Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Smiffys are moving their HQ to somewhere in the EU.

What about their warehousing and creative divisions in Lincs and Leeds?

40% of their business heads towards mainland Europe? I think a move may have been on the cards for sometime. Taking the HQ and maybe the registration of the company abroad opens up some possibilities for further European expansion. Brexit is a nice excuse to use.

Edit: Smiffys opened a US distribution centre this year so The UK has been seen as less important for driving the business forwards for sometime.

[quote=Whirlwind 696154 8975558 be707a4858fbe1aecc7cdab702781994.jpgYou are relying on net emigration for this to occur. No one anywhere is suggesting we are going to have net emigration. Even the governments targets is somewhere in the region of 100,000 net immigration. Unless you are proposing to round up all foreigners and pro-EU supporters and remove them then I can't see how you expect the population to decrease? You may get a decrease in net immigration, but an increase is still an increase and that will mean your rental charges are going nowhere (and that's even before you consider that the rental homes owners have fixed costs to cover such as mortgages and maintenance etc to cover and they are not going to change).

 itsonlyme wrote:
...Bigtory is an intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself, just think about that. Many globalist are incredibly intolerant to anyone who doesn't agree with them. Sadly, the EU style of globalism isn't something the world is ready for, this much is painfully obvious, everyone has to be ready for it...

Certain believes should not be tolerated, religion is one of the greatest dividers on this planet, when religion is wiped out from the globe, then we might be ready for multiculturalism.

Interesting that you make these points, in the same paragraph.

 itsonlyme wrote:
We have too many people in the UK, it is not a continent, it's a small island, look from the UK above, so much of greenland has been replaced with building after building, we are destroying this country and for what? Progress? What progress? lots of people living in room rather than homes. Who the hell wants to raise a family in the kind of enviroment? The naivety of liberals is beyond a joke.

I live in Lincolnshire, there's tons of room, just need some more houses built. In fact I've lived all over the UK, it's a fairly large island, we just cluster around the same places. Maybe we should move out a bit more?

 r_squared wrote:


Isn't the population about 3.5 million? Nearly the same size as Scotland.

That's not the point. The Walloon Parlament decided this on its own, because communication between different levels of government in Belgium is quite bad since the elections. Simply put, the majority shifted at the federal but not the regions, so basically they are at each other's throat. The population has nothing to do in it.

The point is my country is again ridiculizing itself, showing to the whole world how stupidly our government works. Because of nationalists who want each region to decide (and compete) on their own.

Not really such a different story of how UK got the Brexit, actually.

Sure, this is also showing how the CETA was actually handled by the Commission, but well...I won't really call the events in Belgium as a victory for democracy.

 r_squared wrote:
I live in Lincolnshire, there's tons of room, just need some more houses built. In fact I've lived all over the UK, it's a fairly large island, we just cluster around the same places. Maybe we should move out a bit more?

The problem is, there are important reasons why we cluster around the same places. Availability of employment, services, transport infrastructure etc. Its not as simple as just spreading out.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I live in Lincolnshire, there's tons of room, just need some more houses built. In fact I've lived all over the UK, it's a fairly large island, we just cluster around the same places. Maybe we should move out a bit more?

The problem is, there are important reasons why we cluster around the same places. Availability of employment, services, transport infrastructure etc. Its not as simple as just spreading out.

One of my complaints is the amount of national agreement that more houses need building, but bizarrely, also more local demands that it not get built anywhere around them. The amount of housing developments that get planned and immediately protested by locals who, in a different breath, will complain that there aren't any new houses, annoys me to no end. There's such an air of "we want new houses, but not on our land, build them somewhere else" that obviously doesn't help any development at all.

That, and places like Manchester are notorious for housing developments that aren't affordable, despite rules to prevent it. There was an article in the MEN around June/July about how, up to the date of publication, every single housing development in the city centre had managed to flout the rule that at least 25% of the developments must be affordable, using a loophole that lets them ignore it if it would make the development financially nonviable. Every single development since that rule was introduced had had the requirement waived. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if making a minimum 25% of an apartment block 'affordable' would ruin the project, then it's not all that sound in the first place. There's also the point that, surely, these developments should have been planned with adherence to the 25% rule firmly in mind, so how exactly did they get to the application stage without being able to accommodate it?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I live in Lincolnshire, there's tons of room, just need some more houses built. In fact I've lived all over the UK, it's a fairly large island, we just cluster around the same places. Maybe we should move out a bit more?

The problem is, there are important reasons why we cluster around the same places. Availability of employment, services, transport infrastructure etc. Its not as simple as just spreading out.

That's where infrastructure comes in. If we spent a bit more on having decent transport links in this country instead of wasting cash on vanity projects, then it would certainly be more viable to spread out a bit. ffs London has a cable car to cross the Thames as part of transport for London. When you're wasting money, even privately sourced money, on frivolities like that, then either you have to much too spend, or you've disappeared up your own arse.

Also, the whole, "we're full" thing is only true to the extent that we are a bit slow in building homes, and the supporting services etc. We've actually physically got plenty of space, it's just that were gak at sorting ourselves out.
We need a few more Milton Keynes type projects, even if it is a soul-less armpit of a place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37743700

Large banks are getting ready to relocate out of the UK early next year over fears around Brexit, the British Bankers' Association (BBA) has warned.
Writing in The Observer, its boss Anthony Browne also says smaller banks could move operations oversees by 2017.
"Their hands are quivering over the relocate button," he wrote. Most banks had backed the UK remaining in the EU.
Mr Brown also said the current "public and political debate at the moment is taking us in the wrong direction."
His comments build upon those he made at the BBA annual conference last week, when he said banks had already "set up project teams to work out what operations they need to move by when, and how best to do it".
'Legal right'
"Banking is probably more affected by Brexit than any other sector of the economy, both in the degree of impact and the scale of the implications," he told the newspaper.
"It is the UK's biggest export industry by far and is more internationally mobile than most. But it also gets its rules and legal rights to serve its customers cross-border from the EU."
He added: "For banks, Brexit does not simply mean additional tariffs being imposed on trade - as is likely to be the case with other sectors. It is about whether banks have the legal right to provide services."
Banks want to see the continuation of the EU's "passporting" system, allowing UK-based financial services to operate across Europe without needing separate authorisation.
'Split in two'
Banks have called for transition arrangements to be put in place after the UK leaves the EU.
But Mr Browne warned that in Europe and among UK eurosceptics the mood was "hardening".
"The problem comes - as seems increasingly likely, judging by the rhetoric - when national governments try to use the EU exit negotiations to build walls across the Channel to split Europe's integrated financial market in two, in order to force jobs from London," Mr Brown said.
"From a European perspective, this would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. It might lead to a few jobs moving to Paris or Frankfurt but it will make it more expensive for companies in France and Germany to raise money for investment, slowing the wider economy."

. ho hum.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I live in Lincolnshire, there's tons of room, just need some more houses built. In fact I've lived all over the UK, it's a fairly large island, we just cluster around the same places. Maybe we should move out a bit more?

The problem is, there are important reasons why we cluster around the same places. Availability of employment, services, transport infrastructure etc. Its not as simple as just spreading out.

One of my complaints is the amount of national agreement that more houses need building, but bizarrely, also more local demands that it not get built anywhere around them. The amount of housing developments that get planned and immediately protested by locals who, in a different breath, will complain that there aren't any new houses, annoys me to no end. There's such an air of "we want new houses, but not on our land, build them somewhere else" that obviously doesn't help any development at all.

That, and places like Manchester are notorious for housing developments that aren't affordable, despite rules to prevent it. There was an article in the MEN around June/July about how, up to the date of publication, every single housing development in the city centre had managed to flout the rule that at least 25% of the developments must be affordable, using a loophole that lets them ignore it if it would make the development financially nonviable. Every single development since that rule was introduced had had the requirement waived. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if making a minimum 25% of an apartment block 'affordable' would ruin the project, then it's not all that sound in the first place. There's also the point that, surely, these developments should have been planned with adherence to the 25% rule firmly in mind, so how exactly did they get to the application stage without being able to accommodate it?

And yet it is a very real problem. None of the large scale developments that include low cost housing have worked on in the last 5 years has achieved affordability. The reaon being that low cost to the buyer doesn't cost much less to build that a premium type development as a have to meet the same criteria, ie NHBC, The London Plan etc, to achieve planning concent .

The other side of it is the lack of development by Local Authorities. Generally they don't want to be responsible (it require decision making as well) for assests or up keep and as such don't reap the profits of such venture which would allow them to subsidise "low cost" housing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing business bang on about uncertainty, as if the economy was the only thing that mattered to a nation's well being. There is this little thing called democracy...

But corporate interests have been trying to blackmail us for the last two years.

The tidal wave of corporate propaganda we've had since before and after the referendum is something to behold...

What is democracy though in this context? There is a difference between democracy and freedom of speech. Would you prefer they were silent over their concerns and just leave quietly and switch off the lights as they go? Or maybe should pro-EU people be locked away like one Tory councillor proposed (as well as right wing papers)? Would it not be better to hear the concerns and try to mitigate them rather than ignore them and just go forward blindly hoping things will be OK? Business rely on certainty so they know where they can invest and when. The last thing they want to do is spend money and find their best guess was wrong and they have just wasted potentially millions of £'s of investment. In those cases you cannot be surprised that businesses will start looking to move to places that do provide them that certainty. It definitely doesn't help that the government are making all decision behind closed doors.

So is it democracy that a few people are determining what is important rather than parliament as a whole and we get given a surprise package 2 years down the road?
Is it democracy that only the final decision will be allowed to be voted on, which could be two days before we just resort to WTO rules (which is akin to holding a metaphorical pistol to parliaments head and saying sign this or you'll get something much worse).
Is it democracy that we now have policies being invented by the government that no one has voted on (the 2015 election manifesto has basically been put in the shredder)
Is it democracy that they are about to change the electoral boundaries making it easier for Tories to win and reduce even further peoples ability to choose a government.
Was it democracy that British people living in the EU were not allowed to vote on Brexit (unless they happened to be still registered in the UK in the past 15 years); possibly affecting up to 1 million citizens.
Was it democracy that EU citizens weren't allowed to vote on something that is likely to have an equivalent (or more so) effect on their lives; yet commonwealth citizens were allowed to vote on the issue (despite it having much less of an effect on them).

Because as it stands it sounds like the version of democracy you are advocating is one of "as long as it meets the Wrexit agenda" then it is democracy and if it is opposed then it is anti-Democracy?

 Whirlwind wrote:

Was it democracy that EU citizens weren't allowed to vote on something that is likely to have an equivalent (or more so) effect on their lives; yet commonwealth citizens were allowed to vote on the issue (despite it having much less of an effect on them).

Wait, what? I'm assuming you've got a source on that?

 notprop wrote:


The other side of it is the lack of development by Local Authorities. Generally they don't want to be responsible (it require decision making as well) for assests or up keep and as such don't reap the profits of such venture which would allow them to subsidise "low cost" housing.

That's not entirely true. It's simply they can't afford to provide them anymore. Councils can build such homes but with the right to buy scheme someone only has to live in such accommodation for three years and then they can purchase the house with a considerable discount. Effectively the council can never recoup the cost because three years simply is not long enough for them to recoup the costs they have invested in it. It is easy to get mortgages for such properties because they can instantly be sold at a profit because the council has to sell it at a discount. In effect the council would just be paying a tenant after three years. When councils are under massive budget pressures already just 'giving away' money is not an option. It is hence no surprise that new council housing has dried up. A lot was taken up by housing associations but with the new changes they now also are going to have to follow the same principles. I would fully expect then that new such housing from these organisations will decrease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Was it democracy that EU citizens weren't allowed to vote on something that is likely to have an equivalent (or more so) effect on their lives; yet commonwealth citizens were allowed to vote on the issue (despite it having much less of an effect on them).

Wait, what? I'm assuming you've got a source on that?

Here you go:-

https://fullfact.org/europe/who-can-vote-eu-referendum/

Some EU citizens could vote because they are part of the commonwealth (Malta and Cyprus) or from Ireland (so I should have highlighted this before, but the numbers are relatively small)

 itsonlyme wrote:

I would imagine the population would natually decrease as those who come to places such as London aren't so easily replaced when they realise just how expensive London is to actually live. The fixed costs are totally irrelevant if people can find cheaper accommodation, housing prices need to really come down in the country so people of my generation actually have a hope in hell of getting on the property market. The current situation simply leads to more money in less pockets.

There is no doubt there is an issue with the housing market. But as has already been highlighted the central London prices are inflated by investors and they aren't going anywhere. Causing a collapse in the housing market is probably the quickest way to drive the country into recession as people have negative equity in their property, which means they spend only on essentials so they can boost their capital to offset the collapse in the property prices. That means all non-essential goods market collapses as well. I also would like to own a home but I also know that screwing the market over to get there is not the answer.

Remind me how well the EU is doing at working together? How about that trade deal with Canada?

- There's a discussion on this

The rapes in Germany and Sweden?

- Really? There are rapists in the UK and across the world too, many that don't get reported. It's not just an EU issue; just because a few incidents were reported by the media doesn't mean you can cast aspersions that is shows the EU is failing.

the terrorism across the globe?

Right so that is really an EU issue is it?

How about less and less small businesses? The EU is great if a big business mind you! The world you talk of is a fairy tale I'm afraid. In reality, what happens is you flood the work force with low skilled workers who believe coming to a country like England will make them rich, you get careworkers getting paid minium wage because we have a see of people happy to do that while many British workers aren't willing to do that job for so little.

Evidence would suggest that is incorrect and SMEs are actually increasing in number http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf

You have people who have been born in a country finding it hard to find work in the local area so being forced onto benefits or having to move far further and further away from their family. But we seem fine with that because we don't want to come across as racist because the PC idiots run around insulting anyone who dares think differently, How Orwellian.

So what we go back to the 1800's where everyone works on the local farm? I can't also see why this is an EU issue either. They don't force businesses to other locations. If anything the EU regeneration funds actually tried to improve impoverished areas so there could be work for the locality.

No thanks, I have a South African ex, its not a country I'd want to visit, you can thank Soros for that. We aren't a 3rd world country (not saying SA), we shouldn't have people crammed into flats or being forced to live on canal boats because of how greedy people have gotten.

It's actually a lovely place to visit, but I highlight it as when we say that we are poor it is nothing compared to how some people live.

I think you will find the environmental ones are terrible, it's a industry that backs a lot of money and does little to actually solve the issues. I also believe Roger Revelle came back and said it was based on bad science, he was dismissed by Gore as being senile.

The EU have introduced legislation to improve recycling, reduce landfill, improve air quality, manage fishing stocks (which before hand was being warned of as being on the verge of collapse). As for Roger Revelle a quick google shows he was misquoted as being supportive of not taking action on climate change when in fact he was supportive, but not of extreme actions which had uncertain outcomes.

The IRA isn't active and has nothing to do with the current Terrorism issues of the globe. The EU isn't however vetting people probably before allowing them into the EU, now you have the UN creating additional problems with it.

The point was that terrorism is not an EU issue and has been around much longer and for different reasons. The EU has not resulted in terrorism (either now or previously). So I suppose we should leave the UN as well then?

Certain believes should not be tolerated, religion is one of the greatest dividers on this planet, when religion is wiped out from the globe, then we might be ready for multiculturalism.

This makes me think that you don't really understand what bigotry is; you must of course realise that this sort of attitude has led to some pretty dark days for the human race...

 Whirlwind wrote:
There is no doubt there is an issue with the housing market. But as has already been highlighted the central London prices are inflated by investors and they aren't going anywhere. Causing a collapse in the housing market is probably the quickest way to drive the country into recession as people have negative equity in their property, which means they spend only on essentials so they can boost their capital to offset the collapse in the property prices. That means all non-essential goods market collapses as well. I also would like to own a home but I also know that screwing the market over to get there is not the answer.

The market is screwing the general public over, whats happened to the middle class in London, you either rent or you needs far too much money, that's only great if you want to see more health hands. Who are earth can afford to buy a home without a highly overpaid job? who benefits from this? A recession is on the way, all we are doing is putting it off.

There's a discussion on this

Failed discussion as they can't agree on it. Fears are if they can't work this deal out after 7 years they will never be able to work out a trade deal.

- Really? There are rapists in the UK and across the world too, many that don't get reported. It's not just an EU issue; just because a few incidents were reported by the media doesn't mean you can cast aspersions that is shows the EU is failing.

Well what a counter argument! We have rapists in the UK, we sure do, especially in Rotherham! The dramatic increase in rape crimes was linked with an influx of asylum seekers which the EU failed to vet correctly. It wasn't a few incidents either, maybe you should stop watching the BBC.

Right so that is really an EU issue is it?

The EU is the one that is allowing members of ISIS in without vetting them properly. You have the FBI admitting it's impossible to very them correctly.

Evidence would suggest that is incorrect and SMEs are actually increasing in number http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf

Compared to when exactly? All I ever see opening up is tesco express and local sainsburys. I'm not sure that even relates to the part of about keeping pay down.

So what we go back to the 1800's where everyone works on the local farm? I can't also see why this is an EU issue either. They don't force businesses to other locations. If anything the EU regeneration funds actually tried to improve impoverished areas so there could be work for the locality.

So me how many locations across the UK this actually true, complete nonsense. Legislation such as having repack things like fish saying it may contain fish does cost money, money that can put small business out of business.

It's actually a lovely place to visit, but I highlight it as when we say that we are poor it is nothing compared to how some people live.

Might want to ask the whites in SA about what a lovely country it is. Haven't we just seen how many of the whites are no living in the townships?

The EU have introduced legislation to improve recycling, reduce landfill, improve air quality, manage fishing stocks (which before hand was being warned of as being on the verge of collapse). As for Roger Revelle a quick google shows he was misquoted as being supportive of not taking action on climate change when in fact he was supportive, but not of extreme actions which had uncertain outcomes.

You are aware that recycling still goes to the landfill right? the CO2 levels are down 3%, how many Billions did that cost? Actually you will find that Roger Revelle was originally very supportive, in later life he changed his stance, he was dismissed and ignored. Maybe you shouldn't just do a quick google search on it.

The point was that terrorism is not an EU issue and has been around much longer and for different reasons. The EU has not resulted in terrorism (either now or previously). So I suppose we should leave the UN as well then?

Your point is invalid, current terrorism is nothing to do with the IRA just as current war is nothing to do with nazi Germany. I never said anything about leaving the UN, what I was reading was a little concerning which could effect our ability to deport terrorists, that should concern anyone, especially in London.

This makes me think that you don't really understand what bigotry is; you must of course realise that this sort of attitude has led to some pretty dark days for the human race...

That's the dictionary definition of the word. Wanting to restrict immigration rather than having a free for all is nothing to do with be a Nazi, this is again the usual liberal nonsense. Nationalisation is a dirty word, having a love for your home isn't a bad thing. Unrestricted immigration will only every lead to certain areas being heavily over populated. With a total population of 52million, nearly a 5th of lives in London... But hey, people being concerned is clearly going to lead to some kind of national racist movement right?

 itsonlyme wrote:
The market is screwing the general public over, whats happened to the middle class in London, you either rent or you needs far too much money, that's only great if you want to see more health hands. Who are earth can afford to buy a home without a highly overpaid job? who benefits from this? A recession is on the way, all we are doing is putting it off.

I appreciate that you are frustrated by the housing market, but I still am baffled why you think this is something to do with the EU and they are the root cause of it?

Failed discussion as they can't agree on it. Fears are if they can't work this deal out after 7 years they will never be able to work out a trade deal.

Given that the regional government had seven years to make representations to improve the agreement, to do it at the last minute implies to me that this is an effort to 'persuade' the national Belgium government to give them a sweetner rather than from any real political opposition. However Sarouan is in a much better position to explain the realities of the situation.

Well what a counter argument! We have rapists in the UK, we sure do, especially in Rotherham! The dramatic increase in rape crimes was linked with an influx of asylum seekers which the EU failed to vet correctly.

Citation needed! Alternatively maybe it's just the police now take a much more understanding and favourable approach to the reporting of such incidents and hence those people affected are more willing to report them. As previously the EU does not undertake vetting of anyone, it's for the individual countries to undertake this. However, even if you accept your premise (which I don't) I'd question how exactly you would determine the checks were unsatisfactory. Asylum seekers by definition are unfortunate people from war-torn or persecuted backgrounds neither of which are going to have particular accurate records and asking the question "Are you intending to rape or kill any UK residents" on a question form is not likely to get any reasonable response is it? I however find the concept of blaming increasing crime on a select group of people particularly unpalatable. Yes some might commit crimes, but tarring everyone with the same brush is well I think rather unacceptable.

Evidence would suggest that is incorrect and SMEs are actually increasing in number http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf

Compared to when exactly? All I ever see opening up is tesco express and local sainsburys. I'm not sure that even relates to the part of about keeping pay down.

It was related to you argument that there were less small businesses because of EU rules so -Page 4, the presented table. There is a year on year increase in businesses in the UK so hence the idea that the EU is holding back new businesses and reducing them by favouring big business isn't particularly correct. That you only see Tesco or Sainsbury's opening is called anecdotal evidence (i.e. that is biased by the viewer because you are only seeing the most obvious changes - you might have missed the 5 photography businesses setting up in the offices next door because you aren't looking for them and not being advertised in your information circle).

So me how many locations across the UK this actually true, complete nonsense. Legislation such as having repack things like fish saying it may contain fish does cost money, money that can put small business out of business.

It's a bit wider than that. This has come about because of serious allergies and the risk of litigation. You can still go down to the local fish market and collect and fresh piece of fish that hasn't been labelled as "may contain fish".

Might want to ask the whites in SA about what a lovely country it is. Haven't we just seen how many of the whites are no living in the townships?

Shouldn't that be the 'populace' rather than 'whites'? Why any one person should be more important than another based purely on their skin colour is beyond me?

You are aware that recycling still goes to the landfill right? the CO2 levels are down 3%, how many Billions did that cost? Actually you will find that Roger Revelle was originally very supportive, in later life he changed his stance, he was dismissed and ignored. Maybe you shouldn't just do a quick google search on it.

You'll be glad to know that as I worked in the waste industry I am well aware of where recyclables go to. And I can firmly state that they are not sent to landfill. There is a small proportion that is sent to landfill because of contamination; for example people throw out old pizza with their pizza boxes, and there is also some plastics (mainly black plastic from food containers) that can't be recycled. But this amounts to only a small percentage. And CO2 levels are not going down - we've now hit a point where we a consistently above 400 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 and at the current rate of increase we'll be hitting 500ppm in the next 50 years if we don't back off using fossil fuels. This compares to an average of about 280ppm in the 400,000 years prior to the last century.

I never said anything about leaving the UN, what I was reading was a little concerning which could effect our ability to deport terrorists, that should concern anyone, especially in London.

Surely the best option would be to arrest such people, put them on trial and if convicted send them to jail rather than deport them to another country with poor controls where they have the ability to start again?

That's the dictionary definition of the word. Wanting to restrict immigration rather than having a free for all is nothing to do with be a Nazi, this is again the usual liberal nonsense. Nationalisation is a dirty word, having a love for your home isn't a bad thing. Unrestricted immigration will only every lead to certain areas being heavily over populated. With a total population of 52million, nearly a 5th of lives in London... But hey, people being concerned is clearly going to lead to some kind of national racist movement right?

"Bigotry - obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions"; now compare this to *your* quote "Certain believes should not be tolerated, religion is one of the greatest dividers on this planet, when religion is wiped out from the globe, then we might be ready for multiculturalism." I'll let you make your own determination

I remember 25 years ago the UK was congratulating itself on having had the forward thinking to have a geology that allowed for lots more landfill sites than the rest of Europe, so we could be able to save a lot of money by not recycling.

Thanks EU!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I remember 25 years ago the UK was congratulating itself on having had the forward thinking to have a geology that allowed for lots more landfill sites than the rest of Europe, so we could be able to save a lot of money by not recycling.

Thanks EU!

We have been backwards with recycling since forever (at least 1945). Latest reports see a decrease in certain plastics being recycled. Plus the chronic under investment in plant and locations to sort waste.

Still, its pretty telling that we were happy with landfill rather than housing.

@Itsonlyme. You really should see a good mortgage adviser, If you have the means you can get a property. The EU has never been a problem with regards to the state of UK house building.

If anything, membership of the EU makes it a lot easier for British people to sell their overpriced houses and emigrate to the south of France or somewhere, as seen in "Escape to the Countryside Sun", "Escape to the Chateau", and similar shows on TV.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
....

@Itsonlyme. You really should see a good mortgage adviser, If you have the means you can get a property. The EU has never been a problem with regards to the state of UK house building.

...or, and this is radical thinking, do as I, and many of my friends and family have done, and move away from the south east. It's too bloody expensive! But to some, even mentioning the idea of moving from their ancestral stomping ground makes you the equivalent of Jimmy Saville's publicist.
There is a UK North of the water, and west of Heathrow, and it's great, and for the most part, cheaper by several factors. This means you aren't forced to bring up your kids inside a discarded shoebox.

If however, you want to stay in a part of the UK full of hipsters, bankers, and mockneys, by all means crack on, but you'll get little sympathy from the rest of us.

Liverpool has lost 100,000 population in the past 30 years.

It is a human sized city, with great character and charm, art galleries, two cathedrals, and some lovely parks including the Gormley art installation along the Mersey. If that isn't enough you are 30 minutes from all sorts of places like Manchester, the Wirral and coastal Lancashire.

The public transport is decent and the traffic is to laugh at as an ex-Londoner and Henleyite. There is a good university and medical school.

Why don't people want to live there? I would live there if I could get a job.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


We have been backwards with recycling since forever (at least 1945). Latest reports see a decrease in certain plastics being recycled. Plus the chronic under investment in plant and locations to sort waste.

To be fair by the end of the Labour years we were getting to be comparable to other EU countries. Some of it was off the back of EU directives but Labour were invested in bringing forward and modernising the waste industry. There was a rapid growth in plants during this time. However since 2010 there has been a distinct lack of interest by the tories and planned incentives of the previous government were squashed to be replaced with ill thought out policies on trying to bring back weekly collections (whilst at the same time scrapping any targets)

The issue with plastics is multi-fold. After 2010 investment dried up but it was also at the time when more and more products were being packaged in low grade cheap plastic that existing technology finds impossible to indentifying. In addition the demand for plastics massively decreased from China, where before they pretty much accepted any clean waste plastic as their economy slowed down they became much more picky. Effectively this meant that these plastic went from being cost neutral to quite expensive to recycle. However during the recession years waste fell dramatically and that meant that existing energy from waste facilities were not working anywhere near full capacity. This meant that price for refused derived fuel to be supplied for these plants dropped massively (and plastic has a high calorific value). With councils facing overwhelming budget pressures effectively the cheap option often won out. Hence a lot of low to very low grade plastic is now sent to these facilities which is why there is a downward pressure on plastic recycling. The high grade plastic (plastic bottles etc) is still going strong though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Liverpool has lost 100,000 population in the past 30 years.

It is a human sized city, with great character and charm, art galleries, two cathedrals, and some lovely parks including the Gormley art installation along the Mersey. If that isn't enough you are 30 minutes from all sorts of places like Manchester, the Wirral and coastal Lancashire.

The public transport is decent and the traffic is to laugh at as an ex-Londoner and Henleyite. There is a good university and medical school.

Why don't people want to live there? I would live there if I could get a job.

There's the nub of the problem. Too much investment has been shovelled into the south east, too much money spent at the expense of every single other part of the UK. It's time to redress that, stop wasting money in the south east and forcing people into one corner of the country, and look beyond London and the home counties.

There is no reason at all why every part of the UK shouldn't be a thriving and economically viable place to live. At least that's what we should aspire too. Why write off whole cities and regions? Sheffield, Manchester, Edinburgh, Swindon, Bristol, Swansea, Belfast, Norwich, Lincoln, Inverness, and all the other towns, cities and villages in the UK are great places to live, yet for some reason we seem to be obsessed with one corner of this country, and that needs to end. The UK is more than just London, and if Brexit has shown us anything, it has shown us exactly that.

 itsonlyme wrote:
The rapes in Germany and Sweden? the terrorism across the globe?

Yeah germans and swedes don't rape at all. LOL! If you categorize people based on small group then let's see...

US? Rapists, school shooters, murderers.

Austrians are incest rapers obviously.

Finns? School shooters, rapists, wife beaters.

Makes sense?

Funny fact proven by statistics. In Finland there's huge complains about crimes refugees supposedly do.

But who is more likely to cause job for police? Refugee or Finnish person?

Answer: Finnish person.

And don't bother with "there's more finns so that's obvious". That's population accounted for. Give me 10000 random refugee and 10000 random finn and police is involved in more cases without refugee.

Indeed refugees could like over DOUBLE and would still be behind. Oh and it also holds true in urgent dispatches.

Oh and this is when dispatch involves refugee...Whether it's refugee mugging over somebody or finn coming in and throwing firebomb to room where 6 month old refugee baby is sleeping.

And we have terrorism in europe because US and UK decided to go in and mess around with foreign country policies and bomb things to suit them. They were creating ISIS etc. Now we are paying for Bush&Blair screwups.

The terrorism you speak of exists because of disenfranchised immigrants that haven't fitted into their host countries, their penchant for radicalising one another, annoyance that their culture in whatever form it takes doent take pre-eminence, disappointment that the easy life they expected doent exist, fed up indigious peoples attitudes, differing or lack of education and perhaps even a pre-existing preference for violence over European social norms, also like the Belgiums a disregard for security in the belief that radical element would strike at Uk/US (sound familiar?). You can't just accept 200k-1,000k people per year in an area and expect them to fit in.

What causes it can be a number of things but there have be acts of terrorism prior to International efforts in Iraq/Afghan.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 notprop wrote:


The other side of it is the lack of development by Local Authorities. Generally they don't want to be responsible (it require decision making as well) for assests or up keep and as such don't reap the profits of such venture which would allow them to subsidise "low cost" housing.

That's not entirely true. It's simply they can't afford to provide them anymore. Councils can build such homes but with the right to buy scheme someone only has to live in such accommodation for three years and then they can purchase the house with a considerable discount. Effectively the council can never recoup the cost because three years simply is not long enough for them to recoup the costs they have invested in it. It is easy to get mortgages for such properties because they can instantly be sold at a profit because the council has to sell it at a discount. In effect the council would just be paying a tenant after three years. When councils are under massive budget pressures already just 'giving away' money is not an option. It is hence no surprise that new council housing has dried up. A lot was taken up by housing associations but with the new changes they now also are going to have to follow the same principles. I would fully expect then that new such housing from these organisations will decrease.

Right to Buy is a daft scheme that has caused half of the housing issues of the last few decades, on that we can agree. M

I would suggest you are wrong on Council attutudes though given that I am current building nearly 200 high rise private apartments for a London Borough the sale of which will go to building schools and infrastructure within the borough.

A few creative solutions and a pair of balls would go along way to generating a better housing infrastructure. Many councils would rather sit back and blame Govt.

Can we please drop the "lol Sweden has rapes because of immigrants" tangent before I'm compelled to spend more time than I care to debunking that BS again? We've been through that particular gak in multiple threads already.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm trying hard not to rant here, but let them go.

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing business bang on about uncertainty, as if the economy was the only thing that mattered to a nation's well being. There is this little thing called democracy...

And they are using their democratic rights to move their business to where the customers are.

I remember business being against the minimum wage, maternity leave, pensions, and let's not forget their use of zero hour contracts.

Isn't a lot of that EU mandated?

I'm not anti-buisness, but if they had their way, we'd still be sending kids to work down the mines.

At least we don't have any mines yet, or the Tories would have them full.

With the rise in coal prices there is at least one mine open(ing) presently. I would expect more. Of course those children with have to get wooden blocks to drive the machinery - Short Round style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
At least we don't have any mines yet, or the Tories would have them full.

So the horrible Tories closed the mines, just to open them decades later and fill them with children. You Guys!!

That makes no sense when we have ample adult Northerners apparently just dying to get in a pit! Must be related to Poldark?

 notprop wrote:


I would suggest you are wrong on Council attutudes though given that I am current building nearly 200 high rise private apartments for a London Borough the sale of which will go to building schools and infrastructure within the borough.

A few creative solutions and a pair of balls would go along way to generating a better housing infrastructure. Many councils would rather sit back and blame Govt.

That's slightly different though. Many councils own land or properties that they can sell to boost temporarily their capital receipts which they can then spend on (and only on) capital projects (such as new schools - although ironically they might become academies immediately which then become the owners of the land and building for 'free'). However when it comes to the housing market it's a bit more tricky.

Suppose the flats you were building were to be rented out instead of sold. The owner would then have a plan to pay back that capital investment over a period of 15-25 years based on the rental income. Suppose then that someone after three years would have the right to buy the home after three years and with an approx. 20% discount on the market value of the property. In that case you are losing out both in recovering the capital investment (because you can't recover the capital from selling the property) and nor can you recover the costs from the rental income. That effectively means the council has to run a loss on the project and another service has to 'suffer'. Planning for a loss where councils are under increasing budgetary and inflationary pressures is not financially prudent (and is not politically that palatable when a few can benefit at the expense of the other larger used services). It perhaps can work in areas where house prices massively rise over three years (so high value areas in London) but the further north you go the less and less viable that option becomes. Can you imagine the uproar if everyone in a rental property (council or private) could purchase the property at an approx. 20% discount after three years?

Ashers Bakery have lost their appeal to overturn charges of discrimination relating to a cake

I need to find out the full details of this case again before I can properly comment, but I'm worried that we're arriving at a situation where you can be coerced by law into going against your deepest held beliefs.

I've always said that it isn't the states right to tell anyone how to think. For me this works both ways; on the one hand we should equal rights for same sex couples because it's not the states place to tell two consenting adults how to live their lives, but at the same time people who don't agree with this should be free to express themselves without prosecution (so long as they don't resort to or advocate violence) because it's not the states place to tell people how to think.

Yorkshire devolutionists demand the county gets a seat at the table for Brexit talks alongside Scotland and Wales.


Yorkshire devolutionists



https://twitter.com/RogMull/status/790305741395652608

Remember the Great Repeal Bill, announced by May at #CPC16? Well, it is set to become a parliamentary nightmare for government... 1/3

One senior Tory wants to a "sunset clause", meaning all EU laws expire after 5yrs unless ministers have separately passed them into law. 2/3


Roger Mullin MPVerified account
‏@RogMull
@michaelsavage @ParlyApp There are an estimated 134,500 EU laws, standards, regulations and the like. Makes for interesting work

see :

https://www.monckton.com/great-repeal-bill-legal-issues-will-tackled/

https://www.monckton.com/the-great-repeal-bill-a-giant-henry-viii-clause/

...

.. so .. some fun times ahead.

Least we can be reassured that the lawyers will be fine