Burial site find. Mixed emotions
- Thread starter Gaudette
- Start date
My thoughts on this are that the real people being violated are the living ones who now find it so difficult to own any home at all because of the greed of big business, banks, and the deliberate failure of politicians who try to manipulate the public with words while taking no action whatsoever. The housing situation in this country is shameful and a disgrace.
Regarding the site in question there are 120 homes planned to be built, only 36 of them are described as ''affordable'' homes, the rest being expensive four-five bedroomed ones, which in reality means 84 of them will be expensive unaffordable to most people homes. When homes are built in small villages they are usually expensive ones (executine homes as they like to call them, when were homes ever described as ''working on the minimum wage homes''). Villages get killed off as they are turned into dormitory villages whose main pastime is vying for best kept village, intercom systems replace a knock on the door and large locked gates replace once open doors, the young have to move out because there is no prospect of them ever being able to afford to live in the place of their birth. There are huge areas of brown field sites that lie fallow for years for greedy economic reasons by big business (who buy up the land to stop competitors getting it then leave it derelict). Meanwhile there is a desperate need for genuinely affordable housing for the ever growing masses who are paid the minimum wage (topped up by tax credit, a clever way to get people to pay themselves for going to work). Incidenatlly the builder of those houses is ''Charles Church'' who describe themselves as the ''foremost luxury housebuilder'', I doubt if dealing with a few bodies will put much of a dent in their bank account never mind bankrupt them as one member suggested, they will have made more than enough profit from other builds to cover it. I think this country has more than enough luxury houses myself and too few affordable ones.
Regarding the site in question there are 120 homes planned to be built, only 36 of them are described as ''affordable'' homes, the rest being expensive four-five bedroomed ones, which in reality means 84 of them will be expensive unaffordable to most people homes. When homes are built in small villages they are usually expensive ones (executine homes as they like to call them, when were homes ever described as ''working on the minimum wage homes''). Villages get killed off as they are turned into dormitory villages whose main pastime is vying for best kept village, intercom systems replace a knock on the door and large locked gates replace once open doors, the young have to move out because there is no prospect of them ever being able to afford to live in the place of their birth. There are huge areas of brown field sites that lie fallow for years for greedy economic reasons by big business (who buy up the land to stop competitors getting it then leave it derelict). Meanwhile there is a desperate need for genuinely affordable housing for the ever growing masses who are paid the minimum wage (topped up by tax credit, a clever way to get people to pay themselves for going to work). Incidenatlly the builder of those houses is ''Charles Church'' who describe themselves as the ''foremost luxury housebuilder'', I doubt if dealing with a few bodies will put much of a dent in their bank account never mind bankrupt them as one member suggested, they will have made more than enough profit from other builds to cover it. I think this country has more than enough luxury houses myself and too few affordable ones.
There appears to be no formal definition of what makes a brownfield site, other than it was used at some point in the past for industrial purposes. Therefore a site that was once a roman tin mine, for example, is a brownfield site, even if it hasn't seen industrial use since that time. From a conservation abd biodiversity perspective there is usually far more conservation value in a brownfield site than in the green deserts that are modern agricultural land, so the conservation angle is one more piece to add to the complicated puzzle that is planning legislation.
I think it's about time to grab the land back from the dukes and sub divide it amongst the peasants... 
The number of derelict properties that could be renovated and used is staggering. In my home local authority it is more than the number of people on the housing waiting list, yet there are still new housing developments being approved on greenfield and brownfield sites.
Very true, there are also now thousands of empty shops across the country which could be turned in to homes, walk round any high street and loads are standing empty, there are also various empty/unused commercial properties too. I dont think a single green field should be built on by anybody at all while there are ample places already available.
I'm not sure how to get hold of all the empty shops and derelict buildings as presumably they are still owned by someone. I know of at least 3 private houses in my town which haven't been lived in for longer than I have been here, and have never had a tenant or any form of work/ repair carried out on them, however these are still owned by 'known' people [as in someone said they knew of the guy that owns it but doesn't live here anymore]. As such I think it would be difficult to renovate these properties and turn them into usable accommodation for people. I reckon the same could be taken for shops - someone still owns it - to seek permission from owner/ buy it could be tricky then change the use from commercial to residential then bringing it to current health and safety standards etc. I'm sure the list could get very long to hinder making something disused into something usable [and not forgetting to make a profit on it at the same time...].
I think it's about time to grab the land back from the dukes and sub divide it amongst the peasants...
I suppose if thats the plan we should "grab back" the land from the largest 3 landowners
The Forestry Commission
The National Trust
The MoD
In fact the Forestry Commission owns, literally, millions of acres and is already in public hands, so nice and easy to divide that land up and hand it out or people to build on
It is the Daily Mail but I think this article should be read in conjunction with Red' post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328270/A-Britain-STILL-belongs-aristocracy.html
I suppose if thats the plan we should "grab back" the land from the largest 3 landowners
The Forestry Commission
The National Trust
The MoD
In fact the Forestry Commission owns, literally, millions of acres and is already in public hands, so nice and easy to divide that land up and hand it out or people to build on
I was just talking about the land taken from the peasants and swapped for useless moorland - but in for a penny. You forgot the Church and the Crown in that list.
Given the UK is about 241,590 sq km of Land (not including water).
And the population is about 64 million souls we should all get about 0,004 sq km each - which is about an acre of land.
And the population is about 64 million souls we should all get about 0,004 sq km each - which is about an acre of land.
Here you go:If some kind soul could let me have the grid reference for my acre I'd be very grateful; I'll get started as soon as I know where it is.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@59.1165575,-5.8403739,625m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4
Right then, thanks for that, I'll be off this weekend; now where did I put those grappling hooks, and I don't suppose I'll need an axe.............
No, I didn't - they aren't in the top 3 landowners - in fact the church isn't even top 10. Pension funds are at number 4, but heck, while we are re-distributing things, since a lot pf people don't have one, I guess they are fair game too? The Crown pops in at a measly 6th place so when we have cleared out the top 5, they are fair game for sure
If some kind soul could let me have the grid reference for my acre I'd be very grateful; I'll get started as soon as I know where it is.
Its at the bottom of a lake mate. Other peoples acres are under the M25, at the bottom of the Thames or scree slopes
Its at the bottom of a lake mate. Other peoples acres are under the M25, at the bottom of the Thames or scree slopes
now come on, that scree slope of yours also has valuable shale reserves underneath it and airspace you can charge for.... we're not just divvying up the ground you walk on.
Sadly you don't own the airspace -or I would make a fortune charging the RAF every time they buzz my barn
Sadly you don't own the airspace -or I would make a fortune charging the RAF every time they buzz my barn
I don't own the land we're divvying up yet either! As I see it, come the revolution - your plot of land extends to the center of the planet and infinitely out into space. Sometimes if you're lucky you'll get a timeshare in the moon or other planets.