Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Scandal: How much should housing really cost in UK? £1/wk?
Our homes should cost us £1 a week on average
The real cost of housing is £1 a week.
£1.00 a week home.
To give an example of how corrupt banking, taxes, usury (the charging of interest on money) actually is, here’s a simplified look at how much our homes should cost.
3 bricklayers working 40 hours a week for 3 weeks = (360) man hours to build in brick and block a 6 bed roomed house. Carpentry first and second fix, 2 men working 40 hours a week for 3 week = (240) man hours. As its new build, plumbing and electrics 4 men working one week 40 hours = (160) man hours. Roof tiles felt and lath 2 men working an 8 hour day working for 2 days = (32) man hours. Put a good slate roof on and it will last 200 years. Many homes (buildings) last for hundreds of years if built with care and quality materials and skilled workers.
360
240
160
032
That’s 792 man hours of labour, 19 weeks at 40 hours for the actual building.
So applying the same principles to building materials, with modern technology used diligently, for simplicity sake 708 hours
708 hours plus 792 hours.
1500 man hours total to build a 6 bed roomed house.
£10.00 per hour as an example to keep it simple and easier to understand. But really it’s about the amount of work we put into the community. And how usury devalues our spending power, of whatever currency, paper, metal, credit (numbers on a computer screen, your bank account) it is applied to.
If you needed to borrow money say £15,000 (the total in this case) as you pay no interest (usury) you pay back just the £15,000 if you do that over 50 years. = >6 pounds a week. Or even better pay, one pound a week to start, gradually pay more as you get you new work of the ground then after 25 years start to decrease the payments back so as to meet the original sum.
If after 50 years you can’t repay any remaining money back due to unforeseen circumstances and I’m sure you should get some help from your family and local community and there would not be much to pay back at that point in time, because we should have shared our work and wealth. In fact with the help of our family, friends and local community this would not be difficult at any time. And never the less All Debts Forgiven.
Some might say that its 6 pounds a week and not one pound. But remember that these homes can last many generations for only (1500 man hours)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Example:
Six bed roomed detached house in surrey built in the 1970’s on a small! plot in suburbia.
http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=6 52320
(Probably an expired link now as it was written in 2007)
£899,950
2007 bank rate rise to 5.5%.This can change any time the bank decides.
Loan repayment calculator
MONTHLY PAYMENT This calculator shows what your monthly payments would be for a given loan, where interest is compounded monthly. Payment protection insurance is excluded.
http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/calculators/calcLoanPay.html
Amount borrowed
e.g. 5000, no commas
Term Months Years 50 years
Interest rate % 5.5%
(Actual interest rate & not the APR) %
RESULT Calculate
Total monthly payment £ 4408.36 < £ 1000.0 per week (more than one thousand per week)
Total charge for credit £ 1745068.6
Total repayment £ 2645018.6
£2 million 6 hundred and 45 thousand, 18 pounds 6p
For something (your home and shelter) 6 men could build in 3 weeks and six men in 3 weeks make the materials.
How Much Can I Borrow? http://www.mortgagesorter.co.uk/mortgages_amount_you_can_borrow.html
Please fill in the following details so we can calculate the mortgage loan value you should be able to borrow:
Annual Income of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s
£ 260,000 thousand per year or £125 pounds per hour based on a 40 hour week
Annual bonus/commission of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s OR leave blank
£
You are entitled to borrow up to £ 910,000
----------------------------------------------------
Example only:
Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Wales 2007Where once child poverty in Wales exceeded the UK average,.... At all ages, at least a third of part-time employees are paid less than £6.50 per hour. ...
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/2096.asp
In the UK it would need at the moment (2007)Ten average earners to get together and work about 25/30 years of there life to achieve the same.
1500 hours as opposed to 500000 hours. 333.3r times more. In this case as far as housing goes and “this example only".
We work 333 days and benefit 1 DAY.
Also we pay Tax, income tax V.A.T. and many more various taxes. So for “example only” if we pay about 50% in taxes.
(And we continue to pay these various taxes when we think we own our homes after the mortgage has been paid off)
We are working 666 days and only benefit 1 DAY.
Allowing for weekends and so called holidays 222 days worked per year that’s
Three years to benefit ONE day.
Very large scale corrupt slight of hand extortion, maintained by the “benefits system” enough to fool most of the people and just enough to get by on for most people (for now)
Titles purposely designed to deceive.
National Economy - a national economy in the western world is totally wasteful; where most products are consumed and thrown away as quickly as possible and are actually manufactured to be waste within a very short space of time; so a National Economy is the opposite of its definition.
Deuteronomy:
23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
FREE LAND AT NO COST. Also with Torah LAW, land should be shared out and not owned.
Green, Sustainable
Economics a Phase of Divine Law
Excerpt only:
When Israel obtained the promised land, it was divided as fairly as possible so that EVERY family should receive its portion. The land was free from debt and the only tax was a tenth part of the fruit of the soil, the tithe being the inheritance of the Levites, who, being engaged in work of national importance, had no land.
The land was inherited, free of death duties, from generation to generation. It had no money value, and must not be sold for ever. The possessors of the land were regarded, not as the owners (for the land was God’s, Leviticus 25:23), but as God’s guests.
Should circumstances compel, it was permitted to sell the land, but the price should be adjusted according to the number of years to the Jubilee. The price was not for the land itself, but for its produce. In the fiftieth, the Year of Jubilee, every family must return to its inheritance. This great event must take place on the 10th day of the 7th month, the Day of Atonement, on which all the people made confession of their sins; it was a day for national repentance. Thus were closely related the economic and religious life of the nation. It was not a day of bondage, but a day of freedom, a day of new beginnings.
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." (Leviticus 25:10.)
If we are to retain the (questionable) blessings of machine power (and the pollution created by them), the system of finance capitalism with debt and interest must be abolished. In building a new system we must bear in mind the foundation principle of God’s Law — that every person is entitled to a share in the fruits of the soil. It is not possible for every man to possess land and to work entirely on it, but every secondary industry also depends upon the land for its raw materials and the workers for their food from it. Every worker contributes to the wealth of the nation. Those who do not actually produce add their services to the common pool. The sum total of national constructive effort is the true basis of the issue of money, whether in the form of currency or of credit. If the total productive power of the nation can be computed and the national income distributed in fair proportion to every person, irrespective of the nature of the employment, the result would be the same as giving everybody a share in the land itself.
Thus would the first principle of Divine Economic Law be obeyed — economic freedom and security for ALL. (No deprivation and therefore no reason to steal or commit crime in order to survive - JAH). It is not God’s Law that is out of step with mankind, but mankind that is drastically and criminally out of step with God and His Laws (James 4).
Object: To begin the process of returning the land in the UK to the people to whom it rightly belongs.
Methodology: Given that land – and its associated rights - is a free gift to mankind as a whole – not to particular individuals, this legislation will begin the process of divesting particular individual and corporate freeholders of title to excessive amounts of that land and distributing it fairly to whoever amongst the poorest in the land wishes to have it
Current situation: With roughly 10% of the population of the UK owning 95% of the land many ordinary people are entirely without security – the strain on current housing stock means prices are spiralling out of all realistic measure of a home’s actual worth and the need for more homes is only being restrained by a draconian development control system.
Historical models: There are two historical models which will be referred to throughout this bill, both occurring in and around the 1880’s in the British Isles. Firstly the handing over of title to land in Ireland to impoverished tenants through a series of acts of parliament culminating in the Wyndham Acts. Secondly the enshrining in British law the customary practices of the Scottish crofters through the Royal Commission into the grievances of the Crofters and the subsequent Crofting Act.
Powerful landed interests: human beings can be particularly nasty and graspingly territorial when it comes to the idea of controlling or owning land. Dirty tricks and underhand tactics to dilute or stop such a bill progressing through to legal enactment must be expected and allowed for. At all times it must be explained to landowners affected by this and subsequent bills that their land is held from the crown – it is not their own – and that in almost every case has been gained historically in various unethical ways including as a crude ‘reward’ for bloodshed.
Stages of the bill
1. The setting up of a land commission of 12 individuals with a proven track record in land rights and a UK government ministry of land with the task of ensuring that all Britain’s citizens have access to land.
2. The identification by the commission of Britain’s top 10 individual and corporate landowners and the opening by the ministry of a list of individuals in various degrees of housing need to take part in the land resettlement programme. These individual will be prioritised by a points system similar to that used on local authority housing lists.
3. The organising of people in the land resettlement list into clusters of like-minded individuals and the setting up of individual workers co-operatives using the same rules of succession and land management as in the Crofting Acts. Each Ecovillage will contain a proportion of at least 50% of the land as collectively managed but ideally more like 90% collectively managed.
4. The selection by the commission of 10% of large landowners’ land for reclaiming by the crown (the current ultimate landowner) into the crown estates.
5. The appointment by the commission of a further group of 7 experts in Permaculture, Bioregionalism, alternative technology and low-impact land use to divide reclaimed crown land into areas which can readily support between 500 and 1000 people with a density of roughly ¼ acre per individual. This ‘Ecovillage commission’ will designate particular areas as ‘village centres’ and arrange for the building of large meeting halls. They will also clear and landscaping rail/roadways to be completed by the villagers themselves.
6. The transfer of freehold from the crown estates to the new co-operatives and the apportioning of interest free land ministry loans repayable over at least 80 years to build on granted land.
This page maintained by David Luckhardt, Musketeer and WebMeister
_________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Our homes should cost us £1 a week on average
Answers audio - Dr Ariel Hessayon: Restoring the Garden of Eden in England's Green and Pleasant Land
Free University - Restoring the Garden of Eden
Dr Ariel Hessayon: Restoring the Garden of Eden in England's Green and
Pleasant Land.
What meaning does the activity of The Diggers, 1649-50, and the thinking
of Gerrard Winstanley now hold ?
Dr Hessayon is based at Goldsmiths Department of History.
* ‘The making of Abiezer Coppe', Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2009)
* ‘Restoring the Garden of Eden in England’s Green and Pleasant Land: The
Diggers and the Fruits of the Earth’, Journal for the Study of Radicalism,
2 (2008), pp. 1–25
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: Our homes should cost us £1 a week on average
There not far off that now...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
Running on empty, motor city where houses sell for £500
• Detroit suffers spectacular property market plunge
• Subprime crisis left banks with thousands of homes
* Andrew Clark in Detroit
* The Guardian,
* Saturday October 25 2008
* Article history
What can you buy in America for $1,000? A flat-screen television, perhaps. A weekend break in the sun. Or a three-bedroom suburban home with stripped wood floors and a garage in the country's motor capital.
Property markets on both sides of the Atlantic have plunged, but nowhere has the collapse been more spectacular than in the down-at-heel industrial city of Detroit. Prices are so low that it is possible to buy a repossessed house for the cost of a couple of months' rent.
"If you've got just a little money coming in, you can afford to live here," says Lolita Haley, a resolutely upbeat estate agent in Detroit's inner suburbs. "I've had people call me from as far away as India in search of property at these prices."
Haley's firm, Prime Financial Plus, has homes on its books for as little as $649 (£411). But these tend to be in poor shape, damaged by vandals. For something classier, buyers will need to dig deep - by writing a cheque running into four figures.
The princely sum of $1,250 would be enough to secure 14918 Stansbury Street, a three-bedroom brick house on a tree-lined street with a garden.
"We've got $1m houses within a few miles of here," says Haley, a fierce advocate for her city. "I've lived in Detroit all my life and I've had a good time. I'm not one of these naysayers. If you want the good, you'll get the good. If you expect the bad, you're gonna get the bad."
A land registry search for Stansbury Street provides a clue to just how spectacular the crash has been. In 2001, the same property changed hands for $88,000. As prices declined, it was sold again for $33,500 two years ago. But the buyer was unable to keep up mortgage payments and after foreclosure, the bank dumped it on to the market at its present rock-bottom price tag on October 15.
Laden with thousands of vacant Detroit homes, banks have become desperate to sell, accepting a pittance to avoid bills for maintenance and security. These homes are the root cause of billions of dollars of write-offs for banks on Wall Street and in the City of London, crippling institutions such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
"It's sad - it's sad to see what's happening here," says Tracie Peltier, who runs another local estate agency, 3 Tier Realty, with her husband, Jay. "The longer they keep a house on their books, the higher the chances of vandalism, the chances of somebody going in and burning it up, of someone going in and stripping all the copper out."
America's 11th biggest city has been bleeding people for years. Its population, which peaked at 1.85 million in 1950, has halved to 917,000 and a third of its residents live below the poverty line.
The local economy revolves around America's "big three" car manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler - which are in dire straits. Between them, they have cut more than 100,000 jobs in five years and a real prospect of bankruptcy looms as they struggle to cope with high fuel prices and an economic slowdown.
Robin Boyle, professor of urban planning at Detroit's Wayne State University, says the city was at the forefront of ill-fated efforts to encourage home ownership among the poor. "The subprime mortgage industry was in full flag in Detroit," he says. "There was an enormous emphasis, for many years, in trying to assist people with access to home ownership."
According to research firm RealtyTrac, banks have filed foreclosure proceedings on 37,370 Detroit properties in the year to September. Half of the city's home sales in 2008 have been for less than $10,000. Even Aretha Franklin, the "Queen of Soul", faced a fight to stave off foreclosure on her Detroit mansion because of unpaid taxes back in March.
Jay Peltier, who negotiates loans at 3 Tier Realty, says: "The vast majority of people who live in Detroit are good people. It's truly a vocal minority who are destroying the city, coupled with a large number of people turning a blind eye."
One industry, demolition, is thriving in the slump. On Stansbury Street this week, Frank Farrow, of Farrow Demolition, was hawking his services. He displayed a list of a dozen bank-owned properties which he was contracted to destroy in a week.
"A house like this, we could have it down in 15 minutes," he says, eyeing the up-for-sale property at number 14918. The only problem? It will cost $4,500 to cart away the rubble and back-fill the foundations. For the banks, it is cheaper to give away houses than to knock them down.
detroit
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: Our homes should cost us £1 a week on average
VIDEO: Home Smart Home - 25 mins long
New building trends and green technology make their mark in Russia. Leading the charge is Rusnano's aptly named Nano House, which is jam-packed with innovations, from the building foundation to the solar panels on the roof. International developers are even getting in on the act, taking advantage of Russia's wealth of engineering know-how. And home automation systems aren't just for the super rich anymore, as a trio of Russian companies are working to bring intelligent homes within the reach of more and more people.
http://rt.com/programs/technology-update/nano-house-rusnano-innovation s/
Friday 18 May 2012 - Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/factfiles/fact-file-the-housing-cris is-7746261.html
A Labour council’s attempts to rehouse 500 of Newham’s poorest families as far afield as Stoke-on-Trent has highlighted Britain's shortage of affordable housing, which housing associations warn will soon reach crisis-point.
Social housing stock has declined from 5.5 million homes in 1980/81 to 3.8 million homes in 2010/11 according to Government figures. The recession has seen waiting lists grow, house prices forecasted to rise and private sector rents also rising, against seasonal trends.
Housing associations and charities have argued that the housing benefit cap exacerbates the problem, resulting in an urban gentrification tantamount to social cleansing. Housing Minister Grant Shapps has countered with accusations of political game-playing and confirmed the Government’s commitment to build 170,000 affordable new homes by 2015.
Other initiatives include help for first-time buyers and promoting house boats. But with 1.7 million households currently on council waiting lists, will this be enough?
The Numbers
£7bn – Annual cost of poor housing borne by the NHS, the education system and social services. Source: The Pro-housing Alliance
35 – Average age of first-time buyers in the UK. Sources: Property Wire, Post Office Mortgages
77.3% - Real term decrease in government spending on housing between 1980/81 and 2000/01. Source: The Pro-housing Alliance
1 in 12 – Proportion of the UK currently on waiting lists for social housing. Source: The Pro-housing Alliance
62,000 – Number of homeless families in 2009/10. Source: Shelter
Further Reading
I Can Afford to Pay the Rent: Most People Can’t Owen Jones, the Independent, 2012
English Housing Survey, Headline Report 2010-11, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011
Recommendations for the Reform of UK Housing Policy, The Pro-housing Alliance, 2011
Why We Campaign: The Housing Crisis, Shelter, 2011
First-time buyers: Life begins at 40, Kunal Dutta, the Independent, 2011
Timeline
1919 – Concern over the poor physical health of WWI recruits leads Lloyd George’s government to launch the 'Homes Fit For Heroes' campaign, requiring councils to provide housing.
1945-1951 – Clement Attlee’s post-war government builds over a million homes, mostly council properties.
1980-1998 – Approximately 2 million council homes are sold off, following the success of Thatcher’s 'Right-to-Buy' scheme.
2008 – The financial crisis leads to an increase in the mortgage deposits demanded by banks. With social housing stock depleted, many are trapped in costly rented accommodation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/factfiles/fact-file-the-housing-cris is-7746261.html
#
Cameron backs plan to make rack rents the norm & evict higher earners from social housing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/19/social-housing-income-ca p-shapps
Fears 'pay-to-stay' scheme will drive thousands out of housing association and council properties
Patrick Wintour, political editor - The Guardian, Saturday 19 May 2012
The government is introducing measures that could drive thousands of families out of social housing by removing any subsidy for their rent.
In what is being billed as a "pay to stay" scheme, Downing Street has swung behind plans to introduce a new household income threshold above which social tenants must pay full market rent. The government is expected to say that rent subsidy will be capped at a household income of £60,000, meaning, for example, a couple on £30,000 each could see their rent rise by about £70 a week.
The scheme, applicable to all housing association and council properties, is explicitly designed to make social housing primarily available to the poor.
The housing minister, Grant Shapps, has referred to the idea before, but Downing Street's embrace of the proposal means it will now go ahead with a consultation paper next month.
The government says it is necessary to remove an unfairness in the system and to allocate scarce housing resources more efficiently. Critics will say the scheme will give wealthier families an incentive to buy their property at discounted rates, removing social housing from the market.
The government has been accused of driving some poor tenants from properties in wealthier inner-city areas by introducing a higher rent, set at 80% of the market rent. It has also introduced a so-called spare room tax, so that under-occupying social tenants of working age are docked £14 a week for one spare bedroom and £25 a week for two. No tenant will receive more than £500 a week in welfare payments, a measure that will affect larger families on housing benefit.
The welfare cap is, in polling terms, one of the most popular policies the government has introduced, and the new £60,000 household income cap for social housing tenants is likely to win equally wide support.
A No 10 source linked the two measures, saying: "It's not right that high earners benefit from taxpayer-funded housing subsidy. Just as we have introduced a cap on housing benefit and welfare payments to make the system fairer, now we're acting on social housing too."
Government sources added that social housing should be regarded as a precious asset to be devoted to those most in need, not a cheap option for those who can afford competitive rents or their own property.
The government consultation, due to be launched next month by Shapps, will suggest a range of options for the threshold, with the lowest at £60,000.
Ministers have been looking at a range of proposals to make social housing more flexible, including the removal of so-called lifetime tenancies, replacing them with fixed-term tenancies. Social housing tenants can also no longer pass their homes to their children.
Government research shows that as many as 6,000 social rented homes in England are lived in by people who earn a combined income of more than £100,000, including Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union. At the proposed £60,000 threshold, ministers estimate as many as 34,000 social rented homes in England alone would be affected.
It is being stressed that no one would be evicted from their home, simply that they would have to pay higher rents.
The government claims the economic subsidy provided by sub-market rents for social housing is worth £3,600 a year on average, or £69 a week.
The total cost of this annual subsidy for those above the £60,000 threshold is £122.4m, and the annual subsidy for a £100,000 threshold is £21.6m.
Social rents are set on the basis of a formula linked to size of the property, its value and local earnings.
Labour has always argued that social housing should be for a mix of tenants and not seen as the preserve of the poor. The Liberal Democrats have curbed some government housing reforms, but could arguably support the measure as a legitimate restriction on middle-class welfare.
However, social housing has been increasingly taken up as an option by young professionals unable to afford to own their own home. The cost of the cheapest quarter of homes is now more than six times average household income and eight times in London.
The overall social housing budget was cut by more than 50% in the 2010 spending review, to £4.4bn, and the number of people on council waiting lists is now 1.8m, an 80% increase in the last decade.
In a report this week, Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation said the government was failing on five of its 10 key indicators: affordability of the private rented sector, help with housing costs, homelessness, housing supply and overcrowding.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: Our homes should cost us £1 a week on average
London's housing crisis hotspots
1 in 10 Londoners are on council housing waiting lists.
Andrew Fisher from the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP) explains the latest shocking waiting list statistics
Newham council and several others are looking to move residents outside of London due to a shortage of affordable housing.
Everyone knows there's a housing crisis, and that it's particularly acute in London. But when I started researching London's crisis hot
http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/22/housingmarket-london -data _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject:
Figures show 44% rise in B&B use
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/figures-show-44-rise-in-bb-use/652 3752.article
The number of families living in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation has rocketed by 44 per cent in a year.
Research by the National Housing Federation, published today ahead of its annual conference in Birmingham, shows there were 3,960 families in bed and breakfasts between January and March this year. This compares to 2,750 for the same period in 2011.
The findings are likely to fuel fears that welfare reforms, the economic situation and a shortage of homes are increasingly leading councils to place more people in B&Bs. Communities and Local Government department guidance states councils should avoid using B&Bs where possible, and where they do us it, move people to permanent homes as soon as possible.
In April then housing minister Grant Shapps wrote to 20 councils expressing concerns about their use of B&Bs.
The NHF said the figures show the importance of alternative temporary accommodation, such as houses or flats leased by social landlords, as these are more stable and secure than B&Bs.
David Orr, chief executive of NHF, called on the government to confirm whether the £26,000 benefit cap, which comes into effect in April, will apply to temporary accommodation.
He said: ‘Without the safety net of temporary accommodation, thousands more families will find themselves in a vicious cycle of homelessness.
‘It is essential that the government puts in place measures to protect this crucial service and the vulnerable families who depend on it.’
The NHF findings follow an Inside Housing survey in January which revealed a sharp increase in councils housing people in B&Bs and hostels. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:06 am Post subject:
Dirty Squatters - Zounds
I've lived in this street for nearly fifteen years
Lived here with my hopes, lived here with my fears
Paid my taxes, paid my bills
Watched my money vanished in the council tills
Alone come these scruffs with their education
Their grand ideas, talk of corruption
My rent keeps rising, my job gets boring
If things gets worse then I'm gonna have to join them
Funny where research into the 911 attacks can lead
One big lie opening ones eyes to other big lies
Let's take stock of this mind blowing contribution by Andrew
A 6 bedroom house
Labour 800 man-hours
Materials 700 man-hours
= 1500 man-hours
At £10/hour wages
= £15,000
Repayments over 200 years life of house
£1/week
All the extra we all pay in rent or mortgage repayments is
Inflated land price
Bank & landlord extortion
Astounding _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
So..........
6 bed house costs £15k in materials & man hours of labour to build
Lasts 200 years
That's £1/wk
Rest is land/banking racketeers..! _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject:
James Armstrong from Dorchester has just responded to these figures....
James Armstrong wrote:
1 You quote materials cost at “700 man hours”
Do you mean the equivalent of 700man hours?
2 One skilled man to build a garage in Exmouth cost last year £180 per 8 hour day which is £22.50 per hour, not £10 per hour.
(this was a gung ho, experienced, super efficient , top class worker, and I would guess cheaper than your average employed building workmanship).
Here is my calculation.( a more detailed calc would take some weeks to finalise)
Following calculations Based on recently 2009 completed houses at St Minver Cornwall.
A 3 bed detached house with single garage (including services and access road for 24 houses) cost £83,000 each of which £10,000 was site cost = £73,000 net..
These were nominally self build so minimal labour cost for architect , sub contractors for groundworks gas installation plumbing , plus plg fees , NHBC certificate, etc.
3 Another consideration is that a 6 bed house is built to a higher spec than a 3 bed house.
I have therefore included cost of 3 out of the six beds having en suite bathrooms and generally a higher spec.
4 another consideration on the specification
A large part of the cost of a house is the standard of finish- (For a 6 bed pretentious house think triple glazing, solid wood doors, parquet flooring, fitted walk in wardrobes, dado rails etc)
Cost to build 6 bed house, plus double garage, with 3 bedrooms having en suite bathrooms – think a better than average, but not pretentious - better Wimpey type .
Cost does not include site cost which could be anything up to £1millionor or £500,000
Unless you inherit Poundbury where site cost for half an acre is nil or the annual CAP grant forfeited. Site Cost not included.
Based on the St Minver example upgraded , with labour cost added
Cost for 6 bed house with 4 bathrooms- 3 of which en suite
Materials
cf St Minver 3 beds plus 4 utility rooms plus one garage ) £73,000
Bristol ? 6 beds plus 3 extra en suite baths .plus extra garage total 14 rooms =
Materials (equiv to St Minver ) £73k x 14 = £ 170,000
6
Labour (your quote) 700 ? man hours at (my rate) £22.50 £157,500
Total £327, 500
I have just returned from France where self build is the norm. (not new)
Detached bungalows Are selling for £100k - £150k . Self building is a human right currently abrogated. We should start a political party to facilitate family life through self building.
The building land, and in plenty is currently squirreled away by 6 large plc builders.
They own (2004) 732,000 house sites and would be self builders cannot find one.
If that is not a monopoly against the public interest, and unlawful, what is?
Land Poverty podcast. From Highland Clearances to Housing Bubble: 'The Poor Had No Lawyers' writer Andy Wightman http://tinyurl.com/8ogdql9 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Moving tale: millions of people, especially the young, are realising that their hopes of buying their own home will be unfulfilled, perhaps forever Photo: PA
By Mary Riddell - 7:56PM GMT 11 Dec 2012 - 914 Comments !!
Abu Qatada has moved on. Reports that the Muslim cleric has been given a new home, courtesy of the taxpayer, have provoked outrage. As the Tory MP Priti Patel puts it: “It’s disgraceful when there are almost two million families on waiting lists.”
Despite predictable anger at Britain’s least welcome house guest getting so much as a free jelly bean from the state, let alone a comfortable residence, Ms Patel’s statistic implies a greater problem. Homelessness has risen by more than a quarter in three years, with the number of families forced to live in B&Bs, often in conditions reminiscent of the Dickensian workhouse, up by 57 per cent in the past 12 months. Many of those languishing on Ms Patel’s lists wait for a home much as Vladimir and Estragon, the protagonists of Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, waited for the non-arrival of Godot.
On Shelter’s estimate, 75,000 children will wake up on Christmas Day without a home. This is not, however, a hard luck story about the poor. Millions of young people are now realising that their hopes of buying their own homes will be unfulfilled, perhaps for ever.
Stagnant wages, rocketing property costs and a mortgage moratorium mean the average first-time buyer in London is now 37. Census figures published yesterday show that house-building fell by four per cent between 2001 and 2011, while the numbers renting from private landlords rose from nine to 15 per cent. Such shifts make housing the ultimate one-nation issue. The young professional living in a childhood bedroom has a link, albeit distant, to the human bundle swaddled in cardboard and sleeping in a frozen underpass. Neither can envisage owning, or in some cases even renting, a home of their own.
The central problem is too little building. If the trends of the past two decades continue, then demand for housing will outstrip supply by 750,000 homes by 2025, according to a new report by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Of the 88 per cent of 18- to 30-year-olds who told the institute that they hoped to own their own home within 10 years, the majority will see their hopes thwarted.
Related Articles
Miller to be investigated by watchdog over expenses 13 Dec 2012
Home ownership hits lowest level in 24 years 16 Nov 2012
Companies buy-up £5.6bn of London homes 04 Dec 2012
Mansion tax will 'stifle investment' 01 Dec 2012
New housing taxes will deter key investments 01 Dec 2012
UK mortgage approvals hit 10-month high 29 Nov 2012
At the far end of the spectrum lie those whose only permanent address is likely to be Desolation Row. Their chances just got worse with the signal, in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, of the breaking of the historic link between the cost of renting and housing benefits. Housing allowance, the benefit paid direct to landlords, would be increased by 2.2 per cent in April and be capped at one per cent in subsequent years.
Arcane laws stipulating that vagabonds be “commanded to avoid the town” will be rehashed, with a churn of homeless families moved to the cheapest areas, irrespective of whether there is any work. New strictures to be introduced in April include a cap of £500 a week on all benefits, housing included. While the focus has been on the (very few) supposed welfare oligarchs living in expensive inner London, the real financial scandal has gone unnoticed.
As one shadow minister, Karen Buck, points out, recent government forecasts predicted that £35 billion would be spent subsidising private rents between 2011 and 2015, meaning the taxpayer will pay £12 billion more on supporting low-income households renting in the private sector than in the preceding four-year period.
Whatever small savings come from welfare crackdowns, the only winners will be the private landlords now demanding extortionate rents from benefit claimants and from young people forced to shelve any idea of buying their own homes. This week, Labour promised, as part of its policy review, to consult on forcing landlords to give longer tenancies and “predictable” rents.
The question is why – since the state is picking up much of the tab – it should not revert to the old practice of forcing modern Rachmans to cap their rent at reasonable levels. The wider problem, which Labour should have done far more to rectify when it was in office, is the dearth of affordable social housing.
All parties are scurrying to remedy that deficit. George Osborne promised 120,000 new homes in the Autumn Statement, and the housing minister, Mark Prisk, insists that the Government is “pulling out all the stops to get Britain building and deliver the homes the country needs”. Belatedly, the Tories have realised that, with a crisis imminent, the only “shovel-ready” project risks being their own grave.
But even if you leave aside the dead hand of recession, there is little consensus on what is needed. Nick Boles, the planning minister, last week attracted criticism for a plan that neglected brownfield sites and the 400,000 fallow plots that already have planning permission. By blaming Labour’s immigration policy (while forgetting to mention that immigrants also pay their taxes and benefit the economy), Mr Boles appeared to advocate diminishing both the green belt and good community relations.
Although Ed Balls has done his best to compel colleagues to back more social housing, the shadow housing minister, Jack Dromey, admits that “housing has not been sufficiently centre-stage for a very long time”. It will, he promises, be a key election issue for Labour, which looks unwilling to buy the myth that hacking benefits offers even a partial answer. Ed Miliband’s refusal to say whether he will vote against the plan to cap welfare payments to 1 per cent is almost certainly based on a reluctance to play into the hands of a cunning Chancellor who is likely to tweak his proposals to set a trap for Labour once he knows their intentions.
If the proposal, as outlined in the Autumn Statement, is unchanged, I understand that Mr Miliband will refuse to back it. Mr Balls said as much at Treasury questions yesterday. It is not only shabby but self-defeating for Labour doubters to say there are no votes in courting the poor when housing offers an example of a blight uniting all classes.
Even those unlikely to join the 2,200 people who sleep rough in the streets – a rise of one fifth in a year – are sucked into a world of blight, in which rising rents and rising damp are symptoms of a deeper malaise. Some young people who talked to the Institute for Public Policy Research spoke of how they were deferring getting married or having children; others said they had no sense of belonging or commitment to the area in which they lived. These are not the vagrants of tomorrow but the bank managers, the teachers and the potential backbone of the communities that bind Britain together.
Like the houses and flats that Generation Rent cannot and may never afford, that sense of belonging is beyond price. If it is to be restored, then rents must be brought down and investment shifted from welfare (and the pockets of unscrupulous landlords) into building the homes that Britain needs so desperately.
James Armstrong from Dorchester has just responded to these figures....
James Armstrong wrote:
1 You quote materials cost at “700 man hours”
Do you mean the equivalent of 700man hours?
2 One skilled man to build a garage in Exmouth cost last year £180 per 8 hour day which is £22.50 per hour, not £10 per hour.
(this was a gung ho, experienced, super efficient , top class worker, and I would guess cheaper than your average employed building workmanship).
Here is my calculation.( a more detailed calc would take some weeks to finalise)
Following calculations Based on recently 2009 completed houses at St Minver Cornwall.
A 3 bed detached house with single garage (including services and access road for 24 houses) cost £83,000 each of which £10,000 was site cost = £73,000 net..
These were nominally self build so minimal labour cost for architect , sub contractors for groundworks gas installation plumbing , plus plg fees , NHBC certificate, etc.
3 Another consideration is that a 6 bed house is built to a higher spec than a 3 bed house.
I have therefore included cost of 3 out of the six beds having en suite bathrooms and generally a higher spec.
4 another consideration on the specification
A large part of the cost of a house is the standard of finish- (For a 6 bed pretentious house think triple glazing, solid wood doors, parquet flooring, fitted walk in wardrobes, dado rails etc)
Cost to build 6 bed house, plus double garage, with 3 bedrooms having en suite bathrooms – think a better than average, but not pretentious - better Wimpey type .
Cost does not include site cost which could be anything up to £1millionor or £500,000
Unless you inherit Poundbury where site cost for half an acre is nil or the annual CAP grant forfeited. Site Cost not included.
Based on the St Minver example upgraded , with labour cost added
Cost for 6 bed house with 4 bathrooms- 3 of which en suite
Materials
cf St Minver 3 beds plus 4 utility rooms plus one garage ) £73,000
Bristol ? 6 beds plus 3 extra en suite baths .plus extra garage total 14 rooms =
Materials (equiv to St Minver ) £73k x 14 = £ 170,000
6
Labour (your quote) 700 ? man hours at (my rate) £22.50 £157,500
Total £327, 500
I have just returned from France where self build is the norm. (not new)
Detached bungalows Are selling for £100k - £150k . Self building is a human right currently abrogated. We should start a political party to facilitate family life through self building.
The building land, and in plenty is currently squirreled away by 6 large plc builders.
They own (2004) 732,000 house sites and would be self builders cannot find one.
If that is not a monopoly against the public interest, and unlawful, what is?
Very interesting subject,
much in my thoughts,
let me know the background.
James
I have only just seen this post, it seems that on his figures where he says about the labour costs and materials (and land). What is not pointed out is that they are all subject to the same racketeers. So it all gets inflated up and at different rates.
So that's why I put it in man hours and just used £10.00 per hour to simplify it, but seems to have complicated it.
Also many of the current houses and empty hoses etc, the builders have already been paid for them. So people could have them for free in that sense. Or if the credit/money (means of exchange) was given out to new builds and upgrades of existing buildings where necessary for free too, as its a basic inalienable right to have shelter (a home).
The only losers would be the issuing bankster criminals, even though they could be well provided for too. As no one needs 100's of trillions, and their multi level pyramidal ponzi scheme, where each level suppresses those below and are oppressed by those levels above them in the ponzi scheme, with more people towards the bottom at each level.
Its all part of the Jubilee Laws that we have never kept really.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject:
Trouble is Andrew that a home is not an inforcable inalienable right.
Never has been as far as I know.
A campaign would do well - like the chartists - to demand it be made so.
Tied in knots by the money masters?
'The Earth Is A Common Treasury For All'
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk
Annual subscription £22 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:38 pm Post subject:
New British homes the smallest in Europe http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/11/housing
Robert Booth - The Guardian, Thursday 11 September 2008
The UK is building the most cramped housing in Europe in a phenomenon dubbed "rabbit hutch" Britain, with every country in western Europe, from Ireland to Italy, providing bigger new homes.
"The cause is simple and shocking," said Ellis Woodman, the curator behind the British pavilion at the Venice Architecture Biennale, opening today, which examines why the quality of British housing has fallen behind the rest of Europe. "England and Wales are the only parts of Europe where house-building is unregulated by legally binding minimum space standards," he said. "That oversight is all too indicative of the failure of successive British governments to ensure that we are well housed."
Homes in the UK have the smallest rooms west of Poland and old dwellings are not much bigger, with the average floor space almost a quarter smaller than in Denmark, which boasts western Europe's most spacious living accommodation.
Among the smallest homes on the market are Barratt Homes' "Manhattan pods" in Harlow, Essex, which have just 34 square metres of space and a living room measuring three metres by 3.6 metres.
A survey by the housing charity Shelter of 500 families living in overcrowded conditions revealed that 86% felt someone in their family was suffering from depression, anxiety or stress and 71% said overcrowding had a negative impact on their health.
"I haven't got any room for anything," said Sonia Donovan, a 23-year-old pregnant single mother who lives in a one- bedroom council flat in Plymouth. "In my bedroom I've got my bed, my son's bed, cupboards and baby's cot. It causes a lot of stress in a small property, especially with my small son and another one on the way. I'm depressed and I feel homeless."
In November, London mayor Boris Johnson will propose the reintroduction of minimum space standards on all publicly-funded housing in the capital, with one-bedroom flats having to be no smaller than 50 square metres and three-bedroom homes a minimum 74 square metres. Johnson said in the summer that it was "shameful that new buildings in London have some of the smallest rooms in Europe".
In a separate move aimed at freeing up more space in Britain's homes, the government said yesterday that it would waive planning procedures for loft conversions of fewer than 50 cubic metres and single-storey extensions no more than 3 metres deep.
Housebuilders have warned that space standards could increase costs and slow down housebuilding, which is already falling short of government targets. "We can't increase the footprint of a home without increasing the land we need to buy and develop," said Steve Turner, a spokesman for the Home Builders' Federation. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
UK Land Rights network Reclaim The Fields starts week long spring gathering in Forest of Dean today http://yorkleycourt.wordpress.com
If u visit Yorkley Court RTF land rights gathering be sure 2 take stout walking boots/wellies, it's muddy http://yorkleycourt.wordpress.com _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Map showing 1m uninhabited homes across the UK
http://t.co/fcK6D8zSTy
@Squash_campaign- homelessness, squatting _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Mortgages are hard to get, rents keep rising, and being a landlord is becoming even more attractive to those with capital. Sixty per cent of Housing Benefit recipients are in work, as are all recipients of Tax Credits, and both these schemes look like a subsidy to employers for paying low wages. However, most of these subsidies end up in the pockets of the landlords!!
It is not the first time that wages have been subsidised – and failed to solve the imagined problem. The Speenham Land System, introduced in 1795, allowed the Speenham Parish in Berkshire to subsidise the wages of farm workers, and the system soon spread to large parts of England. While farmers then – just like employers today – took advantage of being able to pay low wages, it was not these low wages that were the real problem. It was the price of corn (essential for bread!) and it was only when the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846, and cheap corn could be imported into Britain, that the problem was solved.
Britain, like many countries, found that migration from the countryside to the towns, as the agrarian economy changed to an industrial one, produced a housing problem. The really sub-standard housing in the towns and cities of the early industrial revolution would probably have lasted longer if it hadn’t proved dangerous to health – everyone’s health – including the wealthy. Sanitation and sewers solved that problem, but overcrowding, sharing toilets and using council bathhouses was still rife after the 2nd World War.
The 1945 election produced a Labour government that offered more than the empty rhetoric of Lloyd George’s post-World War1 slogan of ‘a land fit for heroes’. After launching the NHS, the government began a most ambitious programme for getting rid of the slums by massively expanding council housing.
Successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, had a consensus – often called a mixed economy – and that included building council houses. A roof over your head was seen as much a right as education, the NHS and full employment.
Thatcher, a populist, ended this consensus, offering instead greed and selfishness, epitomised in the 1980 Housing Act that forced councils to sell off council houses to their tenants at big discounts. The Act also specified that councils must pay off all debt before they could use the proceeds of these sales for building new council homes. Since most councils had debt, this was the death knell for council housing.
Today, the cause of the housing crisis can be traced directly back to Thatcher. The pity is that Thatcher could not have lived to see this disaster unfurling. Her economic ideas were based on the free market and monetarism, and she equated controlling the money supply with balancing the weekly household budget! Sir Alan Walters, her Chief Economic Advisor from 1981-1983, was a monetarist, but monetarism has long since fallen out of favour, even though its disastrous effects are still being felt. This simplistic idea – that running a country is the same as balancing the weekly household budget – still finds favour with Frau Merkel and David Cameron but with very few others.
Since 1980, around two million council homes have been sold and, as can be seen in Appendix A below (www.gov.uk ) only 1.2 million built. All the council houses sold are now lost from the social housing stock, giving a net loss of 800,000 homes over the last 30 years. And this over a period where the population has been rising!!
The figures also show that the mantra of reducing the public sector, in order to set private enterprise free, does not apply to house building, since the number of units built by the private sector in the boom years – 2000-2008 – were less than in the 1960s, when council house building was also at its height.
Any solution based on building more houses – private and/or social housing – will take many years to come to fruition. There are, however, solutions that do not take years.
Firstly, the vast majority of landlords use borrowed money to purchase properties, because this is tax efficient for them! There is tax relief on interest paid on the loan, which is really a subsidy http://bit.ly/ZmAFOf, so that this anachronism should be ended.
Secondly, one of the last acts of butchery that Thatcher performed on society before the Poll Tax rebellion toppled her was to abolish rent control and security-of-tenure for tenants in privately-rented properties. The reintroduction of proper rent controls, coupled with security of tenure, would take the pressure out of the rental market and see rents being reduced. Less being spent on housing benefit and tax credit and there would be time to produce a genuine housing policy not based on the economics of the madhouse.
Why will the Government and the Opposition not consider this? Yet again, the political will isn’t there, and as long as governments continue to ignore the people who have elected them – and get away with it – Thatcher’s legacy will continue to blight the lives of the less fortunate in society and, increasingly, young people looking to make their way in life.
NewsSpeakRadio
Published on 18 Feb 2013
http://www.voidmortgage.com
Every day, all over England & Wales the international bankers are unlawfully evicting We the People from our homes, in what has to be one of the biggest
scandals currently facing this country. In 2011 alone at least 36,000
repossessions were executed by the banks. However, as you will see....
For those dealing with the bailiff mafia check out this definitive case law that will protect you.
Equity aids the vigilant, not he who sleeps on his rights...
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753
Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77
Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453 likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes, Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571
Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance, Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387 nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391
Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words, Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618.
If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first. Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6 or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to leave, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33
Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791
A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197. Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance, Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516
Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty, Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (ie workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590
The debtor's home and all buildings within the boundary of the premises are protected against forced entry, Munroe & Munroe v Woodspring District Council [1979] Weston-Super-Mare County Court
Contrast: A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119
It is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry, Lewis v Owen [1893] The Times November 6 p.36b (QBD)
If a bailiff enters by force he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser. Curlewis v Laurie [1848] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557
A debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter, Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578
If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtors door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 or Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781
If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723 - but it is unreasonable for a police officer to arrest the bailiff unless he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.
Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 if the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally, likewise R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012 if the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:40 pm Post subject:
UK 2000 person autonomous ecovillage design
Ecoville 2000 was a brilliant ecovillage design squased by the UK & French governments
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/69405
We have to look back to the mid 1990's to find what is almost certainly the best-thought-through proposal for ecologically and socially sound housing in the Western World. Ecovillage 2000 was the brainchild of two men at the Centre of Alternative Technology (CAT) in Machynlleth.
Roger Kelly was a pioneer of Housing Associations in the 1970's. As director of Solon South-West he built and managed thousands of homes. Roger then moved to Wales, becoming director of CAT in 1988. Richard St. George was intent on putting the ideas of E.F. Schumacher into practice. Small is Beautiful, for Richard, marked the coming of age of the green movement. Specifically his emphasis on researching, designing and building the alternatives.
Richard and Roger had both been racking their brains over a dilemma. Small were acting as beautiful beacons for future sustainable development, but pioneering communities needed to be bigger to compete with the outside economy. The question was just how big?
The fundamental test of a community's viability, Richard argued, is its ability to retain its teenagers and to enable people of all ages to to share positions of responsibility. strike a balance with everyone sharing the community's positions of responsibility. So many times with Intentional Communities young people decided it wasn't for them so many of them fled the nest after a generation or so they died out through being abandoned by their young people. What would keep them there would be a standard of living as good or better than the best civilisation has to offer combined with a real independent spirit
In the winter of 1994 Richard woke one morning to find himself snowed in. It looked like it might be several days until he found his way into work at CAT. A great time, he decided, to bite the bullet. Richard sat down and listed every service that we might expect in any civilised community: doctor, farmer, teacher, mechanic, builder, plumber, carpenter, printer, IT fixer, and the list went on... and on... and on.
Eventually it ran to over 220 roles under eleven headings, with a job description for each role. Agricultural; crafts; arts; sports; estate management; services; health; educational; commercial; technical and industrial. Over succeeding days for the two weeks he was snowed in, he worked out how many people, considering holidays, training, sickness, shift work, etc. would be need in each of these key roles. Children and the elderly would not be expected to do any work of course. He came up with a figure of each role needing from between one and 25 people to fill it.
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/69405 _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Housing Crisis:
@jeremycorbyn:
BBC News - Rent 'unaffordable' for low-income families in third of UK
http://t.co/nzFv5flRO2
Rent 'unaffordable' for low-income families in third of UK
Rent 'unaffordable' in one-third of UK
Where can I afford to live?
Comments (2143)
A third of Britain is effectively off-limits to lower-income working families because private rents are unaffordable, a new report claims.
The report comes from the Resolution Foundation, which campaigns on behalf of low to middle-income families.
It says most of southern England is now beyond the reach of less affluent households.
The housing minister said the report was "factually flawed" and failed to take housing benefit into account.
With social housing usually unavailable and home ownership unaffordable for many first-time buyers, renting privately is often the only option for households on lower incomes.
A BBC housing calculator also identifies how renting a modest two-bedroom home for less than £700 a month is almost impossible in London and much of the South East. Modest is defined as having a rent below 75% of similar properties in the area.
The Home Truths report identifies local authorities that are "affordable" for a couple with a child requiring a two-bedroom property on a household income of £22,000 a year. Affordable is defined as a rent that is no more than 35% of net household income.
On that basis, 125 of 376 local authorities in Britain (33%) are unaffordable for less-affluent working families.
"The private rented sector is now, in large parts of the country, the most expensive form of housing," says Vidhya Alakeson, of the Resolution Foundation.
"It is also the only option for most low to middle-income households, many of whom are faced with the unenviable choice of forgoing other essentials in order to pay for housing or living in overcrowded conditions to reduce their housing costs." _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The current government is leading us in a nasty direction.
They have won the language battle to stigmatise welfare recipients. Tonight’s BBC News (News channel 23:00 15 July 2013) reported that 70% support the benefit cap. The government feels that it can demonise the Labour party as “The Welfare Party”. We use to be a society that was proud that it cared about the welfare of its fellow citizens. No more it seems.
The benefit cap comes in on the same day that the Resolution Foundation reports (Home Truths: How affordable is housing for Britain’s ordinary working families?) that housing costs rule out vast swathes of the country for all but the comfortably off (BBC Website 15 July 2013, Mark Easton: Rent ‘unaffordable’ in third of UK).
It would seem that we don’t care?
If we want key workers in areas like London we have limited choices:
Tolerate fellow citizens living in poverty
Subsidise living costs through Housing Benefit (which I suspect also benefits some Landlords)
Subsidise wages through Working Tax Credits (which I suspect also benefits some employers)
The Tories have successfully stigmatised those who directly receive subsidies – but not the landlords and low-pay employers who profit from those subsidies. We can only presume that the Government wants us to tolerate fellow citizens living in poverty. I despise that attitude more than I despise the few welfare “scroungers”.
There is an alternative, but it requires coordinated policies that cannot be fully implemented within a single government and which given the lost language battle might be a hard sell.
The country is horribly imbalanced. Housing is relatively cheap in places like the North East, but the North East has people paying taxes to provide Housing Benefit (and hence house price inflation) in the South East. I am told there are shortages of labour in parts of the South East and taxpayers there are resentfully paying taxes to provide Job Seekers Allowance to people outside the South East who are often seeking non-existent jobs.
And yet we continue to centralise our nation into the bottom right hand corner of the country. In London we have Cross Rail (with plans for a North-South Cross Rail). In London they are debating Airport expansion. In London they are planning HS2 to suck even more of the Midlands into the South East.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
