# 'Sons and daughters' housing policy in Tower Hamladesh?



## JHE (May 16, 2008)

East London Advertiser:  Dumped 'racist' housing strategy could return to East End

When the policy was seen to benefit white East Enders it was very bad.  It was Ray Cyst.  It had to be scrapped.

Now that it would be seen to benefit Bangladeshis in the East End it would be good.


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2008)

Hamladesh? ffs man.

Wouldn't you have more fun beating all these different drums?


----------



## El Jefe (May 16, 2008)

Quite. Discussing housing policy is one thing, couching it in these terms makes your racist agenda too explicit and therefore it's really not worth engaging


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2008)

JHE, you seemed to have stepped up your anti-Muslim stance to openly anti- Bangladeshi. It was always implicit I guess, but this is the second time I've seen you use 'Hamladesh' now, what on earth's your problem with these people?


----------



## zenie (May 16, 2008)

So what will happen when <insert migrant group here> arrives? 

Surely it'll be discriminatory to them too?


----------



## JHE (May 16, 2008)

zenie said:


> So what will happen when <insert migrant group here> arrives?
> 
> Surely it'll be discriminatory to them too?



But it's important to protect families and the community.  It wouldn't be fair to deny priority to the sons and daughters of Bangladeshis.

The last time it was helping nasty white folks, allegedly.  So it was Ray Cyst.  It's different now.


----------



## zenie (May 16, 2008)

JHE said:


> But it's important to protect families and the community. It wouldn't be fair to deny priority to the sons and daughters of Bangladeshis.
> 
> The last time it was helping nasty white folks, allegedly. So it was Ray Cyst. It's different now.


 
Leaving aside the emotion is there any chance you could give me a straight answer that doesn't involve your prejudices?


----------



## JHE (May 16, 2008)

zenie said:


> Leaving aside the emotion is there any chance you could give me a straight answer that doesn't involve your prejudices?


A straight answer to what?  To your question (I thought rhetorical question) about whether a 'sons and daughters' policy would 'discriminate'  against more recent immigrants?

The whole point of a 'sons and daughters' policy is to favour the rellies of people already established in the area.  Unless the more recent immigrants already have rellies in the area, then you could say it discriminates against them.


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2008)

I've been a Tower Hamlets resident since 1998 but have worked in the area and surrounds for many more years, dating back for various periods to 1978. 

That linked article in the East London Advertiser is incredibly loaded - vastly underplaying the truly appalling housing record of the Liberals and subsequently LibDems from the mid 80s on through the 90s.

If anyone's interested in the background, this study is a very interesting read:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...on:&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a



> The Liberals had divided Tower Hamlets into neighbourhoods, and the Isle of Dogs was Labour-run and had not adopted the sons and daughters schemes that operated in Liberal-run areas. This became the main plank of the Liberal 1992 Millwall by- election campaign, under the slogan of ‘Island homes for Island people’. Housing allocation in Masthouse Terrace, the first social housing to be built in the area for many years, provided a focus of debate and anger, especially as the scheme included some larger units that were commonly perceived as purpose-made for large Bengali families. The xenophobic atmosphere allowed the BNP to pick up 20% of the vote, but rather than take this as a warning, both Liberals and Labour chose to pander to populist racism when Millwall held a second by-election the following year.
> 
> The left-wingers who dominated the ward Labour party in the eighties had been ousted, and the new ward leadership attempted to outflank the Liberals on their own ground with a call to ‘house the hidden homeless… your children who have to sleep on the couch, your brothers and sisters who want a place of their own, your grandchildren without space to grow up in…’
> 
> ...



What's wanted now is a non discriminatory policy. But note how the East London Advertiser spins this for the benefit of the likes of JHE:



> But former Lib Dem council leader Eric Flounders denied there had been any qualifying limit.
> 
> He added: "They got rid of a perfectly good policy at the time because it was politically convenient to shout 'racism'.
> 
> "If it was a bad policy then, why's it good now?"



It was a truly appalling policy then. No-one's looking to reintroduce that policy in that format.

JHE, have you really swallowed this rubbish unwittingly?


----------



## JHE (May 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> What's wanted now is a non discriminatory policy.



A 'sons and daughters' policy, as you very well know, is one designed to give priority to (i.e., discriminate in favour of) the sons and daughters of established residents.

Are you in favour of a 'sons and daughters' policy in LBTH or not?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (May 16, 2008)

I'm in favour of people not using language designed to racially provoke. If you want a serious discussion, grow up first.


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2008)

JHE said:


> A 'sons and daughters' policy, as you very well know, is one designed to give priority to (i.e., discriminate in favour of) the sons and daughters of established residents.
> 
> Are you in favour of a 'sons and daughters' policy in LBTH or not?



I'll answer your question once you answer mine.


----------



## geoff64 (May 17, 2008)

I've been in favour of sons and daughters policies in the area in Hackney in which Hackney Independent is active.  It may have been a racist policy in TH in the early 90's, but arguably, as in my area of Hackney, this is no longer a Q of race, but of 1) trying to preserve communities threatened by disintegration because of the lack of affordable housing, and 2) challenging the very fact of the lack of affordable housing in areas impacted by gentrification.

Sons and daughters policies in mixed racial areas like TH now needs consideration because it would benefit both Bangladeshi and white families. The crux, of course, is the lack of social housing to meet the need of such a policy; but this does not mean that arguing for it, ie for more genuinely affordable housing to allow extended families of all races to remain in close contact, is not a progressive move.

The Govt talks good about "community" when it suits them, but they can't square the values of community with the neo-liberal project they also espouse which undermines the very community they want to promote. New Labour communitarians want to have their cake and eat it in this respect. They have a contradictory and purely functional approach to community: it's "good" when it supports extended families who may otherwise rely disproportionately on social services, and it's good when it provides the social glue that inhibits criminal activity amongst the young, for example; but it becomes disposable when the needs of the market demand that families are "flexible" in terms of geography, working patterns, etc.

"Community" is not necessarily a panacea for the ills of society, but the damage done not just to families but to wider social networks when sons and daughters are forced to move away or to remain in cramped conditions, is all too evident. The Govt's response? Use the criminal justice system to sort out the consequences, and the cycle of crime and deprivation goes around again...

Incidentally, the piece posted above about the Lib Dems in TH is spot on, but we need to think more closely about circumstances now and demand enough affordable housing to ensure that a sons and daughters policy is not racialised but simply a desirable prospect for all families (again ... irrespective of race).


----------



## JHE (May 17, 2008)

geoff64 said:


> Sons and daughters policies in mixed racial areas like TH now needs consideration because it would benefit both Bangladeshi and white families.



At what point in the process of population change does the policy cease to be Ray Cyst and start to be beneficial?  After 20% of the families that would benefit are non-white?  When 30% are?  40%?  50%  60% ...

Or are you willing to support 'sons and daughters' policies even where the population of the area is "hideously white"?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 17, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Hamladesh? ffs man.
> 
> Wouldn't you have more fun beating all these different drums?



That's a wicked kit.


----------



## geoff64 (May 17, 2008)

JHE said:


> At what point in the process of population change does the policy cease to be Ray Cyst and start to be beneficial?  After 20% of the families that would benefit are non-white?  When 30% are?  40%?  50%  60% ...
> 
> Or are you willing to support 'sons and daughters' policies even where the population of the area is "hideously white"?



Good Q. But if you read between the lines of my post you'll find a desire to pursue this policy in the hear n now, cos it's not about race but about the availability of affordable housing; hence it should be pursued anywhere that the lack of housing and the disintegration of community is an issue. Just that with Hackney and TH it is easier now.  I admit that i'm being a bit lilley-livered, and perhaps I shouldn't be - yr right - but i just don't see this as an issue that needs to be racialised if a progressive campaign for more housing is attached to the demand for a sons n daughters policy.  The trouble  in the past is that it has been seen as a demand within the present reality of finite resources - which of course it is if you refuse to make additional demands for additional resources.

I would have no problem supporting demands for a s&d policy in a "hideously white" area ( and I don't know why you want to label me as someone who considers the white working class as "hideous", but whatever floats yr boat ...) so long as it was a progressive (non-racist), inclusive demand for housing resources rather than a "them n us" scrabble for whatever the cunts at the top table decide the market can accomodate...


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

geoff64 said:


> I would have no problem supporting demands for a s&d policy in a "hideously white" area ( and I don't know why you want to label me as someone who considers the white working class as "hideous", but whatever floats yr boat ...) so long as it was a progressive (non-racist), inclusive demand for housing resources rather than a "them n us" scrabble for whatever the cunts at the top table decide the market can accomodate...



Exactly. The issue is about resources, because if there were enough - there wouldn't even be a need for 'policies' of who gets what and in what priority.

*If* there was a clearly stated long term objective and realistic plan of ensuring sufficient social housing for everyone within a given timeframe (even if it's over 20 or 30 years) - the interim 'policy' should just be about how to prioritise short and medium term needs/allocation in an entirely even handed way - i.e. not about race, about needs. Entirely transparent and subject to a proper appeal process, preferably by an objective third party. (Hah).

Pipedream 

But.

But.

The East End of London (and I mean as a geographical area, as opposed to the confusing 'borough' v 'constituency' over-exaggerated and ridiculous boundaries) has a history and culture of being the first port of call for immigrants into the UK. It goes back centuries. It's poor and deprived - but it's always been that way. And it's also the best example that Britain has of true integration, because its history and culture is rooted in that. The changing face of the East End. There are generations of families living here whose roots are in the East End and will always stay here. Yeah - and some bail out for better economic prospects and/or cos they've been sopped somehow by the racist cunts. But the vast majority just get on with life and fucking ignore the self appointed politicians that try and interfere cos frankly they're here today and gone tomorrow and all they do is start rucks when the reality is THAT THEY MEAN NOTHING because they do nothing helpful and people here just get on with day-to-day life and it's only a tiny minority that even pay them any fucking attention.

There's a place on Brick Lane that started off as a Huguenot chapel, then became a synagogue, and is now a mosque. And it will be summat else in the future. 

The politicians and the racists are irrelevant. Completely fucking irrelevant. Cos at the end of the day the impact they have is minimal and they'll end up concentrating on fucking Essex innit


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2008)

Grind it baby, grind it good


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Innit.

Iirc, he doesn't even live here anymore.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Hamladesh? 
The title of your thread speaks volumes.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> There's a place on Brick Lane that started off as a Huguenot chapel, then became a synagogue, and is now a mosque. And it will be summat else in the future.




The only 'summat else' its likely to be in the near future is a form of expensive housing/poncy art studio for some spoilt brat.

The only historical reason that areas such as Brick Lane attracted immigrants was because it was cheap. Thats no longer the case. By your logic the area should now be full of Poles but they cannot afford to live in the area. 

If this 'Sons and Daughters' policy is introduced it will only aid one group of people and that is the BNP. Its implementation will be percieved as showing preference to non-whites because of where it is being done. 

And, much like those who implemented the original abandoning of the 'Sons and Daughters' policy its something being imposed by people more interested in social engineering than any genuine concern to help a community. 

To my eyes it seems a pretty straight forward case of saying that its somehow more important for Bangladeshis to be encouraged to maintain community co-hesion than the original native white population of that area and no matter how much people try and spin it thats how the BNP are going to use it. 

I can see the logic behind why people might think it a good idea but its only going to add to the tensions in London, and else where.

And for me another example of the sort of thinking that has led the BNP to garner the support it does.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> To my eyes it seems a pretty straight forward case of saying that its somehow more important for Bangladeshis to be encouraged to maintain community co-hesion than the *original native white population *of that area and no matter how much people try and spin it thats how the BNP are going to use it.




I fucking knew you'd show up.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> I fucking knew you'd show up.




Thats very clever of you.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Thats very clever of you.


----------



## Crispy (May 17, 2008)

It's a shit rule. Council housing is in such short supply, it should be allocated on need, not by politicking (which in this case, the cynic might say, is for keeping a council's voting base happy)


----------



## Belushi (May 17, 2008)

Crispy said:


> It's a shit rule. Council housing is in such short supply, it should be allocated on need, not by politicking (which in this case, the cynic might say, is for keeping a council's voting base happy)



Spot on.

And the OP can fuck off with his 'Hamladesh' bollocks.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

Just out of curisoity, will any previous 'sons and daughters' of Tower Hamlets be allowed to return and claim priority on the housing list?  Will this policy be used to reinvigorate those communities?  Will I as the son of a previous resident of Tower Hamlets be able to return and claim a place at the top of the list?


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Reinvigorate which communities?


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Reinvigorate which communities?



Well the ones that the report described as being a part of the "white flight" (their quote not my words) from Tower Hamlets by those sons and daughers who were forced to move away because they were unable to get housing within the Borough.

That is the whole point of the scheme, to help keep sons and daughters in Tower Hamlets.  Then surely if the scheme was designed to do that, it should extend to previous sons and daughters that were forced to move out by the previous housing scheme.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

The communities are fine as they are. They don't need 'reinvigorating' with ex-white  flight. There's not enough housing available for that anyway.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> The communities are fine as they are. They don't need 'reinvigorating' with ex-white  flight. There's not enough housing available for that anyway.



The communities being fine or not is purely an opinion isn't it.  It isn't a fact.  Whether they need invigorating or not, is another opinion isn't it, not a fact.

The housing being available, well it seems from the report that housing is being made available, and isn't that the point.  I am asking if it will be made available to previous sons and daughters of tower hamlets, to extend the priviledge to those that were forced to move before the scheme was introduced.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare, I have to admit I have selfish reasons for asking.

I am a son of tower hamlets, and I am wondering whether if the council is now stating the opinion that the sons and daughters of Tower Hamlets should have the choice to live in Tower Hamlets, whether that applies to me.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

You seem to think that they're not fine and would benefit from being 'reinvigorated' with some sons & daughters of white folks that moved away 10-15 years ago.

I don't.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> cesare, I have to admit I have selfish reasons for asking.
> 
> I am a son of tower hamlets, and I am wondering whether if the council is now stating the opinion that the sons and daughters of Tower Hamlets should have the choice to live in Tower Hamlets, whether that applies to me.



Yeah, move back in. That's cool. Anyone can live here. You can buy, rent, sofa-surf or put your name on the housing list.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Yeah, move back in. That's cool. Anyone can live here. You can buy, rent, sofa-surf or put your name on the housing list.



You don't seem to understand that we were forced to move out by being on a housing list that did not prioritise local people.

The council is now saying that this was wrong, and that they plan to change it so that housing does prioritise local people.

So I am saying, ok so shouldn't I be allowed back in.

You seem to think because I am white I shouldn't be given the same priority as local people to live in Tower Hamlets.  Even though I was one until I was forced to move out by the local housing policy, which the Council has just stated was wrong.

If I was wronged, shouldn't I be entitled to expect the council to make that right?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> *To my eyes* it seems a pretty straight forward case of saying that its somehow more important for Bangladeshis to be encouraged to maintain community co-hesion than _the original native white population_ of that area and no matter how much people try and spin it thats how the BNP are going to use it.


I think there is something wrong with your eyes because the *native population* of this country *hasn't been solely white *for a long time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Belushi said:


> And the OP can *fuck off* with his 'Hamladesh' bollocks.



I decided a long time ago not to swear in my posts and am doing quite well to resist the temptation, but when I read the OP I so wanted to post the above in the largest font possible.  I'm glad someone has at least posted it.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You don't seem to understand that we were forced to move out by being on a housing list that did not prioritise local people.
> 
> The council is now saying that this was wrong, and that they plan to change it so that housing does prioritise local people.
> 
> ...



That's not what the Council are saying. Read it again (to the extent that there is any actual decent information in that ELA rubbish article).

Tell us more about how your family were 'forced out' please.

You're allowed back in, no-one's stopping you. And hopefully, if your social and economic needs are more pressing, you'll get higher priority on the allocation of social housing.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:
			
		

> If I was wronged, shouldn't I be entitled to expect the council to make that right?



Lol.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's not what the Council are saying. Read it again (to the extent that there is any actual decent information in that ELA rubbish article).
> 
> Tell us more about how your family were 'forced out' please.
> 
> You're allowed back in, no-one's stopping you. And hopefully, if your social and economic needs are more pressing, you'll get higher priority on the allocation of social housing.



*A six-month inquiry by the authority's overview and scrutiny committee found offspring in their 20s now had to move far away to find homes, causing problems for the close family network.*

So thse people it is found _had_ to move away, but I didn't.  I wasn't forced, which is what HAVING to do something means, but these people were this report found or are you questioning the report?

There is much stopping me returning to Tower Hamlets, cost of housing, House Prices were 180,000 in 2002 and house prices have increased about 20% since then.

The housing waiting list gives me no priority at all.  So I will be bottom of a list that is 20,000 long.

If this scheme is introduced, then my position in that list would be improved dramatically.

As a son of Tower Hamlets, I am still bewildered as to why you think such a scheme should not apply to me.  Your only reason so far seems to be because I am white.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> As a son of Tower Hamlets, I am still bewildered as to why you think such a scheme should not apply to me.  Your only reason so far seems to be because I am white.



No, it's not because you're white. It's because you haven't given a reason why you need to live here and why your needs take priority.

And because you're a complete fuckwit with racist undertones to most of what you post - very similar to Layabout and his various guises. But that's just me


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> No, it's not because you're white. It's because you haven't given a reason why you need to live here and why your needs take priority.



But the council is saying that need isn't the priority it was and that they wish to introduce a scheme to help local people find homes locally.

It isn't a matter of 'need' to live there, I want to live there as that is where I spent much of my youth.



> And because you're a complete fuckwit with racist undertones to most of what you post - very similar to Layabout and his various guises. But that's just me



Racist undertones, so we got to that accusation did we, didn't take long did it.  I am surprised you waited this long.

Out of the two of us, I would say you were the more racist.  Simply because I wondered whether the scheme applied to me and I was white.  This somehow makes me racist.

I think that is a racist view.  You have viewed me and my opinion, based on the fact that I am white.  That makes you the racist.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Redrumsbum/Dravinian/Layabout

Let's hear why you have social and economic needs for being prioritised for social housing in Tower Hamlets then.

You seem to be avoiding that question.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

Here let me point out the part where you showed you were being racist.

The old white community couldn't reinvigorate the local area.

Yet if I had posted suggesting that an old group of Afro Carribean's be allowed to return to reinvigorate the local area, you would never have dared to suggest that they could not add to the local area.

yet when it is white people, how could we possibly invigorate the area, what with us all being so shit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian, can I just point out that I was born in Tower Hamlets and lived there with my family for many years. The scheme _may_ not apply to me and I am not white.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Redrumsbum/Dravinian/Layabout
> 
> Let's hear why you have social and economic needs for being prioritised for social housing in Tower Hamlets then.
> 
> You seem to be avoiding that question.



Because the council has stated that local people should be prioritised for local housing.  I don't see why I should justify anything other then the fact that i am an ex-local person.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Dravinian, can I just point out that I was born in Tower Hamlets and lived there with my family for many years. The scheme _may_ not apply to me and I am not white.



Why wouldn't it apply to you?  Because you moved out already too?

Seems unfair to me.

I was hoping they would extend it as a mea culpa of their error.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian/Layabout, you'll probably last another 50-100 posts, maybe less if you ain't using a proxy.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Dravinian/Layabout, you'll probably last another 50-100 posts, maybe less if you ain't using a proxy.



Funny I was marthews, was it yesterday, today I am layabout, who will I be tomorrow I wonder?


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Funny I was marthews, was it yesterday, today I am layabout, who will I be tomorrow I wonder?



Who cares?

You won't be around long.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Why wouldn't it apply to you?  Because you moved out already too?



Yes we moved. For no other reason than at the time it wasn't a great place to live and that had nothing to do with the immigrant population.
It was run down and didn't have a lot going for it, FACT!

Lots of people moved away for that reason and that reason alone. Some left because they could afford to. Others left because they were racist and didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

A lot of immigrant population was dumped there and left to rot.


----------



## scifisam (May 17, 2008)

Crispy said:


> It's a shit rule. Council housing is in such short supply, it should be allocated on need, not by politicking (which in this case, the cynic might say, is for keeping a council's voting base happy)



I think keeping a community together, providing long-term support for children, parents and grandparents, is a need. Somehow I doubt having grown up in Tower Hamlets will get you enough extra points to take a flat from an asylum seeker with six kids, anyway. 

JHE, it would be a much more interesting discussion, with more people joining in, if you toned down your anti-Bangladeshi ideas. They might well be bringing this back because the councillors are different now and have different ideas, not because there are now more youngsters of a Bangladeshi background seeking homes. 

Now, if the policy only applies to wards where the Bangladeshi population is in the majority, excluding areas where other races are predominant, then it would be right to say that race might well be the reason - but somehow I doubt that'll happen.


----------



## scifisam (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Dravinian/Layabout, you'll probably last another 50-100 posts, maybe less if you ain't using a proxy.



That's rather unfair. If you really think he's the same person as Layabout/Redrumsbum, you should report it. But I haven't seen Dravinian post loads of racist stuff, so I wouldn't have made the connection between them. 

Though, from the sounds of it, since I'm in favour of this policy too, I guess I'll only last another 100 posts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

As the immigrant population of Tower Hamlets is now a long standing one, won't they be seen as 'East End families' too?


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> That's rather unfair. If you really think he's the same person as Layabout/Redrumsbum, you should report it. But I haven't seen Dravinian post loads of racist stuff, so I wouldn't have made the connection between them.



*shrugs*




			
				scifisam said:
			
		

> Though, from the sounds of it, since I'm in favour of this policy too, I guess I'll only last another 100 posts.



I don't have a problem with the policy as long as it's applied in an even handed way i.e. nothing at all like the policy that was applied by the Liberals/LibDems.

I do have a problem with people that see this policy as way of asserting housing priorities based on 10-15 year old past heritage claims rather current social and economic needs. I don't know if that applies to you or not, I suspect not.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> As the immigrant population of Tower Hamlets is now a long standing one, won't they be seen as 'East End families' too?



That's entirely my point tbh. They are East End families.


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes we moved. For no other reason than at the time it wasn't a great place to live and that had nothing to do with the immigrant population.
> It was run down and didn't have a lot going for it, FACT!
> 
> Lots of people moved away for that reason and that reason alone. Some left because they could afford to. Others left because they were racist and didn't want to live next door to immigrants.
> ...



You know even if they said, alright then you can come get a house, I would have to think long and hard about it.  The housing situation in Tower Hamlets is pretty damn dire.  Read reports of them trying to reach the Decent Standard for Homes and you wonder whether you would want to live there anyway.

Yet compared against the secure tenancy of a council property with low rent,  it would be a tough decision.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's entirely my point tbh. They are East End families.



I'm glad someone other than me *does* realise that then.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's entirely my point tbh. They are East End families.




Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?

It strikes me that many of you dont object to white working class people being forced out of an area, as happened with this change of housing policy but when the same thing happens to non-white people, as is happening now, you are all suddenly in favour of giving them protection because economic circumstances have changed ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You know even if they said, alright then you can come get a house, I would have to think long and hard about it.  The housing situation in Tower Hamlets is pretty damn dire.  Read reports of them trying to reach the Decent Standard for Homes and you wonder whether you would want to live there anyway.


So why all the fuss about immigrant families taking priority then? Lots of us _natives_ think like you have posted above, and we are not all white.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?
> 
> It strikes me that many of you dont object to white working class people being forced out of an area ?



Have you ever lived in Tower Hamlets yourself?
White poeple were not the only ones to leave.
White people are not the only native families in Tower Hamlets and haven't been for a very long time. I am not white, 36 and was born and brought up in Tower Hamlets for example.

We moved. For no other reason than at the time it _wasn't _a great place to live and that had nothing to do with the immigrant population.
It was run down and didn't have a lot going for it, FACT!

Lots of people moved away for that reason and that reason alone. Some left because they could afford to. Others left because they were racist and didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

A lot of immigrant population was dumped there and left to rot.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm glad someone other than me *does* realise that then.



I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End. 

It changes, it's always changing, it always has changed. Get over it in other words (not you, btw).


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End.


Sorry if I missed that then.



> It changes, it's always changing, _it always has changed._ Get over it in other words (not you, btw).



That is a very important point right there.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> So why all the fuss about immigrant families taking priority then? Lots of us _natives_ think like you have posted above, and we are not all white.



Well the 'fuss' is that every time the BNP win another council seat or similar then one of the reasons why they do so is because of diss-satisifaction over the change in social housing policy 20 or so years ago. It did lead to white communities being broken apart. 

Now thats fine in itself and I can see why, without agreeing with, the reasons why it happend.

But to now reverse that legislation because non-white communities are under threat, for different reasons, plays right into the hands of the BNP. 

Of course you can all sneer and look down your noses at those who do vote BNP but if you cannot see that housing policy decisions such as the ones under discussion do not play a part in why the BNP has done relatively well over the last couple of decades then you are part of the problem rather than being any part of the solution to stopping them.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?



It wasn't fine 20 years ago. That's the whole point.

It was an appalling policy. Who has said any differently?





			
				Stoat Boy said:
			
		

> It strikes me that many of you dont object to white working class people being forced out of an area, as happened with this change of housing policy but when the same thing happens to non-white people, as is happening now, you are all suddenly in favour of giving them protection because economic circumstances have changed ?



Who has said this?


----------



## Dravinian (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> So why all the fuss about immigrant families taking priority then? Lots of us _natives_ think like you have posted above, and we are not all white.



Wasn't really fuss, until I got jumped on.  Just wondered if it was going to be...erm retroactive so to speak.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End.
> 
> It changes, it's always changing, it always has changed. Get over it in other words (not you, btw).



Thats right.

And now its changing in that lots of rich people are moving in and driving up the price of everything. 

From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat boy, any comments with regard post 61?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> Who has said this?



The Daily Mail.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.



Why do you say that?


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you ever lived in Tower Hamlets yourself?
> White poeple were not the only ones to leave.
> White people are not the only native families in Tower Hamlets and haven't been for a very long time. I am not white, 36 and was born and brought up in Tower Hamlets for example.
> 
> ...



Well since you asked so nicely.

No, I am not from Tower Hamlets. Being a good South London boy I view the whole of the East end as a plague pit 

But that still does not alter the fact that there was a deliberate change of housing policy which meant that the demographics of the area were deliberately changed and which led to a largely white flight out of the area. 

My point is that this change in housing policy is one of the reasons why the BNP have gained the support they have. And that this sudden change of heart, which is meant to benefit the majority non-white population of the borough now living in social housing, will play right into the BNP's hands who campagin on the basis of a perception that the state promotes the needs of non-whites above those of whites.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Why do you say that?




As I understand it this new proposed policy is meant to keep communities together in Tower Hamlets. Its had to be bought in because the area concerned has become a lot more fashionable, and therefore expensive, which means that people currently living there are less likely to be able to afford to buy their own homes and they are expressing disquiet at this.

Which is fine but given the constant almost parot like claims about how the area is always changing I find it strange that they cannot accept that what is currently happening to the area is just part of lifes rich tapestry. 

I


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Thats right.
> 
> And now its changing in that lots of rich people are moving in and driving up the price of everything.
> 
> From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.



There's definitely an issue with the City/financial institutions moving eastwards - by way of examples; Canary Wharf and Spitalfields. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

That links to what I was saying about the ridiculous and over-exaggerated boundaries of 'boroughs' and 'constituencies' when the issue is a geographical one that encompasses Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Did you read that study that I linked to, Stoat Boy?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Well since you asked so nicely.
> 
> No, I am not from Tower Hamlets. Being a good South London boy I view the whole of the East end as a _plague pit_


 Many natives thought like that, so they left.



> But that still does not alter the fact that there was a deliberate change of housing policy which meant that the demographics of the area were deliberately changed and which led to a largely white flight out of the area.


 I accept the point about an unfair housing policy but really, I grew up in Tower Hamlets and most of us couldn't wait to leave, it was run down and nasty. The immigrants that were housed there because of such policies didn't exactly get a great deal.



> My point is that this change in housing policy is one of the reasons why the BNP have gained the support they have. And that this sudden change of heart, which is meant to benefit the majority non-white population of the borough now living in social housing, will play right into the BNP's hands who campagin on the basis of a perception that the state promotes the needs of non-whites above those of whites.



Yeah but the point that those BNP supporters are missing is very important. Lots of that non-white population are now native, whether they like it or not.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> There's definitely an issue with the City/financial institutions moving eastwards - by way of examples; Canary Wharf and Spitalfields. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
> 
> That links to what I was saying about the ridiculous and over-exaggerated boundaries of 'boroughs' and 'constituencies' when the issue is a geographical one that encompasses Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham.



But why is it an 'issue' ? If we have already set the precedent that communites have to adapt or die, which was the case 20 years ago, why is it suddenly different now ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> As I understand it this new proposed policy is meant to keep communities together in Tower Hamlets. Its had to be bought in because the area concerned has become a lot more fashionable, and therefore expensive, which means that people currently living there are less likely to be able to afford to buy their own homes and they are expressing disquiet at this.


 Of course they are, they are being pushed/priced/bought out by developers and trendy folk with money.



> Which is fine but given the constant almost parot like claims about how the area is always changing I find it strange that they cannot accept that what is currently happening to the area is just part of lifes rich tapestry.
> 
> I


For me the difference is because the area is not being taken over by folk who _need _ it, it is being taken over by people who can afford to live there. There is a difference IMO.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Of course they are, they are being pushed/priced/bought out by developers and trendy folk with money.



But it was fine for white people to be pushed out 20 years ago by the 'needs' of immigrants ?


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> But why is it an 'issue' ? If we have already set the precedent that communites have to adapt or die, which was the case 20 years ago, why is it suddenly different now ?



Maybe I should have said 'factor' rather than 'issue'. The City's moving East and affecting prices, it has been for some time. The current economic downturn might slow that up for a while as it did in the earlyish 80s when developers were resorting to giving away porsches as incentives to people to buy property in the newly developed but empty Canary Wharf area. 

It might slow down but it won't stop. All that happens is that the 'East End' moves further east as London expands.


----------



## scifisam (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> As the immigrant population of Tower Hamlets is now a long standing one, won't they be seen as 'East End families' too?



I'm not sure anyone's disputing that.

@Cesare: you really think the sons and daughters policy is 'appalling'? I bet you don't have kids, then. 

If it enables kids to stay near their parents, if they choose to, then that means that any Grandchildren will have the support of their grandparents, and, when the grandparents get older, they'll have support too. Those really are quite important for individuals and the community as a whole. 

If it does mean that kids from the East End get priority over asylum seekers with six kids, then it would be appalling. But, come on - you know that, in reality, this policy would just get you a few extra housing needs points.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> But it was fine for *white* people to be pushed out 20 years ago by the '*needs' *of immigrants ?



Two points.......Not only white people were pushed out and having grew up there I can tell and have done many times already on the thread, that lots of people left because they could, wanted to or because they didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

Second point... lots of the newcomers to the area now don't 'need' the area, they 'want' it, there is a difference.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @Cesare: you really think the sons and daughters policy is 'appalling'? I bet you don't have kids, then.



You have fundamentally and completely misunderstood what I have posted. The 'truly appalling' policy that I referred to was that of the Liberals/Libdems in the mid 80s through 90s that resulted in censure from the CRE - and even then wasn't acted upon for a further 5 years or so.

It's what happened *then* that was so divisive to white AND immigrant families.

I'd never, ever, support a policy that was applied IN THAT WAY again, ever. IN THAT WAY. The way that they applied it THEN. With the results of that policy THEN.

I DO support a policy that's applied in an even handed way NOW. If they do what they say and introduce a policy that will do that. My interest is about how they propose to do this so that it treats people even handedly and transparently and is not divisive for the sake of garnering votes.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Second point... lots of the newcomers to the area now don't 'need' the area, they 'want' it, there is a difference.



So ? How does that make any difference ? 

We are constantly told that London is so successful because it is constantly changing, for all sorts of reasons. And people who moan about immigrants come to London are told that they just have to accept this change and stop moaning.

Fine. I dont have a problem with it. This immigration has benefited me in many many ways and long may it continue. 

But all of a sudden it seems that many of those who had previously been so keen on this notion of London being in a constant ebb and flow want to take action to deliberately engineer how London is. To stop this change happening. 

Why ? If it did not matter that communities where changed 20 years ago why is it suddenly so important to protect those communities that replaced them now ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> So ? How does that make any difference ?
> 
> We are constantly told that London is so successful because it is constantly changing, for all sorts of reasons. And people who moan about immigrants come to London are told that they just have to accept this change and stop moaning.
> 
> ...


My concern is over the priority given to the 'rich' over the 'poor', ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'd absolutely hate London to become like Paris or Rome where the poor are relegated to the furthermost regions of the city and forgotten about.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> My concern is over the priority given to the 'rich' over the 'poor', ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it.



But ethnicity did have something to do with the policy of 20 years ago. And there in lies the problem. 

The perception will be that the rules then were changed to help non-whites and that the rules will be changed back again now to help non-whites. And I cannot see how anybody could not see that.  

And why should wealth matter ? London is a trading city. Its why we all live here. And if wealth dictates that certain areas change then surely its for the common good ? If you accept that London is constantly going through change then why should wealth not be a factor ?


----------



## scifisam (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> You have fundamentally and completely misunderstood what I have posted. The 'truly appalling' policy that I referred to was that of the Liberals/Libdems in the mid 80s through 90s that resulted in censure from the CRE - and even then wasn't acted upon for a further 5 years or so.
> 
> It's what happened *then* that was so divisive to white AND immigrant families.
> 
> ...



Fine. That wasn't clear to me before. 

@Rutita - it's definitely true about some people moving from here because they don't want to be neighbours with immigrants. Some people who lived in my old town in Essex told me outright this was why they'd moved, and the reason I've got my flat in Tower Hamlets now is because the previous tenant didn't want to live next to immigrants (though most of my nearest neighbours happen to be white).


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> The perception will be that the rules then were changed to help non-whites and that the rules will be changed back again now to help non-whites. And I cannot see how anybody could not see that.


 Only if parties like the BNP and their supporters willfully ignore the fact that is not true.



> And why should wealth matter ? London is a trading city. Its why we all live here. And if wealth dictates that certain areas change then surely its for the common good ? If you accept that London is constantly going through change then why should wealth not be a factor ?


Maybe I don't worship wealth over the needs and feelings of people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Fine. That wasn't clear to me before.
> 
> @Rutita - it's definitely true about some people moving from here because they don't want to be neighbours with immigrants. Some people who lived in my old town in Essex told me outright this was why they'd moved, and the reason I've got my flat in Tower Hamlets now is because the previous tenant didn't want to live next to immigrants* (though most of my nearest neighbours happen to be white).*


Are you quite sure Sam?  Only some would have us believe that only brown skins remain.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (May 17, 2008)

I'd support a sons and daughters policy in Hackney - I really worry that my daughter who is 15 now will not be able to afford to rent or buy in hackney should she choose to and she was born in hackney/schooled in tower hamlets even though I'm not 'native' (who is native to Britain anyway - how long does a person have to be here/their family here before they are 'original'?)


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Maybe I don't worship wealth over the needs and feelings of people.



Perhaps not but at least mine is more honest because your position strikes me as not caring about the needs or feelings of people 20 years ago who were told that they could not have their kids living near them but all of a sudden caring very much now. 

Say what you want about the 'Greed is good' school of thought, it does have more consistency to it than those of you who seem to value some peoples feelings above others.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Perhaps not but at least mine is more honest because *your position strikes me as not caring about the needs or feelings of people 20 years ago who were told that they could not have their kids living near them but all of a sudden caring very much now.*


Why the hell would you say that? 
I am part of the community from Tower Hamlets of 20 years ago. 
Since you are not I find your comment ridiculous to say the least.



> Say what you want about the 'Greed is good' school of thought, it does have more consistency to it than those of you who seem to value _*some*_ peoples feelings above others.


Who are these 'some' people of which you speak?


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> My concern is over the priority given to the 'rich' over the 'poor', ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
> I'd absolutely hate London to become like Paris or Rome where the poor are relegated to the furthermost regions of the city and forgotten about.



But London's no different to Paris or Rome, or any other gateway capital or even any other major city. 

In the case of London, the area of worst deprivation has always been the East End. Can anyone illustrate a point in history where the East End was socially/economically better faring than other parts of London?  

Plus refugees and waves of immigrants don't tend to arrive en masse in the nicer parts of Chiswick 

I exaggerate to make the point of course. 

This is the strength of the 'East End' (even though it's pushed geographically further east as London expands) - its abiding sense of community.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Fine. That wasn't clear to me before.



So read the thread and links next time eh, before stepping in with your size 9s.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> But London's no different to Paris or Rome, or any other gateway capital or even any other major city.


 For me it is, because IME the 'poor' are relegated to the suburbs, out of sight, out of mind style and that has many adverse implications.



> In the case of London, the area of worst deprivation has always been the East End. Can anyone illustrate a point in history where the East End was socially/economically better faring than other parts of London?


 Starting to happen now?



> Plus refugees and waves of immigrants don't tend to arrive en masse in the nicer parts of Chiswick
> 
> I exaggerate to make the point of course.


Refugees get placed though don't they? Or tend to gravitate to areas where they are likely to fit in and be accepted.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> For me it is, because IME the 'poor' are relegated to the suburbs, out of sight, out of mind style and that has many adverse implications.
> 
> Starting to happen now?
> 
> Refugees get placed though don't they? Or tend to gravitate to areas where they are likely to fit in and be accepted.



I don't really see that today's 'snapshot' is much different to the way it's always been. It possibly always feels different when you're living it day to day - but when you look back with the long view all these things are just blips.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2008)

cesare said:


> I don't really see that today's 'snapshot' is much different to the way it's always been. It possibly always feels different when you're living it day to day - but when you look back with the long view all these things are just blips.



For me though one of London's attractions is the mix of rich and poor/ different cultures,  all clearly visable, accepted, appreciated etc. Paris and Rome IME doesn't have that, for me their model is actually rather sinister and very elitest.


----------



## scifisam (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you quite sure Sam?  Only some would have us believe that only brown skins remain.



 My estate is fairly mixed, with a fair few different skin colours and styles of dress apparent, but the majority is definitely white British.  But this area of Tower Hamlets has a very different ethnic make-up to the Southern areas; where my Grandad lived, he actually was the only person in his building who wasn't Bangladeshi. I don't really know how that happened - not that it's important anyway. 



cesare said:


> So read the thread and links next time eh, before stepping in with your size 9s.



Not until after I'd posted did you make it clear that your disapproval was reserved for the old housing policy, not the new proposed one.


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Not until after I'd posted did you make it clear that your disapproval was reserved for the old housing policy, not the new proposed one.



Not true. #s 9 and 17 explicitly set out my view.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 17, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> For me though one of London's attractions is the mix of rich and poor/ different cultures,  all clearly visable, accepted, appreciated etc. Paris and Rome IME doesn't have that, for me their model is actually rather sinister and very elitest.




But London is not really comparable to either Paris or Rome.

London is more akin to a nation state than a conventional city, even Capital ones, and its success is down to a lack of modeling. Its just evolved and is still doing so.

Now people can argue that the demographics of the city change and I would not disagree with them BUT if you accept that London changes organically why would you want to put in controls on that ? 

If the East End changes from being the place to which immigrants first come to then why would anybody want to change that happening ? Immigrants are not meant to stay in one place and I thought the idea was that it was only ever the first port of call before the community bettered itself and then moved on ? 

The recent newcomers to London have been primarily the Poles and they have not make a real impact in the East End but have gravitated to other parts of the city or even the outlying towns ( Slough for example). Thats just progress .

So why would the Bangladeshi population be any different ? Why should they be granted the right to be given priority for their children when it comes to social housing as opposed to others ? Surely it should be them being expected to make way for the East Europeans now ?


----------



## Karac (May 17, 2008)

Sons and Daughters Housing policy
Im against it-always have been-but i do have a certain sympathy with communities being broken up
But theres bugger all council properties these days and what is around has to be allocated on the basis of need


----------



## cesare (May 17, 2008)

Karac said:


> Sons and Daughters Housing policy
> Im against it-always have been-but i do have a certain sympathy with communities being broken up
> But theres bugger all council properties these days and what is around has to be allocated on the basis of need




Whether you're for it, or against it - it's important to know how much there is. 

I notice that's not what we're told.

If there's only (for example) 200 properties at any one time, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what's needed. And they'd try to make us focus on the small amount available and how that's distributed - complete red herring.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 18, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> If the East End changes from being the place to which immigrants first come to then why would anybody want to change that happening ? *Immigrants are not meant to stay in one place and I thought the idea was that it was only ever the first port of call before the community bettered itself and then moved on ? *


Eh? who said that? Is that a law or something?




> So why would the Bangladeshi population be any different ? Why should they be granted the right to be given priority for their children when it comes to social housing as opposed to others ? Surely it should be them being expected to make way for the East Europeans now ?




Priority should be given to the people who need it of course.

Many Eastern Europeans I meet have no desire to settle down and live here, they seem to be here for work and don't plan to stay forever. Other Immigrant communities including the Bangladeshi community are not here and have never been on extended working holidays. They came and settled.

Their children and grandchildren are now native IMO.


----------



## smokedout (May 18, 2008)

the East London Advertiser piece is nonsense anyway, the housing act governs who is entitled to housing and why


----------



## Dravinian (May 18, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Their children and grandchildren are now native IMO.



Why should this group of native people have priority when the previous group of native people did not.

What has changed?

The understanding that communities are important and allowing them to broken apart plays a role in the increased anti-social behaviour.  The understanding that when you force families to move apart you have a breakdown of family and the state usually has to pick up the tab for caring for those people.

The thing is,  I think all this was well known already.  It was well known after the very first burbs starting going up in Ilford, Romford, Dagenham etc when they realised that ripping the heart out of communities in the East End left a void that was hard to fill, whoever those communities are, I think that is why the Lib Dems introduced it in the first place.

So I don't believe those are reasonable answers, we haven't learnt any great lessons recently that we did not already know.

So the ugly question remains.

Why is that these native people need protection when previous native people did not.


----------



## cesare (May 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> So the ugly question remains.
> 
> Why is that these native people need protection when previous native people did not.



Because two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## cesare (May 18, 2008)

Anyway Dravinian ... you still haven't explained why your parents were 'forced out'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Why should this group of native people have priority when the previous group of native people did not.
> 
> What has changed?


 Maybe lessons have been learnt? That and the fact that I believe this 'unfair housing policy' is being massively overplayed by some. I am a native to Tower Hamlets, born and brought up there and the community that people are banging on about left for a heap of other reasons as well.

I have posted about these reasons, yet they are conveniently being ignored by some posters on this thread.

Also, as I have said before I don't think the incomers to the area now actually 'need' the area in the same way as people have done in the past. They 'want' it and can afford it, there is a massive difference.



> The understanding that communities are important and allowing them to broken apart plays a role in the increased anti-social behaviour.  The understanding that when you force families to move apart you have a breakdown of family and the state usually has to pick up the tab for caring for those people.
> 
> The thing is,  I think all this was well known already.  It was well known after the very first burbs starting going up in Ilford, Romford, Dagenham etc when they realised that ripping the heart out of communities in the East End left a void that was hard to fill, whoever those communities are, I think that is why the Lib Dems introduced it in the first place.
> 
> ...



 Are you are implying 'these' natives are getting special treatment? 
Why is it so important to you? 

Why are you ignoring the other factors involved in the change that has happened to the community in Tower Hamlets?


----------



## Dravinian (May 18, 2008)

cesare said:


> Anyway Dravinian ... you still haven't explained why your parents were 'forced out'.



I asked you in return were you questioning the report?  Since the report says that young people are being forced out at the moment and I said that as a son of Tower Hamlets I was forced out as a young person.

So me and the people in the report are identical.

Is the report wrong, are they making it all up?

Or am I somehow special and I wasn't forced out but everyone else was?


----------



## Dravinian (May 18, 2008)

*Maybe lessons have been learnt? That and the fact that I believe this 'unfair housing policy' is being massively overplayed by some. I am a native to Tower Hamlets, born and brought up there and the community that people are banging on about left for a heap of other reasons as well.*

I am sure people moved for various reasons and I am pretty sure that like the young people of Tower Hamlets today a lot of them moved because they had little choice in the matter.

Well the only one I agred with was wealth, to a certain degree.  But I don't see how it wasn't in play 20 years ago, at the height of the Right to Buy scheme no less.  People when they couldn't get a council property moved out of Tower Hamlets becuase they couldn't afford to live in Tower Hamlets, just like they are now.

Remember we are talking about the 80s, not the 50s.  It wasn't some eon ago where the world was a different place.  It was much like it is now.  High prices on houses, remember this is pre-crash of the late 80s and 90s.

*Why is it so important to you? *

For the same reason the original idea was important to the CRE.

Because I think it is being done for the wrong reasons.  Pandering to votes, racist protectionism.

*Why are you ignoring the other factors involved in the change that has happened to the community in Tower Hamlets?*

Because as I said I believe those excuses to be a smokescreen, people were moving out of TH after being shown that they will never get a council house for the same reasons today that they were 20 years ago, they couldn't afford to stay being one of them.

This idea that somehow this community is under different pressures from the one 20 years ago is just plain wrong and unjustified in any factual way.

Show me how people 20 years ago had more options or were under different pressures for housing?  They simply wasn't.

I say this, if the CRE found the policy racist 20 years ago, I am not sure how anyone can suggest it is not racist today.  The fact that it is now a different community of a predominantly different race shouldn't even be a factor.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I asked you in return were you questioning the report?  Since the report says that young people are being forced out at the moment and I said that as a son of Tower Hamlets I was forced out as a young person.
> 
> So me and the people in the report are identical.
> 
> ...




Which report are you referring to? The one I linked to and quoted?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Which report are you referring to? The one I linked to and quoted?



Nope it was in the OP.

*A six-month inquiry by the authority's overview and scrutiny committee found offspring in their 20s now had to move far away to find homes, causing problems for the close family network.*

I did post this once already.  Notice the use of the word 'had', because having to do something, pretty much means you are forced to do it because you have no choices.

What I don't understand really cesare is the fact that the council has ONLY thought about bringing in this idea because of the break up of families and yet you have insisted for several pages that I explain how I was forced out...as if somehow it was different for me, like somehow there was a rip in reality and despite the fact that the council had a 6 month inquiry, despite them floating an entire idea whose sole purpose is to stop the rot, somehow none of this was around when I was there, it all sort of popped up right now and only effects the people living there this instant.

Simply accept the fact that like the people mentioned in this report, oh my god, some white people were actually forced to move.  We didnt' choose to, we didn't want to, we didn't like the idea, but we had to do it anyway because we had no choices.

And I am fed up with the excuses and the thinly veiled idea that all white people were racist and they all left cause they didn't like people with brown skin or they didn't like the decor.

You think any of those 20 year olds they are trying to allow to stay in the borough don't think it is a shit hole? Don't think it is a ghetto, don't think they could do better?

Yet the council thinks an idea like this will float, is it because they realise people put down roots and its harsh to rip them up, is it because they realise that people like to stay near other family members and people they have grown up with?

But apparently none of that matters if you are white? None of that applies to white people, we all ran away because we were racist or wanted better living conditions.

If 'brown' people are being pushed out now, so were white people 20 years ago, the Lib Dems tried to stop that and it was racist.  Now labour wants to stop it and it ain't racist.

Quel Surprise.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

I haven't read the report mentioned in the OP. Have you?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Try looking at it this way ...

I read that East London Advertiser article with a sense of WTF? Because it didn't chime with my memories of that time.

So I had a wee look around to try and find some commentary/analysis that was more objective - and I found that one that I partially quoted plus linked to.

From my point of view, it seemed like everyone suffered as a result of that particular housing policy. Everyone.

But I accept that my view is subjective. So if you think that the actual study that I linked to is wrong, tell me where it's wrong and why.

Unless you'd rather focus on a soundbite from an unsourced report in an article in a local paper.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> But apparently none of that matters if you are white? None of that applies to white people, _we all ran away because we were racist or wanted better living conditions._


No, not all,  but a significant number did and you pretending that is not true changes nothing.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> No, not all,  but a significant number did and you pretending that is not true changes nothing.



You expressed many reasons, downplaying entirely the fact that many didn't have any choice.  I was just reminding you of that fact.

Because I reminded you of that, you felt that I should be reminded yet again, that some moved for other reasons.

Seems a bit overkill on your part doesn't it?  I mean, how many times do you need to repeat it? Until we all believe that every white person living in TH in the 70-80s was a racist?

Did I at any time in my post contradict, question, deny or in anyone not accept that people left for many reasons, including some that you mentioned?

Yet you felt the need to remind us all yet again.

You do understand that this constant drumming home of a single example of piss poor behaviour by a single race does constitute racism.

If I banged on and on and on about terrorism and muslims reminding you at every opportunity that the terrorist we have witnessed in London were muslim, and when you come back and told me that yes but not all muslims are like that, and I reminded you again and again of the work of thsoe muslims that were guilty?

Two pages later people would be brandishing around the word Racism.

Oh you only see the bad, you just want to force everyone to only look upon the bad aspect of Muslims.  You are not portraying the truth, you are trying to push your agenda...etc etc etc.

Yet you are doing almost exactly the same thing, pushing again and again the idea that white people left for racist and greedy reasons.  When someone accepts that and offers the fact that not everyone was like that?

You feel the need to come back and remind us all what bastards we were once again.

I am a little annoyed, this entire argument is winding me up something rotten, and I am not angry specifically with you Rutita1, in fact I have quite enjoyed debating with you, you very smart.  But the whole debate is really winding me up, becuase I know that this is exactly how it will go if it ever gets on Newsnight, people will play up the racist undertones of people leaving, suggest they did it because it was a ghetto (like it hadn't been for the previous 30 years) and play down the fact that many people who left didn't want to and didn't have a choice.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Why were your parents 'forced out' Dravinian?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

After re-reading my rant this was a pretty redundant post


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why were your parents 'forced out' Dravinian?



Do you reject the conclusion of the report?

You don't need to read it to know the conclusion, part of it was written there in bold.

Do you think they are lying or they are incorrect, or do you think that their findings somehow don't apply to me or anyone else i know?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Do you reject the conclusion of the report?
> 
> You don't need to read it to know the conclusion, part of it was written there in bold.
> 
> Do you think they are lying or they are incorrect, or do you think that their findings somehow don't apply to me or anyone else i know?



Why were your parents 'forced out' Dravinian?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

You can write reams and reams of rants about the Bangladeshis and Muslims and how hard done by the white folks are - but you keep avoiding answering one simple question.

Why were your parents 'forced out' Dravinian?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> After re-reading my rant this was a pretty redundant post




You edited out ½ page of ranting about Muslims.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> You edited out ½ page of ranting about Muslims.



Now why lie?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Now why lie?



I'm not. 

You went right off into one about how if someone started a thread about how 'Some Muslims are terrorists' that it wouldn't be long before somebody picked them up on the racist aspect of that even though they didn't say 'all muslims are terrorists' etc etc etc for ½ a page.

Though wtf Muslims have got anything to do with this apart from the fact that the Bangladeshis in LBTH are in the majority Muslim ... oh, wait.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> I'm not.
> 
> You went right off into one about how if someone started a thread about how 'Some Muslims are terrorists' that it wouldn't be long before somebody picked them up on the racist aspect of that even though they didn't say 'all muslims are terrorists' etc etc etc for ½ a page.
> 
> Though wtf Muslims have got anything to do with this apart from the fact that the Bangladeshis in LBTH are in the majority Muslim ... oh, wait.



You are lying.

I wrote almost exactly what I had written in the previous post, which is why I said...having re-read the previous post I found that one to be redundant.

I wasn't "banging on" about Muslims in the post that remains and I wasn't "banging on" about them in the post I deleted.

I made a remark using Muslims as a group that has an aspect of 'bad' in it, terrorists, and how if someone had done what Rutita1 had done that some would consider it racist to continually remind everyone that they had terrorists as a part of their 'community' even after it was accepted and an opinion was offered that not everyone was like that.

I asked how is this any different from constantly reminding people that the some of the community of white people in Tower Hamlets were racists? and constantly feeling the need to remind us all of that fact, even after we have accepted it.

That is what I did, that is not 'banging on about muslims'


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why were your parents 'forced out' Dravinian?



And I have asked you over and over again whether you believe that report is lying.

You seem to be avoiding that.

The report quite clearly sets out that it believes that young people in the communities of Tower Hamlets are being forced to move out to other areas.

Do you deny report, is it wrong, are they lying?

You won't answer those questions, because you know you either have to accept that there is no justifiable reason for this policy, and hte report is a lie or you have to accept that like these people me and my parents were in exactly the same position.

So what it is?

Either the report is a complete lie and this policy is based on as set of lies so that the council can offer racist protectionism, in which case I will explain why my parents were forced out.  You just have to accept that the report is a lie and this entire policy is racist.

or it is right people are being forced out, this policy would help aid that, and you already know the reasons my parents were forced out, as they are the same as the ones put in the report for the people today.

So which is it?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

I do not know whether the report is lying - because I haven't read it.

I cannot make any assumptions based on the East London Advertiser's highly loaded article.

What do you disagree with in the report that I linked to?

Why were your parents 'forced out'?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> I do not know whether the report is lying - because I haven't read it.



But you know the conclusions.

I have asked you, do you accept the conclusions of the report that young people in those communities are being forced out.

yes or no?

If you have not read it, then you are basically saying, I don't trust the report from the council.  You don't trust that their conclusions are right.

That would be a no then?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:
			
		

> But you know the conclusions.
> 
> I have asked you, do you accept the conclusions of the report that young people in those communities are being forced out.
> 
> ...




All I know is this (the East London Advertiser article):



> A HOUSING strategy dumped for being "racist" in the 1990s could be brought back to prevent the break up of a new generation of families in London's East End.
> 
> The Sons and Daughters scheme, which was scrapped almost 20 years ago after a ruling by the Commission for Racial Equality, could return to tackle the growing need for housing in Tower Hamlets.
> 
> ...



Plus reports published by the Young Foundation: http://www.youngfoundation.org.uk/publications/reports 

Plus LBTH's Overview and Scrutiny Committee's report on this:



> Choice based lettings scheme
> 
> This review was a six month long inquiry by the Scrutiny Review Working Group into the council’s approach to choice based lettings scheme for the allocation of housing. The review had a particular emphasis on overcrowding, homelessness, accessibility of the scheme for disabled and elderly residents and the medical assessment process.



http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data.../scrutiny/ChoiceBasedLettings-FinalReport.pdf (34 page PDF)

OK Dravinian - read the report and tell me why you still insist on maintaining that the conclusion of the report is _"A six-month inquiry by the authority's overview and scrutiny committee found offspring in their 20s now had to move far away to find homes, causing problems for the close family network."_ as opposed to what the conclusion of the report actually is, which is:



> In conclusion the Working Group has made a number of recommendations which the it feels not only will improve access for elderly and disabled people but will benefit the community as a whole. The Working Group has focused on addressing community understanding, improving the quality of medical assessments, improving outcomes for community groups, tackling overcrowding which is a challenge in Tower Hamlets and focused on ways to widen choice and access for residents in the recommendations which have been put forward.



One of the recommendations, just one, is 



> That an open, non-discriminatory Sons and Daughters policy be considered for adoption as part of the new lettings policy and as part of the Council’s affordable homes policy;



The ELA have swooped in on one particular aspect - I wonder why.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You are lying.
> 
> I wrote almost exactly what I had written in the previous post, which is why I said...having re-read the previous post I found that one to be redundant.
> 
> ...



What I said was:


> You edited out ½ page of ranting about Muslims.



followed by



> You went right off into one about how if someone started a thread about how 'Some Muslims are terrorists' that it wouldn't be long before somebody picked them up on the racist aspect of that even though they didn't say 'all muslims are terrorists' etc etc etc for ½ a page.
> 
> Though wtf Muslims have got anything to do with this apart from the fact that the Bangladeshis in LBTH are in the majority Muslim ... oh, wait.



'banging on about Muslims' seem to be your words, not mine. Ah yes, here they are from one of your previous rants:




			
				Dravinian said:
			
		

> If I banged on and on and on about terrorism and muslims reminding you at every opportunity that the terrorist we have witnessed in London were muslim, and when you come back and told me that yes but not all muslims are like that, and I reminded you again and again of the work of thsoe muslims that were guilty?



Other people saw it apart from me Dravinian.


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

no-one is being forced anywhere by the council

housing allocation is based on social or economic need, if Tower Hamlets were to allocate housing to people who werent eligible (ie childless or not vulnerable) then that would be illegal and require a change of law at national level

Tower Hamlets have a legal duty to house everyone in their borough who is eligible, they may occassionally come to agreements with other boroughs to house homeless people, but those people could refuse and demand to be housed in Tower Hamlets

Its true that rising prices in the private sector means young people can no longer afford to buy/rent in the area, but again theres not really much the council can do about that

What this probably means is that consideration on where peoples families on a ward by ward basis will now be taken into account when housing those legally entitled to social housing within Tower Hamlets

this is the norm in most London boroughs already


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*no-one is being forced anywhere by the council*

That implies that the council is taking no active role in forcing anyone out.

That isn't really what anyone is saying.

They are saying that without access to Council homes, there are no other choices, effectively you are forced out if the council refuses you a home, because you have no other choices.

Let me put it to you this way, you are in my house, I am not forcing you out, but I did set fire to it, you can remain, but of course you will likely burn....but I didn't force you out.  I didn't beat you with a stick, I didn't tell you to leave, I just set fire to the house, making it impossible for you to stay.

Did I force you out?  Yeah of course I did I set the fire.  This is no different, you can't claim the council didn't force anyone out, because it didn't physically get up and drag people beyond the borders, they effectively set fire to the house you were in when they stated you had no chance of getting a council flat.

*OK Dravinian - read the report and tell me why you still insist on maintaining that the conclusion of the report is.*

So after all of that, you actually quote the bit where they say they want to adopt a sons and daughters policy, even in conjunction with another one.

As to ranting, banging on about, whatever, it all means the same thing and it was all lies.

I was not ranting about muslims, I was ranting about people being inadvertently racist to white people without thinking about it and used the Muslim community to make that point.

That is hardly ranting about Muslims is it?

So you lied.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Shouldn't access to council housing be based on *need*, and need alone - I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into it in the slightest.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

The other thing is smokedout, we are using language here becuase it is simpler to do.

We say...when the council refuse you a council home...

but as you stated, they can't do that, what htey do is put you on the list and tell you straight that the waiting list is 10 years.

In my borough the council waiting list for a 3 or more bedroom property is 13 years, if you are a family that needs that accommodation, you have not been refused, but you might as well have been, because you know in the lifetime of your children (actually being children) you will never see that home.

So yes, we use lazy language, but refusing and telling someone it will be 15 years before they get offered a place is the same thing in my book, it just takes less time to type refused.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Shouldn't access to council housing be based on *need*, and need alone - I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into it in the slightest.



Well in the current climate yes, but overall no, I think Social housing should be a right for everyone, not a priviledge dished out to those that need it the most.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *OK Dravinian - read the report and tell me why you still insist on maintaining that the conclusion of the report is.*
> 
> So after all of that, you actually quote the bit where they say they want to adopt a sons and daughters policy, even in conjunction with another one.
> 
> ...



Actually - I don't care if you think I'm a liar or not  I summarised what you posted before deciding to edit and I notice that you're not denying the content of my summary.

In terms of your other claims about the report's conclusion ...

"In conjunction with another one?" You what? You haven't even read that report yet, have you?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Shouldn't access to council housing be based on *need*, and need alone - I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into it in the slightest.



I don't think that race/ethnicity should be a consideration when allocating housing but I do feel that becuase there has been such a rapid demographic change some period of 'settlement' may well be helpful and would reduce tension allround.

This is why I don't believe that there should be an unrestricted Sons and Daughters policy but there should be a modified policy of sons and daughters with prioritised those with relatives and connections in the borough (any borough not just TH) but with some leeway to take into account an applicants needs.  At the end of the day there is a need for more local authority housing but this cannot be created overnight.  

My personal opinion is that bringing back some form of modified sons and daughters policy would not only help social cohesion but would also kick the legs from beneath the bnp who are exploiting the issue of housing allocation.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Shouldn't access to council housing be based on *need*, and need alone - I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into it in the slightest.



In my opinion that's pretty much why they chose to return to this 'sons and daughters' policy after years of positive discrimination toward ethnic minorities.

Some might say that having redressed the balance (somewhat) that this was as good a time as any to return to sensible civic planning policies that generally don't force people to do anything.. either forced in or forced out.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Well in the current climate yes, but overall no, I think Social housing should be a right for everyone, not a priviledge dished out to those that need it the most.



True.

As a single, white guy with no kids, I couldn't afford to buy anywhere to live in London - and wouldn't get any 'priority' on any council list - but would effectively be homeless otherwise.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> True.
> 
> As a single, white guy with no kids, I couldn't afford to buy anywhere to live in London - and wouldn't get any 'priority' on any council list - but would effectively be homeless otherwise.



As a single, white guy with no kids you have every advantage that this society has to offer you.

Although each person's situation is different... those factors in themselves should suggest you may not need social housing as much as others.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> As a single, white guy with no kids you have every advantage that this society has to offer you.
> 
> Although each person's situation is different... those factors in themselves should suggest you may not need social housing as much as others.



My income alone means I cannot afford to buy, and as I don't like the idea of 'sharing' with strangers, that doesn't leave me many options except low cost housing.

I think most people would agree that the cost of homes in London - and the UK generally - are heading for a big crash soon.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> My income alone means I cannot afford to buy, and as I don't like the idea of 'sharing' with strangers, that doesn't leave me many options except low cost housing.



Option 1. Get used to the idea of sharing.
Option 2. Make more money.



> I think most people would agree that the cost of homes in London - and the UK generally - are heading for a big crash soon.



In some places.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Anyway, now that I've actually found the report that the ELA decided to take a soundbite from to make into a news piece, I can now answer your question Dravinian. 

Which was:




			
				Dravinian said:
			
		

> I have asked you, do you accept the conclusions of the report that young people in those communities are being forced out.



No, because that wasn't the report's conclusion.

This is interesting:



> The population of Tower Hamlets is comparatively young. The 24-30 year old group represents 34% of the total population and a further 22% is under the age of 15 years of age. Together with this, the elderly population is forecasted to grow along side the population of young people which highlights the need for smaller size accommodation whilst the need for larger size accommodation is evident. The Housing Strategy does well to recognise the diversity of the borough and does take in to consideration the demographics of the local area in setting out the strategy. The particular needs of  community groups in accessing housing must be addressed.



As is this:



> 18. This debate is as relevant in Tower Hamlets as anywhere else in the country. Given the diversity of the borough and it being the settling point for new and emerging communities, housing has always been a touchstone issue. The recent Young Foundation study ‘The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict’ talks of the diminished support networks in communities for which the authors pin the blame on the welfare state. They claim that housing policy based on needs where contributions of the past are not considered in distribution, has stirred up racial tension and left the white working class community embittered and fragmented.
> 
> 19. More recently in 2007, Our Shared Future – a report by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion states that settled communities are worried about the fair allocation of public services with some thinking that immigrants and minorities are getting special treatment. This is further compounded by the national picture of the rights and freedom of immigrants being restricted. The Commission believes that work needs to be developed to dispel this myth and that the key to this is communication. In this context, the report recognises CBL as a positive innovation.



Any chance that you can answer my question now, Dravinian?

Why were your parents 'forced out'?


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

> They are saying that without access to Council homes, there are no other choices, effectively you are forced out if the council refuses you a home, because you have no other choices.



well the council would have a duty to house you in some form of accommodation if you were homeless or in unsafe/unsuitable accommodation

the longer you were there, the more points you would get, but yes, the length of time some families have to stay in temp accommodation is a scandal and the only solution is more social housing

the length you stay in temp accommodation has nothing at all to do with ethinicty, although if you are homless you only need to have previously lived in the area for 1 year to be accepted on the list as opposed to 2 if you are already housed

if you cant prove that youve been in the area for at least 12 months, which obv can be quite hard if youve been homeless then the council will tell you to fuck off, unless you can prove that you have no other connection with any other borough 

ethinicity doesnt come into it at all, the law is very clear



> As a single, white guy with no kids, I couldn't afford to buy anywhere to live in London - and wouldn't get any 'priority' on any council list - but would effectively be homeless otherwise.



wtf has you being white got to do with anything, yet another statement dripping with racist undertones


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Option 1. Get used to the idea of sharing.
> Option 2. Make more money.



(1) is not an option.  My space is my space, and I just don't want other people around doing their own thing at wierd times of the night when I'm trying to sleep.  I'm a creature of habit, and partying is not my thing.

(2) ... if only it was that easy eh?


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> wtf has you being white got to do with anything, yet another statement dripping with racist undertones



No 'racist undertones' - just the truth.  Sorry if you don't like it.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> (1) is not an option.  My space is my space, and I just don't want other people around doing their own thing at wierd times of the night when I'm trying to sleep.  I'm a creature of habit, and partying is not my thing.



No matter how much you say that it's not an option.. it very much is an option for massive numbers of people.

They had to get used to it. Why shouldn't you?



> (2) ... if only it was that easy eh?



It's not meant to be easy. That's why you get paid more for it.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> They had to get used to it. Why shouldn't you?



It just wouldn't last, I'd get too pissed off with those I was sharing with I'd either kick them out or they'd kick me out in less than a week.

Some people are laid back, easy going, and don't care what other people do.  I'm not one of them.


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No 'racist undertones' - just the truth.  Sorry if you don't like it.



and would be equally true if you were from any other ethnicity so why did you need to mention you were white


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It just wouldn't last, I'd get too pissed off with those I was sharing with I'd either kick them out or they'd kick me out in less than a week.
> 
> Some people are laid back, easy going, and don't care what other people do.  I'm not one of them.



Most of those people had to learn to be that way. The hard way.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> *and would be equally true *if you were from any other ethnicity so why did you need to mention you were white



In theory, yes.

In practicality, highly unlikely


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> and would be equally true if you were from any other ethnicity so why did you need to mention you were white



Isn't this the poster that was getting upset on the festival thread where Layabout got banned again? Ajdown and Layabout tag-team?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> In theory, yes.
> 
> In practicality, highly unlikely



Your source for that claim is? (Without linking to the BNP website if poss)


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No 'racist undertones' - just the truth.  Sorry if you don't like it.



Erm...I think you will find that single men and women with no children, regardless of the colour of their skin have the same problem.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Your source for that claim is? (Without linking to the BNP website if poss)



Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ... where's the "white" housing department?  By definition, an 'ethnic' department excludes whites, yet a 'general' housing department includes everyone.


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ... where's the "white" housing department?  By definition, an 'ethnic' department excludes whites, yet a 'general' housing department includes everyone.



err no they dont


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> err no they dont



Which part are you referring to?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*well the council would have a duty to house you in some form of accommodation if you were homeless or in unsafe/unsuitable accommodation*

Choices mate.

YOu are basically saying they won't house you unless you make yourself unsafe or vulnerable.

Some people are not willing to through those level of risk, just to find a place to live, when it is easier to leave the borough.

Again, the council has not forced you out, but by the criteria needed your choices are slim.

To cesare, you lied about what I posted, tried to paint it as a 'rant' against Muslims when it was nothing of the sort, you have refused to accept that the recommendation says that a sons and daughters policy should be considered.

And the fact that they refered to the Young Foundation IN the report to come to that conclusion, which DID state that young people are having to move out of hte borough to find accommodation.

You seem more interested in nit picking.

My parents left Tower Hamlets because the waiting list for a home was so damn long that they realised they would never get a home there, they went to Essex first all of, found it was too far away from their parents homes (both were born in Bethnal Green) and then moved to Manor Road in West Ham.

Were they forced out? If you mean did some people with sticks chase them down the road...then no of course not, if you mean after being told they would not get a council home for any number of years, and so decided that their only option was to move, then yes they were forced out.

No doubt you will take the tack that since no one was beating them with a stick they were not forced out. That would come as no surprise to me.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Erm...I think you will find that single men and women with no children, regardless of the colour of their skin have the same problem.



They do, many of my friends are in the same position now, regardless of their race.

Getting a council flat without some additional reason is next to impossible these days, you have to have kids, you have to have illness you have to something that gives you a high level of priority.

Doesn't matter who you are, if you turn up single with no kids and no issues, you won't get a place to live.

I am not sure I have heard of every council having an ethnic housing department either.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I am not sure I have heard of every council having an ethnic housing department either.



Lambeth's "Black and Minority Ethnic" general policy

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F370498-312F-4805-8384-D952F359B83A/0/SPBMEStrategy.pdf


Where's their "white" policy?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> I am a little annoyed, this entire argument is winding me up something rotten, and I am not angry specifically with you Rutita1, in fact I have quite enjoyed debating with you, you very smart.  But the whole debate is really winding me up, becuase I know that this is exactly how it will go if it ever gets on Newsnight, people will play up the racist undertones of people leaving, suggest they did it because it was a ghetto (like it hadn't been for the previous 30 years) and play down the fact that many people who left didn't want to and didn't have a choice.



I am at work today and can't respond to this post in the way i'd like but will do it later.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Lambeth's "Black and Minority Ethnic" general policy
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F370498-312F-4805-8384-D952F359B83A/0/SPBMEStrategy.pdf
> 
> ...



Any comments about post 153?


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Which part are you referring to?



i worked in housing for the best part of ten years and ive never heard of an ethnic housin department


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ... where's the "white" housing department?  By definition, an 'ethnic' department excludes whites, yet a 'general' housing department includes everyone.




Tower Hamlets doesn't have one: http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/housing/index.cfm

Newham doesn't have one: http://www.newham.gov.uk/Service.htm?_Service=100007

Lambeth doesn't have one:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/CouncilHousing/

Three examples of general housing departments.

Go on then, post an example of a black/ethnic housing department.


----------



## Jografer (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ... where's the "white" housing department?  By definition, an 'ethnic' department excludes whites, yet a 'general' housing department includes everyone.



...no, not in Bristol we don't.......

...... we've got a gay/lesbian/disbabled/single parent/black transvestite housing section that is nuclear free & organic if that helps....


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Lambeth's "Black and Minority Ethnic" general policy
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F370498-312F-4805-8384-D952F359B83A/0/SPBMEStrategy.pdf
> 
> ...



fuck me youre thick

thats a policy, not a department, a policy introduced because as it says at the top of the document



> National studies suggest that many BME groups are highly disadvantaged, and experience high levels of poverty, unemployment, poor housing, ill health, crime and racial discrimination.



and also introduced because of racist fuckwits like you who used to have no blacks, no irish, no dogs policies

or is that what you mean by a white policy


----------



## tommers (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Lambeth's "Black and Minority Ethnic" general policy
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F370498-312F-4805-8384-D952F359B83A/0/SPBMEStrategy.pdf
> 
> ...



that would be "everything else".


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I am a little annoyed, this entire argument is winding me up something rotten, and I am not angry specifically with you Rutita1, in fact I have quite enjoyed debating with you, you very smart.  But the whole debate is really winding me up, becuase I know that this is exactly how it will go if it ever gets on Newsnight, people will play up the racist undertones of people leaving, suggest they did it because it was a ghetto (like it hadn't been for the previous 30 years) and play down the fact that many people who left didn't want to and didn't have a choice.



I've been following your argument, drav.. and I can see where you're coming from. But I don't fully understand what (apart from cesare) has got you annoyed?

Is it just the idea that some (stupid) folk might lump your parents and people like them with other people who did move for racist reasons?


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Go on then, post an example of a black/ethnic housing department.



Maybe not a 'formal department' as such but let's look at the wider context

A minute on Google takes me to Hounslow.

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/bme_strategy_2005-2007.pdf

Another minute and I find Croydon.

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/housing/residents/spanels/hempanel

Can you find one "white only" housing group/association? 

Need I go further?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> My parents left Tower Hamlets because the waiting list for a home was so damn long that they realised they would never get a home there, they went to Essex first all of, found it was too far away from their parents homes (both were born in Bethnal Green) and then moved to Manor Road in West Ham.
> 
> Were they forced out? If you mean did some people with sticks chase them down the road...then no of course not, if you mean after being told they would not get a council home for any number of years, and so decided that their only option was to move, then yes they were forced out.
> 
> No doubt you will take the tack that since no one was beating them with a stick they were not forced out. That would come as no surprise to me.



I'm not quite clear what you mean, what kind of housing were they living in when they were in Tower Hamlets?


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

tommers said:


> that would be "everything else".



Why?  Why is something that doesn't say "black and ethnic minorities" automatically white only?

It doesn't.  Ever.  Because that would be considered racist - yet 'black only' isn't.


----------



## tommers (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Maybe not a 'formal department' as such but let's look at the wider context
> 
> A minute on Google takes me to Hounslow.
> 
> ...



those aren't housing departments.  one is another strategy document, as above, the other is a panel to give feedback on council housing.  You could argue that "BME" in itself is a wide enough category to render such criteria meaningless but there's nothing there to give BME people an advantage over your good honest white working class.

You're barking up the wrong tree here mate.


----------



## Jografer (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ...





ajdown said:


> Maybe not a 'formal department' as such



So the first post is a load of bollocks then.... at least your contributions are consistent....





			
				ajdown said:
			
		

> Need I go further?



... I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing you a happy journey that involves sex & travel....


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It doesn't.  Ever.  Because that would be considered racist - yet 'black only' isn't.



Don't be stupid. Of course 'black only' is racist.

The question is whether it was necessary. Which I think anyone, with a little bit of thought, will at least understand if not agree with.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Maybe not a 'formal department' as such but let's look at the wider context
> 
> A minute on Google takes me to Hounslow.
> 
> ...



Why would there be a need for a "white only" strategy or panel?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> I'm not quite clear what you mean, what kind of housing were they living in when they were in Tower Hamlets?



When they got married they were living with my nan, my mums mum in Bethnal Green.




			
				Rutita1 said:
			
		

> I am at work today and can't respond to this post in the way i'd like but will do it later.



Ok, just bear in mind, I wasn't calling you racist, I was just pointing out that what you were doing was quite damn close to it.  By continually emphasising the negative of a group, and defining that group by their race, it is a bit racist.

Doesn't matter who that group is, whether it is whites in your example or muslims in mine or another group entirely, to push the negatives, even in the face of acceptance of those negatives, well it just seemed a bit close to racism to me.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Don't be stupid. Of course 'black only' is racist.
> 
> The question is whether it was necessary. Which I think anyone, with a little bit of thought, will at least understand if not agree with.



I really don't want to aid this person in their arguement, as a new poster with few posts and a penchant for making statements that aren't quite as definitive as they sounded.

I have to ask.

Lambeth like Newham is an areas with a predominantly NON-white population.

Why would these places need an Ethnic policy?

Surely that idea is born out of the idea that the Minority will suffer unless someone makes sure that they are being treated equally.....but these races are not the minority.  I think in that report what was it? 48% were Bangladeshi.

Why do these places still need a BME policy?


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> When they got married they were living with my nan, my mums mum in Bethnal Green.



Ah right. Did they already have you at that point?


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why would there be a need for a "white only" strategy or panel?



There isn't, any more than there's a need for any other "[insert ethnicity of choice] strategy panel".


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I really don't want to aid this person in their arguement, as a new poster with few posts and a penchant for making statements that aren't quite as definitive as they sounded.
> 
> I have to ask.
> 
> ...



Surely that's the point of this new report.. that they don't need such drastic policies anymore? Those were the key words in my statement.. _was necessary_.

Perhaps if you thought of it like a wave form.. the levels of different minorities vs majorities varying from more to less until it reaches an equilibrium?

That would explain why there might curently be a large number of bangladeshis living in the east end at the moment.. but by the next generation that may have equalised more as some of the young move out and a new wave of immigration hits.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> There isn't, any more than there's a need for any other "[insert ethnicity of choice] strategy panel".



Why do you think there's no need for BME strategies?


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> They do, many of my friends are in the same position now, regardless of their race.
> 
> Getting a council flat without some additional reason is next to impossible these days, you have to have kids, you have to have illness you have to something that gives you a high level of priority.
> 
> ...




That's probably sadly true of London councils and most SE ones, however, my sister managed to get a Leeds council flat despite being single and with no *issues*. She also then managed to get a nice housing association house with two rooms -- altho there was a reason for the extra room, it wasn't as compelling as all that.

However, now everyone's losing their home I guess it might be a bit harder.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why do you think there's no need for BME strategies?



What reasons are there for them?

Everyone has basic needs.  A roof over your head is one of them, regardless of your ethnicity.

Apart from possibly translation services if English isn't a fluent language for them, I can't think of any 'special needs' that one ethnic group has over another.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Surely that's the point of this new report.. that they don't need such drastic policies anymore? Those were the key words in my statement.. _was necessary_.
> 
> Perhaps if you thought of it like a wave form.. the levels of different minorities vs majorities varying from more to less until it reaches an equilibrium?
> 
> That would explain why there might curently be a large number of bangladeshis living in the east end at the moment.. but by the next generation that may have equalised more as some of the young move out and a new wave of immigration hits.



That is what is happening now other immigrants coming in and breaking up the previous communtiies, hence hte policy idea being floated about sons and daughters.

I understand the previous need for it, but many of these policies are in place right now.

Also I would say this, anyone that makes the argument that Whites are now teh minority is being somewhat economical with the truth...yes that includes me I was doing it to make a point.

While white is not the majority and non-white is the majority, those non-whites are spread between many groups, and the British White is still the single largest group in every borough that I have ever looked at.  (I could be wrong but I don't think there is one that is not British White as the largest single ethnic group)


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> That's probably sadly true of London councils and most SE ones, however, my sister managed to get a Leeds council flat despite being single and with no *issues*. She also then managed to get a nice housing association house with two rooms -- altho there was a reason for the extra room, it wasn't as compelling as all that.
> 
> However, now everyone's losing their home I guess it might be a bit harder.



I am not 100% sure on this so could end up taking a bollocking, but I do believe that women are not treated equally to men in this regard.

I think women are given a high level of vulnerability when being pointed up so to speak, then men in similar circumstances.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> T
> While white is not the majority and non-white is the majority, those non-whites are spread between many groups, and the British White is still the single largest group in every borough that I have ever looked at.  (I could be wrong but I don't think there is one that is not British White as the largest single ethnic group)



Yes, I think you're probably right but they do normally work to 2001 Census figures and the position may have changed in the past few years. I tend to think of TH and Newham as being approximately 50/50 but not geographically evenly distributed and also (as you say) the 50% ethnic group is made up of a number of different groups.


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I am not 100% sure on this so could end up taking a bollocking, but I do believe that women are not treated equally to men in this regard.
> 
> I think women are given a high level of vulnerability when being pointed up so to speak, then men in similar circumstances.



no they aint


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What reasons are there for them?
> 
> Everyone has basic needs.  A roof over your head is one of them, regardless of your ethnicity.
> 
> Apart from possibly translation services if English isn't a fluent language for them, I can't think of any 'special needs' that one ethnic group has over another.



Here's one reason, from that report:



> Overcrowding.
> 30. Asian households are more likely to be significantly larger than those of other ethnicities. The average number of people in an Asian household was found to be 4.3, in contrast to 1.9 persons in a White household and 2.4 persons in a Black household.10 Consequently, Asian households are more likely to be overcrowded. The 2001 Census determined that seven out of ten (70%) have at least one room less than they require, compared to a half (48%) of Black households and a quarter (23%) of White households.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Here's one reason, from that report:



Overcrowding is not limited to one ethnic group.

If people are having larger families than our systems can cope with, perhaps we should be looking more into providing contraception services instead of bigger houses.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> no they aint



Really, you are sure of that?

I mean, I don't think it would be sexist if they did, I mean, no offense but men are usually physically stronger then women and are less vulnerable given certain circumstances...not every time, but generally speaking I would have thought that women moved into unsafe accommodation would present a larger risk then men moved into the same unsafe accommodation.

Perhaps that is a bit sexist, but I don't think it is the evil sexist, I think it is realistic sexism.  Bit like having male and female runners compete seperately, sure at it's root is is sexist, but is sexism based on the physical differences, I believe it is an acceptable sexism that says, yes there are differences and we would be fools to ignore them.


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I am not 100% sure on this so could end up taking a bollocking, but I do believe that women are not treated equally to men in this regard.
> 
> I think women are given a high level of vulnerability when being pointed up so to speak, then men in similar circumstances.



Nope I think that's crap. At the time, in Leeds there was a list of housing classed as 'easy lets' that were basically open to anyone with 'general needs' and this flat was one of them.

Now all the bidding is done by points and online so I'd be even more surprised if gender came into it.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Overcrowding is not limited to one ethnic group.
> 
> If people are having larger families than our systems can cope with, perhaps we should be looking more into providing contraception services instead of bigger houses.



Now where in that quote did it say that overcrowding was limited to one ethnic group, eh?

Limit the numbers of children instead of sorting out our housing system - that'll be popular.


----------



## tommers (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Overcrowding is not limited to one ethnic group.
> 
> If people are having larger families than our systems can cope with, perhaps we should be looking more into providing contraception services instead of bigger houses.



the roman catholics would love that.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Limit the numbers of children instead of sorting out our housing system - that'll be popular.



I wonder how many children are actually born as a means to get more out of the benefits system, rather than being planned and wanted?


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Now where in that quote did it say that overcrowding was limited to one ethnic group, eh?
> 
> Limit the numbers of children instead of sorting out our housing system - that'll be popular.



One child policy! Great idea!!


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> One child policy! Great idea!!



Children are a privilege, not a right.


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Children are a privilege, not a right.



I believe that the right to a family is actually a principle in EU law.

However it well suits some nasty reactionary types that the poor shouldn't breed.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I believe that the right to a family is actually a principle in EU law.
> 
> However it well suits some nasty reactionary types that the poor shouldn't breed.



There's a difference between having a baby, and just popping out one after another for whatever the reason is.

I certainly wouldn't choose to bring a baby into this world if I wasn't in a position to give it a certain standard of care - which is tied into your social situation in many ways.


----------



## tommers (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wonder how many children are actually born as a means to get more out of the benefits system, rather than being planned and wanted?



you should sterilise them.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

tommers said:


> you should sterilise them.



Baby bottles should be, yes.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wonder how many children are actually born as a means to get more out of the benefits system, rather than being planned and wanted?



I don't know. But I expect you'll have those facts at your fingertips - a bit like your assertion of non-existent black/ethnic housing departments


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> The only 'summat else' its likely to be in the near future is a form of expensive housing/poncy art studio for some spoilt brat.


So it's not likely to be re-consecrated as a Roman Catholic church or Russian Orthodox temple to cater for eastern European immigrants, then? 


> The only historical reason that areas such as Brick Lane attracted immigrants was because it was cheap. Thats no longer the case. By your logic the area should now be full of Poles but they cannot afford to live in the area.


The historical reason wasn't cheapness, for most of the "east end" it was it's proximity to various trade hubs.


----------



## _angel_ (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> There's a difference between having a baby, and just popping out one after another for whatever the reason is.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't choose to bring a baby into this world if I wasn't in a position to give it a certain standard of care - which is tied into your social situation in many ways.



People have big families the world over for  various 
 reasons, including culture and religion. Do we tell them to stop this when they come to this country?

Do people having huge families in say, India, do it 'for benefits' I wonder?

My grandma came from a family of 13. In Ireland then it was common.

The way we look at large families as some kind of obscenity says more about our fucking dour repressed protestant attitudes than it does of the people wishing to have a large family.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?


You're a tory, surely you know the correct answer to your question?


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 19, 2008)

Fertility rates of immigrants tend to fall over two or three generations, to come more into line with that of the majority 'host' population. Hence fears of being 'swamped' by time-limited bursts of immigration are misfounded.

But if men continually obtain wives from the 'home country' where birth rates are high, rather than seek wives from among the population of the country they're living in, then this won't happen. Such a process may take on the appearance of colonisation, rather than immigration pure and simple.

Britain isn't recovering from the Great Plague and there is no obvious reason why the population needs to grow beyond what it is now. If anything, a very gentle decline in population through a below-replacement-level birth rate would be a good thing. Less crowding means less pressure on the infrastructure and environment and, perhaps, less social friction in future.


----------



## smokedout (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Really, you are sure of that?
> 
> I mean, I don't think it would be sexist if they did, I mean, no offense but men are usually physically stronger then women and are less vulnerable given certain circumstances...not every time, but generally speaking I would have thought that women moved into unsafe accommodation would present a larger risk then men moved into the same unsafe accommodation.
> 
> Perhaps that is a bit sexist, but I don't think it is the evil sexist, I think it is realistic sexism.  Bit like having male and female runners compete seperately, sure at it's root is is sexist, but is sexism based on the physical differences, I believe it is an acceptable sexism that says, yes there are differences and we would be fools to ignore them.



yup im sure

in practice there are probably more women housed due to being in unsafe accommodation eg domestic violence than men, but thats nothing to do with them being given any official priority


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Shouldn't access to council housing be based on *need*, and need alone - I don't see why race/ethnicity should come into it in the slightest.



Need *must* be the sole criterion, until such time as there is enough social housing stock so that provision doesn't need to be made on a "need only" basis.
I suspect it would take something along the line of housing riots to get the govt to pull it's finger out and allow local authorities to develop social housing once again, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pretty much every council has a black/ethnic "housing department" ... where's the "white" housing department?  By definition, an 'ethnic' department excludes whites, yet a 'general' housing department includes everyone.



Must be the best-kept secret in the country then, because I've never come across one..


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Lambeth's "Black and Minority Ethnic" general policy
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F370498-312F-4805-8384-D952F359B83A/0/SPBMEStrategy.pdf
> 
> ...



A "policy" is a document involving certain tactical ideas about resources and how they are to be used, a housing department is a stratum of civic administration.

Can you see the difference?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 19, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> Need *must* be the sole criterion, until such time as there is enough social housing stock so that provision doesn't need to be made on a "need only" basis.
> I suspect it would take something along the line of housing riots to get the govt to pull it's finger out and allow local authorities to develop social housing once again, though.




I disagree.  I think some form of modified sons and daughters should be brought in to cut the legs away from the bnp and to stabilise communities after a period of rapid demographic change in the short to medium term.  I see that there is a need for needs to be taken into account but it shouldn't be the total criteria.

I agree totally that more public housing needs to be built.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

smokedout said:


> yup im sure
> 
> in practice there are probably more women housed due to being in unsafe accommodation eg domestic violence than men, but thats nothing to do with them being given any official priority



Well I will bow to your confidence then, you seem sure.

at least I didn't have to take a bollocking for a it


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I disagree.  I think some form of modified sons and daughters should be brought in to cut the legs away from the bnp and to stabilise communities after a period of rapid demographic change in the short to medium term.  I see that there is a need for needs to be taken into account but it shouldn't be the total criteria.
> 
> I agree totally that more public housing needs to be built.



Introducing such a policy purely to "spike" the BNP would end up working to support them in pretty short order. The way to ensure that fascism doesn't get a solid foothold is hard grass-roots graft, *not* gerrymandering.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 19, 2008)

ViolentPanda said:


> Introducing such a policy purely to "spike" the BNP would end up working to support them in pretty short order. The way to ensure that fascism doesn't get a solid foothold is hard grass-roots graft, *not* gerrymandering.




This policy, if introduced in Tower Hamlets, will help the BNP.

The abolition of the original sons and daughters housing policy has been one of the planks upon which the BNP have built there success over the last 20 years. Any mores to bring it back will have Griffin jumping for joy. It will be on par with the recent attempt to prosecute him for not being to keen on Islam.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> When they got married they were living with my nan, my mums mum in Bethnal Green.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, just bear in mind, I wasn't calling you racist, I was just pointing out that what you were doing was quite damn close to it.  By continually emphasising the negative of a group, and defining that group by their race, it is a bit racist.



Damn close to racist? Are you sure?

Being mixed race I think I have a very priveledged viewpoint which has been enriched by experiences that others don't and will never have.  

I am fully aware of the prejudice that exists in my world and I am fully aware it doesn't always come from just one aspect of the cultures that have shaped the person I am now. I don't hide from it or pretend it doesn't exist. There is no comfort in hoping it would go away for me. I was born and brought up in the East End and have no agenda or favoured group to protect. 



I emphasised the *'other' *aspects not just the negative to this debate as ...

1.....I was and still part of the people/culture it is discussing....
2....to remind everyone of those facts because other posters were being blinkered with their history of what really went on and what is really going on now.




> Doesn't matter who that group is, whether it is whites in your example or muslims in mine or another group entirely, to push the negatives, even in the face of acceptance of those negatives, well it just seemed a bit close to racism to me.



Yeah I bet it did but that's not what I did at all and I don't think my posts about 'other' aspects to this were fully accepted at all. I remeber scifisam acknowledging them but....

You seem to be saying that I have been 'almost' racist for remembering that some people moved away from the East End because they hated immigrants? How bizarre!

I also pointed out that others left because they hated it there and wanted to 'move' up in the world so to speak....does that make me 'classist' as well?

I also pointed out that up until recently most of the East End has been very run down with cock all going for it.

Really, you are banging on and on because you are clearly annoyed that non-whites are now getting helped where 'some' Whites did not in the past.

I think you are missing an important point, it isn't about the colour of the people who didn't/are now getting looked after....it's about local councils finally giving a shit about their communities, not which colour the community it is.

Priority should be given to 'need'. 'Need' is a classless, colourless, cultureless, religionless word IMO.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 19, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> This policy, if introduced in Tower Hamlets, will help the BNP.


But introduced in other areas such as Dagenham would kill them stone dead. 


Stoat Boy said:


> The abolition of the original sons and daughters housing policy has been one of the planks upon which the BNP have built there success over the last 20 years. Any mores to bring it back will have Griffin jumping for joy. It will be on par with the recent attempt to prosecute him for not being to keen on Islam.



If it was brought in to favour one sector of the communty then they would exploit it badly.  A more generalised re introduction but with safeguards would not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> This policy, if introduced in Tower Hamlets, will help the BNP.


As it would in *any* constituency or ward where the "right" kind of pressure on limited resources pertains.


> The abolition of the original sons and daughters housing policy has been one of the planks upon which the BNP have built there success over the last 20 years.


That's not *quite* true, it's more accurately been a plank on which they've built their *relative* success in winning council wards in the past 5 years or so. Housing only really became an issue for the BNP when pressure reached a certain peak (or was perceived to) in those wards etc, hence Oldham and the like.
I've been studying the BNP since the 70s, and the main things they were interested in 20 years ago were solidarity with Ulster Unionism and their usual politics of race.


> Any mores to bring it back will have Griffin jumping for joy...


*Any* policy that might allow him to garner more votes would have him "jumping for joy", surely?


> ...It will be on par with the recent attempt to prosecute him for not being to keen on Islam.


How very disingenuous of you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> But introduced in other areas such as Dagenham would kill them stone dead.


I wouldn't be so sure, unless there was actual housing provision available to actually make "sons and daughters" a viable proposition, otherwise it's just words.


> If it was brought in to favour one sector of the communty then they would exploit it badly.  A more generalised re introduction but with safeguards would not.


The problem with "safeguards" is that one or other political grouping would be able to find "prejudice" or "favouritism" in them.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Damn close to racist? Are you sure?
> 
> Being mixed race I think I have a very priveledged viewpoint which has been enriched by experiences that others don't and will never have.
> 
> ...



It isn't just remembering Rutita1, it is the repeating of it in your posts on this subject.

You mentioned it 3 times before I pulled you up on it, did you know that?

Yeah you did include other reasons, but you also included this one 3 times before I mentioned it.  What are we all blind? We all needed to be reminded 3 times of the same thing, over and over agian that white people left because they are racist.

Don't think we got in the first two?

It has nothing to do with whether whites are getting help or not and I think you know that, perhaps revenge for pointing out your own close to racist behaviour has brought about a similar accusation?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*Priority should be given to 'need'. 'Need' is a classless, colourless, cultureless, religionless word IMO.*

I agree.

Which is why I think this policy is vote pandering and racist protectionism.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *Priority should be given to 'need'. 'Need' is a classless, colourless, cultureless, religionless word IMO.*



Need absolutely isn't classless, or cultureless.

Do the rich need as much help as the poor? The upper classes as much as the lower? Do people from other cultures need more help settling than people from this one?

Of course they do.

Do people who have been discrimintaed against need the balance redressing?

Of course they do.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Need absolutely isn't classless, or cultureless.
> 
> Do the rich need as much help as the poor? The upper classes as much as the lower? Do people from other cultures need more help settling than people from this one?
> 
> ...



Rich is money though isn't it.  Rich isn't a class.  Having money is wealth.  That obviously negates your need, since we are talking about need here.

You can be a toff that has fallen on hard times your need is as great as anyone elses, just because you are an ex-toff doesn't change that fact.

You are confusing wealth with class, and they are not hte same thing.

And no unless we can show individual cases of discimination, which do need redressing, then no I don't think we should automatically treat an entire group of people different because of some perceived discimination that might have happened to some of them at some point though we don't know where, when or how.


----------



## bluestreak (May 19, 2008)

In this thread: white folks who feel hard done by show that they don't understand how council housing works.

Short answer: in an ideal world where there was enough council housing to be able to say to S&D that they are welcome to a council house on those terms only, i would support it.  but in a world where the building of new council houses is effectively prohibited and a vast majority of people who have serious needs are not being housed, it would be folly to introduce an S&D policy.

The first policy of anyone who wants housing change in this country should be: build council housing.  Anyone who isn't seeking to build more CH as first priority for change really doesn't know what they're on about.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Rich is money though isn't it.  Rich isn't a class.  Having money is wealth.  That obviously negates your need, since we are talking about need here.
> 
> You can be a toff that has fallen on hard times your need is as great as anyone elses, just because you are an ex-toff doesn't change that fact.
> 
> You are confusing wealth with class, and they are not hte same thing.



They aren't un-related. With class comes privilege and greater opportunity.



> And no unless we can show individual cases of discimination, which do need redressing, then no I don't think we should automatically treat an entire group of people different because of some perceived discimination that might have happened to some of them at some point though we don't know where, when or how.



Being one of them.. I think I can give you a little idea of where when and how. And I guess I can get my mates to give you a few examples of where when and how themselves.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

> In the context of high demand for affordable housing, acute housing needs and the limitations of the availability of affordable housing options, the Choice Based Lettings Service sets out to distribute *a very small supply of homes *in a highly populated area where the demand is very high.



My emphasis.

That report again. Point 26.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> It isn't just remembering Rutita1, it is the repeating of it in your posts on this subject.
> 
> You mentioned it 3 times before I pulled you up on it, did you know that?


 Yes I did know, and I didn't need pulling up on it thank you. I will repeat it again i'm sure if I encounter people who are willfully ignoring it as a truth also.



> Yeah you did include other reasons, but you also included this one 3 times before I mentioned it.  What are we all blind? We all needed to be reminded 3 times of the same thing, over and over agian that white people left because they are racist.
> 
> Don't think we got in the first two?


If you did get it you didn't acknowledge it, as I've said Scifisam was the only one to directly address it.



> It has nothing to do with whether whites are getting help or not and I think you know that, perhaps revenge for pointing out your own close to racist behaviour has brought about a similar accusation?



_*No ,* I have not called you racist at all and I need no revenge. Don't underestimate my maturity and please do not misrepresent what I have said.

I've had my doubts about your motives in this thread but I have given you the benefit of the doubt and not called you anything. I have engaged with you in a mature manner, no name calling, little drama._

I have been straight with my opinions on the subject, I have been candid with where I'm coming from and why I think like that. You are the one who has played the race card, not me. I suspect because race is more important to you than me and has more influence over your opinions I could be wrong.

A few points in case you missed then first time...

_ you are banging on and on because you are clearly annoyed that non-whites are now getting helped where 'some' Whites did not in the past._

*I say this because this is what you are posting. You are going on about non-whites now getting help where formally some White people didn't. No one has argued that you don't have a point that the housing policy was unfair and 'some' lost out because of it, yet you seem to keeping repeating it......Do you not think we got it the first 20 times. * 

I repeat again because I think it is relevant to the current situation.... _I think you are missing an important point, it isn't about the colour of the people who didn't/are now getting looked after....it's about local councils finally giving a shit about their communities, not which colour the community it is._

My last repeat for this thread......priority should be given to 'need'. 'Need' is a classless, colourless, cultureless, religionless word IMO.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Need absolutely isn't classless, or cultureless.
> 
> Do the rich need as much help as the poor? The upper classes as much as the lower? Do people from other cultures need more help settling than people from this one?
> 
> ...



I wasn' comparing anyone Kizmet I was saying that whoever is in the most *'need'* should be given priority, regardless of class, religion, race, culture, the reasons 'why' they are in need is the content for 10000000000 different threads.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I wasn' comparing anyone Kizmet I was saying that whoever is in the most *'need'* should be given priority, regardless of class, religion, race, culture, the reasons 'why' they are in need is the content for 10000000000 different threads.



In a situation of limited resources it does come down to comparisons.

It's true that one person may be in more 'need' than another... but equally it may be true that they are able to pull themselves out of that situation or receive help that someone else may not. For example from relatives. And thus are actually in less need.

So I don't think it's true to say that need is regardless of colour or culture.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> They aren't un-related. With class comes privilege and greater opportunity.
> 
> Being one of them.. I think I can give you a little idea of where when and how. And I guess I can get my mates to give you a few examples of where when and how themselves.



There is a difference between being discriminated against by the twat in the local chippy and being discriminated against on a government levelm, whether local or nationsl.

What you think white people never experience racism? I can recount you some examples of where I have faced discrimination and racist attitudes.

Does that mean white people should all be treated differently and given special treatment because i was and other people have been discriminated against and have faced racist behaviour?

Of course not.

If you have a legitimate case that hte Govenrment, local Authority have discriminated against someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or many other reasons then you have a right to reddress, I don't see a right to reddress because some idiot shouted out "n*gger* on the bus.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*If you did get it you didn't acknowledge it.*

Really?  So when I said this:

_*I am sure people moved for various reasons* and I am pretty sure that like the young people of Tower Hamlets today a lot of them moved because they had little choice in the matter._

I accepted that people moved for various reasons and made the case that some of them did so through no choice of their own.

How did I not acknowledge it?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*You are going on about non-whites now getting help where formally some White people didn't.*

Quote me saying it.

Quote me saying that i was upset that non-whites were or were not getting anything.

You can't do it, cause I never said it.

You have decided that is what I said, because you don't like the implication that you have behaved in a way that is close to racist, so rather then take that on board and maybe examine your own thoughts and reasons for repeating stuff over and over again...you will make shit up and pretend that I have made an issue of white and non-whites getting something.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> There is a difference between being discriminated against by the twat in the local chippy and being discriminated against on a government levelm, whether local or nationsl.
> 
> What you think white people never experience racism? I can recount you some examples of where I have faced discrimination and racist attitudes.



I'm sure you can. However the power dynamic between you and whoever abused you means that the nature of that abuse was very different.



> If you have a legitimate case that hte Govenrment, local Authority have discriminated against someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or many other reasons then you have a right to reddress, I don't see a right to reddress because some idiot shouted out "n*gger* on the bus.



Racism is much more than abuse, though. It's systematic, institutionalised and endemic in certain areas. It affects everything from where you can walk to what jobs you can get to the kind of service you can recieve from officials.

You are a white man in a land of white men. Surely you can see how that affects the power dynamics?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> In a situation of limited resources it does come down to comparisons.
> 
> It's true that one person may be in more 'need' than another... but equally it may be true that they are able to pull themselves out of that situation or receive help that someone else may not. For example from relatives. And thus are actually in less need.
> 
> So I don't think it's true to say that need is regardless of colour or culture.



Depends on the context of the discussion. I made that statement because I am aware that 'some' people are more in need than others at any given moment.

People in need don't have resources obviously, that's why they are in need. 

I sure as hell though am not swayed by a person's colour, culture, class or religion if they need my help.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *You are going on about non-whites now getting help where formally some White people didn't.*
> 
> Quote me saying it.
> 
> ...



Rutita1 will answer for herself, but #s 35, 40, 44, 111 and 131 may have given her that impression.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *You are going on about non-whites now getting help where formally some White people didn't.*
> 
> Quote me saying it.
> 
> ...







Dravinian said:


> Why should this group of native people have priority when the previous group of native people did not.
> 
> What has changed?








			
				Dravinian said:
			
		

> So the ugly question remains.
> 
> Why is that these native people need protection when previous native people did not.






			
				Dravinian said:
			
		

> Because I think it is being done for the wrong reasons. Pandering to votes, racist protectionism.



I could go on but here is a sample of things you have said that more than imply you believe the white community of 20 years ago didn't get the same considerations as the non-white community of today.





> *You have decided that is what I said, because you don't like the implication that you have behaved in a way that is close to racist,* so rather then take that on board and maybe examine your own thoughts and reasons for repeating stuff over and over again...you will make shit up and pretend that I have made an issue of white and non-whites getting something.



What like you have decided I am racist against White people? I don't share all of your opinions and race has nothing to do with it.

 Believe me that if you had pointed out anything I didn't know and made any point that made me believe I am racist I'd throw myself at it and deal with it. 

For reasons I have stated on this thread I have had a lifetime of examining my own thoughts with regard race, I've had to combine two of them culturally, accept/challenge/understand their conflicts and contradictions to embrace my own identity and nothing you have posted on comes close to the depth of my understanding/experience both good and bad.

But I'll tell you what, just to be sure I'll ask my mum, my friends and my Bf what they think. 

I have not made anything up. If you are being read wrongly you maybe should look at what YOU have been posting.

As, for repeating myself, I felt the need to, just like you have felt the need.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Depends on the context of the discussion. I made that statement because I am aware that 'some' people are more in need than others at any given moment.
> 
> People in need don't have resources obviously, that's why they are in need.



I don't think that's obvious at all. Look at ajdown.. he feels he is in 'need'.. when in actual fact it's more ofabout his wants.



> I sure as hell though am not swayed by a person's colour, culture, class or religion if they need my help.



It's not your responsibility to be swayed. It IS, however, a social responsibility to redress any social imbalance.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I don't think that's obvious at all. Look at ajdown.. he feels he is in 'need'.. when in actual fact it's more ofabout his *wants*.


I agree.




> It's not your responsibility to be swayed. It IS, however, a social responsibility to redress any social imbalance.



I believe it is my responsibility not to be swayed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Rutita1 will answer for herself, but #s 35, 40, 44, 111 and 131 may have given her that impression.



Yes, that's correct.


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I believe it is my responsibility not to be swayed.



That's a good way of putting it.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> Rutita1 will answer for herself, but #s 35, 40, 44, 111 and 131 may have given her that impression.



Really?

This is post 35:

*You don't seem to understand that we were forced to move out by being on a housing list that did not prioritise local people.

The council is now saying that this was wrong, and that they plan to change it so that housing does prioritise local people.

So I am saying, ok so shouldn't I be allowed back in.

You seem to think because I am white I shouldn't be given the same priority as local people to live in Tower Hamlets. Even though I was one until I was forced to move out by the local housing policy, which the Council has just stated was wrong.

If I was wronged, shouldn't I be entitled to expect the council to make that right?*


So exactly how was that a post that said that I was upset that white people were not getting something or that non-white people are getting something?

I said I was a ex-local person and as the scheme is designed to help local people stay in the area why shouldn't it help me? And pointed out that *you* seem to think because I am white I shouldn't be allowed to move back.  Not the council, not the policy, not anything else. but you personally made that implication.

Yet somehow this is a post that proves I stated that non-whites are getting something that whites are not allowed?

Seems to me you say whatever you think is the reality, even when it is a total fantasy you have created in your own head.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *I said I was a ex-local person *and as the scheme is designed to help local people stay in the area why shouldn't it help me? And pointed out that *you* seem to think because I am white I shouldn't be allowed to move back.  Not the council, not the policy, not anything else. but you personally made that implication.
> 
> Yet somehow this is a post that proves I stated that non-whites are getting something that whites are not allowed?
> 
> Seems to me you say whatever you think is the reality, even when it is a total fantasy you have created in your own head.




When were you a local person?

All you've told us so far (and that was elicited with great difficulty) was that your mum & dad lived with your nan in Bethnal Green when they got married and then moved out to Essex cos they couldn't get a council house/flat.


----------



## scifisam (May 19, 2008)

For those of you who are against this policy completely, do you not think there are benefits to the community from having generations living near each other, if they wish to? ISTM that the benefits would be huge - well worth being a son or daughter of the borough gaining you a couple of extra housing points. Being near your community and your extended family _is_ a need. 



ViolentPanda said:


> So it's not likely to be re-consecrated as a Roman Catholic church or Russian Orthodox temple to cater for eastern European immigrants, then?
> 
> The historical reason wasn't cheapness, for most of the "east end" it was it's proximity to various trade hubs.



Yup. It's the docks, basically. Plus there were old laws preventing certain trades like leatherwork inside the city of London, so traders set up just outside - which is why there are still so many leather shops around Brick Lane and shops wholesaling leather goods in the wider area. These trades were often conducted by people from certain ethnic groups, because their countries had the necessary goods more than the UK did. 

But, anyway, there are tons of Eastern Europeans here (as well as lots of people from other ethnic groups). My daughter's small class at school seems to have a representative of every continent but Antarctica. 

Of course, the mosque on Brick Lane was previously a synagogue, a methodist church, a Huguenot church and probably a Druid temple as well, so that one eventually changing use isn't entirely out of the question. 



Kizmet said:


> Need absolutely isn't classless, or cultureless.
> 
> Do the rich need as much help as the poor? The upper classes as much as the lower? Do people from other cultures need more help settling than people from this one?
> 
> ...



This post makes it sound like you think people not from the UK and people who aren't white should get higher priority for housing, purely because of being from outside the UK or being a different colour. Boy, the BNP would LOVE it if the council adopted that policy!


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> When were you a local person?
> 
> All you've told us so far (and that was elicited with great difficulty) was that your mum & dad lived with your nan in Bethnal Green when they got married and then moved out to Essex cos they couldn't get a council house/flat.



Does it matter?

How is it relevent?

It simply isn't.

You lied about what I said in post 35.

Second time Cesare.

Now you want to change the subject as to when I left Tower Hamlets?

Lets get back to how you said that post stated the opinion that non-whites were getting something whites were not.

You said it did, I say it didn't, show me how you are right?


----------



## Kizmet (May 19, 2008)

scifisam said:


> This post makes it sound like you think people not from the UK and people who aren't white should get higher priority for housing, purely because of being from outside the UK or being a different colour. Boy, the BNP would LOVE it if the council adopted that policy!



It's way o complicated for me to be making that statement.

I was just addressing rutita's point about need being culturaly and racially blind. Which I don't agree with.


----------



## ajdown (May 19, 2008)

scifisam said:


> . Being near your community and your extended family _is_ a need.



Not for everyone.  I am 200+ miles away from my family and don't "suffer" for it at all, except a couple of times a year when I have to suffer the A303 to go and see them.

To some other cultures, you may have a point ... but you can't apply your argument to everyone.


----------



## scifisam (May 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not for everyone.  I am 200+ miles away from my family and don't "suffer" for it at all, except a couple of times a year when I have to suffer the A303 to go and see them.
> 
> To some other cultures, you may have a point ... but you can't apply your argument to everyone.



Of course not. I never said anyone should be forced to live near their families. But you might find that your need increases once you have kids or once your parents (or other relations) get old and need help. I mean, maybe you won't ever be in that situation, but most people will eventually.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Does it matter?
> 
> How is it relevent?
> 
> ...



It is relevant because of #35:





			
				Dravinian said:
			
		

> You don't seem to understand that *we were forced to move out* by being on a housing list that did not prioritise local people.
> 
> The council is now saying that this was wrong, and that they plan to change it so that housing does prioritise local people.
> 
> ...



'We were forced to move out'. Or 'I was forced to move out'? 

Were you even born when your mum and dad moved out to Essex from your nan's place?


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

cesare said:


> It is relevant because of #35:
> 
> 'We were forced to move out'. Or 'I was forced to move out'?
> 
> Were you even born when your mum and dad moved out to Essex from your nan's place?



You are trying to change the subject.

You stated that post 35 expressed an opinion that non-whites were getting something whites were not.

Now you want to change the subject?

If it REALLY matters I was about 3 months old when my parents left Tower Hamlets.

Also my claim was that we were forced out as LOCAL people, not white people, I never suggested we never got a place because we were white.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You are trying to change the subject.
> 
> You stated that post 35 expressed an opinion that non-whites were getting something whites were not.
> 
> ...



You described yourself as an 'ex-local person' at 3 months old when your parents moved out and positioned that as a reason for you being given the same priority as current local residents now. Lol.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Lets get back to how you said that post stated the opinion that non-whites were getting something whites were not.
> 
> You said it did, I say it didn't, show me how you are right?





Dravinian said:


> You stated that post 35 expressed an opinion that non-whites were getting something whites were not.



If you think about the context of what locals were then and what they are now, it does. You can claim that is by coincidence, of course.




> If it REALLY matters I was about 3 months old when my parents left Tower Hamlets.
> 
> Also my claim was that we were forced out as LOCAL people, not white people, I never suggested we never got a place because we were white.



How long had your parents been waiting to be rehoused, how big was your nan's house? The answers to these question may help a bit to understand why they seemingly had not accumulated enough housing points.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> If you think about the context of what locals were then and what they are now, it does. You can claim that is by coincidence, of course.
> 
> How long had your parents been waiting to be rehoused, how big was your nan's house? The answers to these question may help a bit to understand why they seemingly had not accumulated enough housing points.



They are in the same position that almost all of my friends are in right now.

They had a roof over their head.  They are competing with people who do not.  They can't get housing above those people without having some sort of extra thing attached to it.

Now don't get me wrong, I have already agreed that I believe in social housing based on need while there are not enough, and lets build more.  So I am not suggesting it was unfair or not right.  It was what it was and what it is, but they were effectively, unless they wanted to live with their mom for god knew how long, forced to look outside the borough for housing.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

*If you think about the context of what locals were then and what they are now, it does. You can claim that is by coincidence, of course.*

This is my last comment on this aspect of the argument, because I feel it got a bit harsh for a bit there.

I think there has to be an intent there, and in my post I believe there was none.  Also I don't believe there was any intent in your posts either, but that is my last word on that aspect of the argument.  I will continue to debate other aspects, such as the post above, but not this subject.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> They are in the same the position that almost all of my friends are in right now.
> 
> They had a roof over their head.  They are competing with people who do not.  They can't get housing above those people without having some sort of extra thing attached to it.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I have already agreed that I believe in social housing based on need while there are not enough, and lets build more.  So I am not suggesting it was unfair or not right.  It was what it was and what it is, but they were effectively, unless they wanted to live with their mom for god knew how long, forced to look outside the borough for housing.



Many have been in this position and continue to be so now.
Their housing points would have increased the older you got, the more kids they had etc. depending on the size of your nan's property.

Tower Hamlets had and still continues to have a lot of people in need of housing, whilst the point system seems unfair when you are the one on the waiting list, what other way would you suggest?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 19, 2008)

This is the real point, isn't it? That for ideological reasons, government has in recent decades deliberately refused to attempt to meet the demand for council housing, going so far as to prohibit councils from even attempting to meet that demand. Odd how those who champion supremacy of supply and demand ignore the continuing and increasing demand for council housing.


----------



## Dravinian (May 19, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Many have been in this position and continue to be so now.
> Their housing points would have increased the older you got, the more kids they had etc. depending on the size of your nan's property.
> 
> Tower Hamlets had and still continues to have a lot of people in need of housing, whilst the point system seems unfair when you are the one on the waiting list, what other way would you suggest?



if you had read to the bottom you would know my answer 

Yeah perhaps they did end up having 3 kids, so I think eventually they would have reached the top of the list, I just think it was unrealistic to expect my mom and dad with a child on the way to live with my nan and my moms 3 sisters and their brother.

You know i couldn't tell you how big the house was.  By the time I was old enough to be visiting my nan and remembering it, in terms of how many bedrooms it had, she was living with one of my aunts and their family.

To be honest I think my family is a good example of movement of the white population from the east end during the 60-90s, you can see the spread of my family across the whole of the east from Bethnal Green all the way out to Clacton and splattered all the way down the line.  I remember quite a few of the dwellings, roughly speaking, and you can see the move out towards essex has been relentless for many years.

My sister is now looking in Chelmsford for a place to live, she doesn't really want to spend so much money and so much time on the train to get to work every day, but she really hasn't got much choice, even on a good salary she cannot afford to buy in London, rent but that has drawbacks in the long term, and she can't get high enough on any council waiting list to get a home.  So is basically forced by circumstance to move further out.  Though it seems if she waits a bit, she might be able to pick up a bargain.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 20, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> if you had read to the bottom you would know my answer
> 
> .


Oh I see, you mean this 



> Now don't get me wrong,* I have already agreed that I believe in social housing based on need while there are not enough, and lets build more.*



If the council continues to sell off land and properties they will be no space available to build more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Yup. It's the docks, basically. Plus there were old laws preventing certain trades like leatherwork inside the city of London, so traders set up just outside - which is why there are still so many leather shops around Brick Lane and shops wholesaling leather goods in the wider area. These trades were often conducted by people from certain ethnic groups, because their countries had the necessary goods more than the UK did.


Also, of course, most of the Roman roads north of the Thames terminate there, so internal trade needed warehousing, and most of the East Anglian and fenland drover's routes went through, so stockyards were needed to "feed" the animals to the meat markets.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not for everyone.  I am 200+ miles away from my family and don't "suffer" for it at all, except a couple of times a year when I have to suffer the A303 to go and see them.
> 
> To some other cultures, you may have a point ... but you can't apply your argument to everyone.



While I agree that the argument can't be applied to everyone, it's certainly not predominantly a cultural issue. It's still very much a class issue in rural areas as well as urban settings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the real point, isn't it? That for ideological reasons, government has in recent decades deliberately refused to attempt to meet the demand for council housing, going so far as to prohibit councils from even attempting to meet that demand. Odd how those who champion supremacy of supply and demand ignore the continuing and increasing demand for council housing.



Or rather, it isn't odd at all if you're a government in thrall to the market that succeeded a government in thrall to the market.

How soon until housing riots, do you think?


----------



## durruti02 (May 29, 2008)

JHE said:


> At what point in the process of population change does the policy cease to be Ray Cyst and start to be beneficial?  After 20% of the families that would benefit are non-white?  When 30% are?  40%?  50%  60% ...
> 
> Or are you willing to support 'sons and daughters' policies even where the population of the area is "hideously white"?



i am .. and equally in a 100% bengali area .. imho it's about keeping community .. the other issues of building more homes is seperate .. i would go much further and also give TRAs control over allocations .. ye stehre will be racism and favouritism .. but we have to start taking back responsibility


----------



## Dravinian (May 29, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh I see, you mean this
> 
> 
> 
> If the council continues to sell off land and properties they will be no space available to build more.



I hold out a hope for compulsory purchase to make a come back when I am elected supreme overlord.....


----------



## Lisarocket (May 30, 2008)

Rutita1;7516259
Tower Hamlets had and still continues to have a lot of people in need of housing said:
			
		

> Now this is what i don't get about Tower Hamlets housing department. I manage a small co-op in Tower Hamlets. We had a 1 bed ground floor garden flat come up about a month ago. Offered it to TH as a nomination. Had to go through their choice based lettings process- flat was advertised in the paper, people bid for it etc.
> 
> We were sent 3 candidates for it. The primary on didn't turn up. The secondary one said it was two small as she needed a 2 bed. The third one liked it, but the committee didn't want 'a field of 1'
> 
> ...


----------

