The council linked to the Grenfell Tower disaster has asked for new powers to seize empty properties owned by millionaires, wealthy oligarchs and foreign royalty to use for social housing.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council (RBKC), proposed a drastic overhaul of rules for acquiring unused properties in a letter to the government.
The word to describe such behaviour is “theft”. There is no justification for the seizure by the state of private property. None. Never. For once we allow it, mission creep with start. And, yes, it’s a Tory council, not one of the swivel-eyed Corbynista loonies.
Fucking Hellski!
Timmy also comments.
Theft – Yes
Disgraceful pandering to Socialist May – Yes
Result: more house/pet sitters
Oborne today: May’s caught Corbynitis – and we’re all going to pay
Chuck Chequers, Tumble Theresa
No justification, none whatsoever. But I would be tempted to make an exception with regard to anyone who has put their name to this idea. Take everything that they have and tip them out onto the street. Then ask them how they feel about it.
No real difference to Compulsory Purchase Orders except that this time it’s rich peoples property that’s being stolen so excuse me if I’m a bit Meh about it.
Before you all jump on me though bear in mind that I live in Dartford where an entire street was purchased so that Tesco could build a great big superstore and then never did. It has left the place looking like downtown Baghdad….
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Never did. And if you think that once the precedent is set, it will only be rich people who suffer, you are remarkably naive.
In principle I agree but it’s funny how the press suddenly make a big deal out of it because its affecting the wealthy. It has been happening to poor people since forever and nobody gave a hoot so I can’t really be anything but meh about it. The funny thing is this kind of thing doesn’t tend to happen in places like China where everyone is under the impression that China is ruled by an iron fist of government. You only have to look at the number of photos where entire motorways have to veer around a single house because the owner did not want to move. We live in very fecked up times…
Yes it fucking does happen in China! Whole communities have been cleared by force for the sake of a development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_evictions_in_China
Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. It doesn’t matter who is advocating it, it is always wrong all of the time in all circumstances. There are no shades of grey here. Theft is theft.
@Tony Halford
You miss the damning word used by RBKC Council: seize empty properties.
Nothing like your misrepresentation by equating this with compulsory purchase.
Allow this and soon state will be seizing your grannies 4 bedroom house as she lives alone.
@LR
+1
Ah right so those who’ve had their house compulsorily purchased had a choice? Having your house seized (and being tossed a few quid well under the market price doesn’t mean you have a choice in the matter so I will stick with “Seized”) that you actually live in is not as bad as having your house seized that you may live in…sometime…maybe…if you happen to be passing that way….gotcha. As for granny…bedroom tax….nuff said.
LR ok give you the China thing…ive just seen loads of examples where the state would not force someone to leave their property in China but it seems they don’t actually have a joined up, consistent policy on that just like every other country.
Chinese law does not recognise property rights.
@Tony Halford
More diversion as expected. Seize does not mean purchase
Any mention of “buy” or “purchase” here?
As for your “Bedroom Tax”; it was enacted by Blair/Brown, but only applied to private rentals. Conservatives made it equitable by applying to all state funded rentals.
Socialist Hammond also shafted homeowners by a retrospective cancellation of interest aka rent payments which were already retrospectively capped at £200pm
Rent what for £200pm? Now, under May/Hammond borrow from one lender to pay interest to another lender. Despicable.
Dude it’s no diversion. You just can’t admit that being forced to accept a below market price payment for a piece of property is tantamount to seizure. If you don’t want to sell something but the state forces you to what would you call it…you are arguing semantics. Don’t expect me to defend Blair ffs. I’m a democratic socialist not a tory in a red tie like him.
Seizure of property and compulsory purchase are not the same thing at all. Both involve compulsion and both are reprehensible, but one involves compensation and the other does not. Ergo, they are not the same.
Thanks. Perhaps Tony will understand, but as he’s a “democratic socialist” [oxymoron] I expect not.
Quite so. These things never stop with “the rich” they always trickle down. Inheritance tax was aimed at the landed gentry, now ordinary people pay it. Given the go-ahead, they will come after ordinary people. It’s not a matter of if but when.
and that is the very point I’m trying to make here. This didn’t start with the rich…it started with the not so rich…
Property rights along with equality in law is what seperates us from the mass of third world hellholes, a line which once crossed would destroy a thousand years of hard fought for rights.
@thud
We’re on that road. May approves of South Africa farm, land, property seizure.