How much is a poor persons life worth ?

[Coyote]

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

A flat in Grenfell Tower is still listed on the below webpage, but of course it says "not currently on the market"

Do poor people live in flats for sale to £250,000? I think not. Can poor people afford to buy a £250,000 flat? I think not.

View attachment 133540
View attachment 133541

If you go to mouseprice.com you'll get the above, if you click on View much more...it takes you to Foxton's Estate Agent's website who were the Agents who were selling that Grenfell Tower flat.

Grenfell Tower, Grenfell Road, Notting Hill, W11 , 2 bed, Flat, W11 1TQ, £250,000, For Sale - Mouseprice

Foxton's Estate Agent was selling the flat.

View attachment 133542

Properties for sale in Notting Hill, W11 through Foxtons Estate Agents

Many of the people who lived in this tower would have had rent support to enable them to live there. You are correct that the rent would be beyond the reach of most.

Exactly so something is missing from this equation, the rent of up to £2,000 a month would be beyond reach of those on a very limited income, they would be in need of Housing Benefit, so the question is, does the British Government Welfare System pay low income people up to £2,000 a month for Housing Benefit?

To me it would seem this is impossible, I'll have to have a read, I'm sure they must have a limit to the amount of Housing Benefit they pay out.

Let's say that those people would have to contribute something to the rent, on a low income and/or benefits, for arguments sake we'll say £200 a month, £50 a week, that would leave the Government to pay £1,800 a month Housing Benefit, that's £21,600 a year in Housing Benefit per flat, this seems an astronomical amount to be paying in Housing Benefit.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thanks to Lucy Hamilton for clearing the bullshit.
As usual people will misuse a story to fit their agenda.

The majority of people living there were NOT poor. Anything but.
This is a story about greed and what you get when you go for low bidding contract firms.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

sheeeesh----from the early INDIGNATION-----I thought it was a slum into which poor
innocent muzzie victims had been DUMPED

Yes because that's what the Propaganda wanted people to think, however if you read about Grenfell Tower and a lot of the people who lived there, who also sadly will have died there, what you get is a very different picture than the Propaganda was pushing.

A lot of those who lived there were not Muslim, and they were not poor, the Propaganda was pushing this narrative of almost 10 people living in cramped flats, almost poverty stricken of Dickensian proportions, which isn't or wasn't how it was if you read about that place.

 

[miketx]

the building that burned is a government building for low income persons?------it is
specifically controlled for profit by tories?

but i thought you despised the greedy us? it's not just the poor people in the uk who are worthless, at the rate you are being over ran by "refugees" none of you will be worth a plug nickel.

 

[Meathead]

Well here it is.

The price of a life is £2.

Non flammable panels cost £24 and the flammable ones at Grenfell cost £22. So to make a saving of just £5k the tory run local authority turned the tower into a death trap.

Fire-resistant Grenfell Tower cladding would have cost just £5k more

And now it emerges that these panels are banned in the US.

Cladding used on Grenfell Tower 'was banned in US'

And just to complete the circle the company who installed the cladding are tax dodgers.

Grenfell cladding bosses 'put £2.5m into tax avoidance' | Daily Mail Online

I am numb as the realisation dawns that we are not protected by anything other than the contractors conscience.

Like everything else, even peoples' lives, value is in their worth to other people and the societies in which they live.

So we are finding out.

No Tammy, "we are not finding out". It has been the case since we were swinging in trees.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Thanks to Lucy Hamilton for clearing the bullshit.
As usual people will misuse a story to fit their agenda.

The majority of people living there were NOT poor. Anything but.
This is a story about greed and what you get when you go for low bidding contract firms.

"This is a story about greed and what you get when you go for low bidding contract firms."

What you said, that's exactly what this is about

 

[irosie91]

fires happen LOTS

 

[Coyote]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

 

[Tommy Tainant]

the building that burned is a government building for low income persons?------it is
specifically controlled for profit by tories?

Most of them were not low income, as the pictures show, no Government is going to put actual poor people in flats where they will have to get Housing Benefits to help them pay the £2,000 rent a month.

Well actually they do.
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

People in 2 bedroom flats can get up to £300 a week according to this. It is the only way that someone on the minimum wage can keep a roof over their head in London. Of course the private landlords milk this by raising the rent. And of course the majority of tory MPs are private landlords.

Both tory and Labour governments have failed to tackle the fallout from thatchers disastrous right to buy policy.

This council minute is contained in the Daily Mail article above and is telling.

The winning bid eventually came in at £8.7m which brought the cost back within the council budget.The public enquiry will hopefully see where the corners were cut to achieve this. The Fire Service will also produce a report which may shed more light on this.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556
The spare room tax was introduced by the tories
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

The spare room tax was introduced by the tories in the last government.Essentially the aim was to shift elderly people into smaller homes and free up bigger social housing for families. It was intended to cut the housing benefit bill. It doesnt sound unreasonable on those terms.

The problems were that there are no homes to move these people into. They also included the disabled in this. People with limited mobility who had their homes adapted to their needs. There was nowhere for them to go either.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556
The spare room tax was introduced by the tories
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

The spare room tax was introduced by the tories in the last government.Essentially the aim was to shift elderly people into smaller homes and free up bigger social housing for families. It was intended to cut the housing benefit bill. It doesnt sound unreasonable on those terms.

The problems were that there are no homes to move these people into. They also included the disabled in this. People with limited mobility who had their homes adapted to their needs. There was nowhere for them to go either.

Well that policy of a spare room tax is wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

This is ridiculous, if a couple live in a flat that has two bedrooms but they use one bedroom and because the spare bedroom is vacant they have to pay more rent because they have a vacant spare bedroom.

Outrageous.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Google Dame Shirley Porter and the Westminster Council gerrymandering scandal.
They have been at it since the 80s. The working class is not welcome in London.

There may be the odd one or two privately owned flats in that block but the majority of tenants were working or non working class people.

Take someone renting a typical flat in that block. The rent could be from £1500 to £2000. They could get up to £300 a week help with that. If they are on minimum wage then that is £7.50 an hour or £300 a week. A quarter of that would be needed to make up the rent.

But they would also be entitled to a raft of other benefits as well. In terms of central London its a bargain but it isnt living the high life.

But that site is now worth many hundreds of millions of pounds. It will be interesting to see what happens to it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556
The spare room tax was introduced by the tories
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

The spare room tax was introduced by the tories in the last government.Essentially the aim was to shift elderly people into smaller homes and free up bigger social housing for families. It was intended to cut the housing benefit bill. It doesnt sound unreasonable on those terms.

The problems were that there are no homes to move these people into. They also included the disabled in this. People with limited mobility who had their homes adapted to their needs. There was nowhere for them to go either.

Well that policy of a spare room tax is wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

This is ridiculous, if a couple live in a flat that has two bedrooms but they use one bedroom and because the spare bedroom is vacant they have to pay more rent because they have a vacant spare bedroom.

Outrageous.

It is outrageous. Its driven by the fact that the uk housing market has failed.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556
The spare room tax was introduced by the tories
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

Wow...that is pretty damning. The last I had heard is that they weren't sure which type of panels had been used....

And I wonder how many other high rises are outfitted with the same?

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

The spare room tax was introduced by the tories in the last government.Essentially the aim was to shift elderly people into smaller homes and free up bigger social housing for families. It was intended to cut the housing benefit bill. It doesnt sound unreasonable on those terms.

The problems were that there are no homes to move these people into. They also included the disabled in this. People with limited mobility who had their homes adapted to their needs. There was nowhere for them to go either.

This was enacted when Cameron was the Prime Minister and in Coalition with the Liberal Democrats, it might also be why the Liberal Democrats lost so many seats in the British General Election of 2015.

This would affect some of the most vulnerable people, the actual poor, the elderly and the disabled. A society should be judged on how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens and the below is not a way to treat vulnerable people.

I support the need to maintain a Welfare System to protect the most vulnerable people, this also is what makes we on the European Right very different from our American brothers and sisters on the American Right who seem to have the aim of either removing a Welfare System or Privatising Welfare.

The bedroom tax explained

Everything you need to know about the policy that the government describes as the ‘the removal of the spare room subsidy’

The bedroom tax explained

 

[irosie91]

one of the most significant FIRE IN BUILDING factors is-----subsidized rent

 

[Coyote]

one of the most significant FIRE IN BUILDING factors is-----subsidized rent

How is that a factor?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I find it a little confusing because it's referred to as "public housing" which in the US is for the poor. It sounds like Grenfell contained a mix of economic scales?

I did find this article: Wealth and poverty sit side by side in Grenfell Tower's borough

From the top floors of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, residents could see out across Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest local authorities in the country. Yet the tower and its residents were situated in one of the most deprived areas in England.

The borough is among London’s most unequal, with extreme poverty and wealth living side by side. Data shows that the vicinity of the tower was among the top 10% most deprived areas in England in 2015, ranking alongside parts of Bradford and south Tyneside.​

This other article points out:

When such plans get rejected by the council, you have to wonder what ulterior motives are at play. Inner London council estates are, after all, situated on prime land. Social housing tenants and leaseholders across London are starting to feel ever more insecure with each redevelopment that squashes their living space (refurbished estates often include extra flats for sale on the open market, to “pay for” social rented homes), or, worse still, leads to forced eviction to other places and the loss of all local ties.

...Yet not everyone who lives in tower blocks is poor: since the advent of right-to-buy, many professionals – particularly in the capital, where affordable housing is at a severe premium – have become private tenants on council estates. It’s the perception of social housing, particularly high-rise , as being “for poor people” that leads to the maltreatment of residents, regardless of their class or income. If poverty is an individual moral failing, as has been relentlessly argued by those in power for nearly 40 years, then anything associated with poverty must also be a sign of second-class status...​

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556
The spare room tax was introduced by the tories
Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

Local authorities have spent the last few days checking all of their property. Its a mixed picture. Ive seen a figure of 100k to fit sprinklers to Grenfell House.

But local government budgets have been cut by 40% due to tory austerity and so the penny pinching now has a body count.

On top of this there is an acute shortage of affordable housing in London due to tory and labour authorities selling off council housing and not replacing it. Some poor families in the area have been housed as far away as Birmingham because of it.

People have lost families and homes and will lose their jobs if they cant get settled locally. Meanwhile across the road there are private tower blocks bought as investments by foreigners that lie empty.

It sounds similar to what is happening in some major cities in the US as well. I've been to London but that was 1978, I'm sure it would be unrecognizable now.

I recently read a book "Salaam Brick Road" by Tarquin Hall and it touched on some of the housing issues and tensions between the wealthy new comers and the poorer long term residents that struggled to find housing.

I have this for Housing Benefit paid to those who rent from a private landlord, Grenfell Tower was a mixture of private/public.

So any of those who were renting from the private as opposed to public side, would not have been able to cover most of that £2,000 a month rent with the £302.33 Housing Benefit paid, most of the flats in Grenfell Tower were 2 bedrooms.

View attachment 133552

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

I am a bit confused with the public side of the Housing Benefit situation, why are they telling people who can and cannot have their own bedroom? Also the whole Spare Bedroom criteria is confusing. Bizarro.

View attachment 133555

WTF is the below all about? Why do they get to tell people who can have their own bedroom, who HAS to share a bedroom and what they are ALLOWED to do with a spare room? Why is this anyone's business even?

View attachment 133556

Housing Benefit: What you'll get - GOV.UK

The spare room tax was introduced by the tories in the last government.Essentially the aim was to shift elderly people into smaller homes and free up bigger social housing for families. It was intended to cut the housing benefit bill. It doesnt sound unreasonable on those terms.

The problems were that there are no homes to move these people into. They also included the disabled in this. People with limited mobility who had their homes adapted to their needs. There was nowhere for them to go either.

Well that policy of a spare room tax is wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

This is ridiculous, if a couple live in a flat that has two bedrooms but they use one bedroom and because the spare bedroom is vacant they have to pay more rent because they have a vacant spare bedroom.

Outrageous.

It is outrageous. Its driven by the fact that the uk housing market has failed.

From what I read Britain has a severe reduction of affordable housing for people on lower incomes.

Instead of having all these military adventures in the Middle East and bombing random nations, that money would have been better spent on a Britain Wide Affordable Housing Building Project.

This is both Conservative and Labour Governments at fault, for instance how much money did it cost for Tony Blair to have Britain participating in bombing Iraq, many billions it cost, money wasted because Iraq is still completely fucked up.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

one of the most significant FIRE IN BUILDING factors is-----subsidized rent

Huh?