vaunted and much-needed doctors and engineers (those who by virtue of their skills and training able to transition swiftly and unassisted into house/flat ownership or the private rented sector). At least some (probably more) will add to the pressures in the housing market without having contributed much (if at all) to the public purse which has to finance additional affordable/social housing developments.

[cytine]

15 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Are you confused ? My post was about your reply to mine in which you said 'What a load of supercilious left wing claptrap'

Not confused I just made a mistake. My apologies.

[SheffieldForum]

12 hours ago, cytine said:

Sheffield Forum,  Your personal comments about me are deeply offensive and untrue I am NOT racially or culturally prejudiced and resent your accusations made on a public forum. As I said previously I'm well travelled, all over the world not just here,  I see and hear what is going on

around me and form my own opinions. Maybe you re the one with the problem as you make personal attacks on something you don't agree with?

Sorry you feel attacked or that the comments were harsh or untrue.

 

I obviously don’t know you completely to judge you, so I can only go on your posts here, and was most specifically commenting on the post made in reply to me. So let’s take a look at that comment, and my response again:

 

On 11/06/2024 at 09:18, cytine said:

But they're not coming together 'practising inclusion and tolerance' are they? I've no problem with other races or cultures (I've travelled widely) the problem is they will not integrate they come here 'for a better life' but want to carry on with the life they've left. We have a history and culture which we have to tone down/change to suit others.

 

On 11/06/2024 at 13:27, SheffieldForum said:

Yes they are — it has been demonstrated in threads here that people in the communities are trying to improve things, promote tolerance and inclusivity.

 

You obviously do have some kind of problem with races or cultures, because what you are effectively doing is tarring everybody in a whole race, culture or area with the same brush rather than recognise that some people are good people and some people are just bad people. You’re (and other people here and elsewhere) are dismissing the good people within communities because it doesn’t suit your prejudice.

 

And that inclusivity goes both ways — we have to integrate with them as much as we need them to integrate with us. Otherwise everyone on all side of the debate will continue to stand from afar going “they’re wronguns over there”.

 

So, looking at my response — first paragraph — there clearly are people coming here and trying to integrate, practicing inclusion and tolerance. Theres examples in this thread — and actually in the post you quoted in your original reply — not least discussion of Zahira Naz who is working with multiple communities to foster that inclusion and tolerance — ironically, I spoke someone from one of the groups she works with recently and they said they are trying all kinds of things and different migrant communities are coming together for them — Pakistani, Indian, African, Romanian, Caribbean, etc. The hardest group to get to interact? White English people. When groups like this are trying their hardest, the white English folk are seemingly the ones most resistant to it and the ones putting up the barriers. It’s a shame, and I give that specific example to speak largely to my last paragraph.

 

I suspect it is the middle paragraph you’re most offended by though — and I apologise for any offence, but stick by it somewhat. Not only did you ignore the specific examples previously of how people are trying to integrate and be more tolerant, you refer to migrants as ‘they’ and are effectively tarring a whole race, culture or area with the same brush. ‘They’ are not ‘all the same’ and there are plenty of people within those communities that are trying to integrate.

 

It is also noted that in previous similar discussions you have used similar language and even refused to acknowledge refugee migrants, saying effectively “they aren’t refugees” and again that “they will just refuse to integrate”. So it isn’t just this one occasion that you seem to be making the sweeping comments.

 

Lastly, To check I want being overly sensitive or harsh I have run your original post in this thread through a language checker and this is its response:

 

“The statement could be interpreted as racist due to the following reasons:

 

1. Generalization: The statement makes broad generalizations about immigrants, suggesting they do not integrate and want to carry on with the life they left behind. Such generalizations are often a hallmark of racist attitudes because they do not recognize the diversity and individuality within immigrant communities.

 

2. Cultural Superiority: By saying, "We have a history and culture which we have to tone down/change to suit others," the speaker implies that the local culture is superior and should not be adjusted to accommodate others. This notion often underlies racist sentiments, as it places one culture above others.

 

3. Contradiction: The statement begins by claiming no problem with other races or cultures but then proceeds to criticize immigrants for not integrating and for affecting the local culture negatively. This contradiction can reveal an underlying bias, even if it is not overtly acknowledged by the speaker.

 

4. Dismissal of Efforts: The speaker dismisses the efforts of immigrants and community groups to promote inclusion and tolerance, which can be seen as a lack of empathy or understanding of the challenges immigrants face.

 

In conclusion, while the statement might not be overtly racist in the sense of using explicit racial slurs or direct hate speech, it does contain elements that reflect a prejudiced view towards immigrants and their integration. These elements contribute to a broader narrative that can perpetuate racial and cultural discrimination.”

 

The language checker also checks for general discrimination and biases:

 

“The statement can be considered discriminatory for several reasons:

1. Generalization and Stereotyping: The statement makes sweeping generalizations about immigrants, implying that they do not integrate and wish to carry on with their previous way of life. This type of stereotyping is a form of discrimination because it unfairly attributes negative characteristics to an entire group based on the actions or behaviors of some individuals.

 

2. Cultural Bias: The speaker suggests that the local culture is being negatively affected and needs to be toned down or changed to accommodate immigrants. This reflects a bias that views the local culture as superior and portrays the presence of other cultures as a problem, which is discriminatory.

3. Dismissal of Inclusion Efforts: By dismissing the efforts to promote inclusion and tolerance, the statement undermines the positive actions taken by community groups and charities. This can discourage efforts towards creating a more inclusive and tolerant society, which is discriminatory towards those who are working hard to foster integration and mutual respect.

 

4. Implied Resistance to Diversity: The statement implies a resistance to cultural diversity and change, which can create a hostile environment for immigrants and minority groups. This resistance to accepting and valuing cultural diversity is a form of discrimination.

 

In conclusion, while the statement may not explicitly use discriminatory language, it does express discriminatory attitudes and beliefs that can contribute to an environment of exclusion and intolerance.”