How will you vote?

[jetblack]

You have to be joking surely ? If there are empty properties in Kensington (which there is), that are stood empty purely because they have been bought as investments by wealthy speculators, whilst people who are homeless, traumatised and bereaved are going without, then yes, of course those properties should be requisitioned. Call it what you wish - I'd call it having humanity.
I can't believe you people.

Empty homes article :- "More than 200,000 homes in England with a total value of £43bn were empty for at least six months during 2016 despite the desperate shortage of properties to rent and buy.

According to official figures, Birmingham was the worst affected city outside London with 4,397 empty homes worth an estimated £956m, followed by Bradford and Liverpool.

The wealthy borough of Kensington and Chelsea was the worst performer in London as super-rich owners rejected renting them out or selling up in favour of leaving their properties lying idle.

The royal borough had 1,399 empty homes worth £664m, compared with second-placed Croydon, which had 1,216 empty homes worth £577m."

What an absolute disgrace. This is broken Britain folks.

[baldrick]

James O'Brien, LBC presenter must be a communist too.
Using empty luxury homes to house the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire is a no-brainer, says James O'Brien (LBC)
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... ell-tower/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldrick]

He is the Leader we need
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/h ... irror_main" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldrick]

On that note, I noticed Comrade Corbyn haven't offered the use of Labour HQ as an emergency shelter.

It was the austerity cuts by the Conservative Government and the refusal of Kensington and Chelsea Council (Conservative) to listen to coroners, safety experts, residents and the local Labour Councillor, which caused this tragedy.
Perhaps the Conservatives should offer Conservative Central Office as an emergency shelter. But May couldn't even talk to people who had lost family and friends because of 'security concerns'.
The Queen, Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan somehow managed to though.

[Tman]

O'Brien must be the spokesman for the for the brain-dead then.
To do this would be immoral and illegal.

Funny thing though, Corbyn has attempted to "justify" his voting against various Bills on the grounds that it alters or changes the traditional freedoms we enjoy as UK citizens and yet he would appear to be more than happy with the state requisitioning private homes?
What a hypocrite, moreso given that he knows perfectly well that it would be illegal and so never happen, but never mind "let's make the call against those rich people, eh?"
Corbyn's a self-serving idiot, but what's dear old Jet's excuse for going along with it? That self-professed Marxism on show again?
"All property is theft" and all that old crock of wossname?

[baldrick]

The Government requisitioned land and property during WW2, was Churchill brain dead or a communist too?

Edit: I heard a Conservative MP on Radio 4 this morning suggesting that student residences should be used as temporary emergency accomodation. He must be a communist or brain dead too, as they are also 'private property'.

[jetblack]

This is what a country looks like when there is no-one steering the ship - when the deregulation of markets (combined with a "government" subservience to the global elite) takes precedence over the life chances and health and safety of ordinary citizens - when the profit motive is put above the greater public welfare. The empty properties in Kensington aren't (currently) peoples homes - they are safe haven investment vehicles. For the leader of the council to tell us that it might take several years to permanently rehome the victims of Grenfell Tower, and even then it might be outwith the borough, when there are 1400 properties stood empty on his own patch is unforgivable.

[Tman]

The Government requisitioned land and property during WW2, was Churchill brain dead or a communist too?

Edit: I heard a Conservative MP on Radio 4 this morning suggesting that student residences should be used as temporary emergency accomodation. He must be a communist or brain dead too, as they are also 'private property'.

More of the old "what-about-ery" and both very far from requisitioning private homes in the aftermath of a tragic fire.
Corbyn's a dangerous fool of the highest order, and now even the BBC have "Reality checked" his ludicrous statement.

Thought for dear old jet.....would he have called for such actions if the tower block had been in say...Tower Hamlets, Brixton or Southall...

[fishtank]

The problem with the idea of requisitioning empty property is that it's a "paper" idea that can't work in practice, think about it this way, what constitutes occupation?

Is there a legal definition that would hold up in court?
One day a week? Two days a month? Does it have to be the owner? If you were a millionaire/billionaire/hedge fund wouldn't you just "house" one of your employees/property manager in your vacant property to stop it being taken, obviously on the proviso that they don't actually live there just pop in every couple of days and flick a few light switches...maybe bake some cookies. The legal implications of trying to prove a negative like unoccupancy make the whole thing a non starter without even considering the moral position.

[Tman]

.........And following on from that, wouldn't said millionaires and hedge funds legally block the council's illegal actions in court, costing the council more money they can ill-afford and more time and effort wasted?
Still, I expect the little flash of his "true colours" has made some stop and consider what a Corbyn government would be like...

[jetblack]

Department for Communities and Local Government :-
"Where a property is said to be occupied it will be reasonable for the local authority to cross check with the electoral roll , or ask for evidence, such as utility bills showing usage of services, driving licence as proof of address, or receipts or other proof of moving costs.
• It will ultimately be a matter of fact whether the property is unoccupied and substantially unfurnished. Local authorities will be aware that under Schedule 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, civil penalties can be applied to a person who deliberately supplies false information. In addition, the provisions of the Theft Act 1968 apply to council tax. Where there is a question mark over occupation/furnishings it may be worth bringing this to the attention of residents and asking them to verify these facts in that light"

The local authorities generally know when a property is unoccupied - and if they don't it should, where there is a will to do so, be straightforward enough to find out.

As for the "moral" consideration - there isn't one.

[fishtank]

That definition wouldn't come close for a requisition Jet, companies can own properties and allow employees access to those properties on a short term basis for work, there is no need to be on the electoral roll if you are already at your main address and no need to prove anything to the council as long as the council tax gets paid. There would be tax implications for the employer and employee but trivial in the grand scheme of things.

It would be a legal minefield for the council and as pointed out one it can't afford both financially and in time wasted.

[Tman]

As for the "moral" consideration - there isn't one.

As a poster called "Milly" pointed out a while back, your posts range from rants to nonsensical.
I still think that one day you're going to come out with..."ha, had you all going there..." because this sort of thinking is for those only loosely acquainted with reality.

[jetblack]

Civil Contingencies Act 2004 - "an emergency as "an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare or to the environment..." - combined with fast track legislation and the legal problems should be quelled I reckon.

The legalities are not the problem - it is the will to act that is the real problem.

[fishtank]

Every action has consequences, if those consequences mean the council wastes money fighting legal cases it can't possibly win leaving less money to actually help those in need those become the "moral considerations".