DJKillaQueen

I think that's true too. But only those without any blemish would self declare and it would do nothing to deter future illegal migrants from crossing half of europe (even though they are supposed to claim asylum in the first country) to get here. I think what's really neeeded is an overhual of the european laws on illegal migration because half of europe ignore them anyway. Plus we need to process illegal migrants far more quickly. It's ludicrous that appeal after appeal can drag on for years giving more than ample opportunity to 'disappear'. The whole student visa system needs tightening up, along with closing down all the bogus colleges/ courses that start up, to accomodate what is essentially a scam in trafficking ultimately illegal migrants. It all just needs tougher regulation and faster processing, which means resources. You'll never eradicate it completely but we can do far better than we have been doing so far.

lol....at least you're honest Brendan. I think the real issue is that most politicians have no idea what it's like to live in a high density urban area. They grew up in leafy privilege with more space than a family of ten could need. They just have no idea of what it's like for a family of five (or four even) to be living in a two bedroomed tiny flat. And the ones that do, seem to have short memories once they too get their leafy suburban or better still, rural pad. They just do not care. But we are now in this situation where even those with two decent enough incomes are being stretched by the cost. Yes they will have a suburban terrace big enough but it'll be costing them more than half their salaries. It's demoralising. Governments should take overcrowding very seriously. It is one cause of family breakdown. Teenagers have nowhere to do homework. It's a very stressful way to live and especially when you are having to live like that for years. I challenge any politician with a family to go and live in a two bedroomed flat for six months and see what it does to their mental health by the end. They'll soon change their tune on where housing ranks amongst other pressing areas of the economy.

You are absolutely right Loz - it needs following up with ideas and proposals. Even Gordon Brown when asked about housing by Jeremy Paxman replied that it was a private sector issue (i.e. no concern of government)..and that's Labour...the party that is supposed to care more than anyone on social matters! Very interesting article Brendan and only confirms what most of us already know. The Housing Market was allowed to over inflate un-regulated (in spite of many warnings from well respected economists) and now look at the mess we are in. In fact it's not only reports on Housing, there were also major warnings to the FSA (which was never fit for purpose) about the level of bank investment and risk in those markets a good three years before the sub-prime began to implode. But as always, as long as the money rolls in, no-one listens. Completely incompetant the lot of them. So yes James, why is there no section on housing in that coalition document? :)

See that's the poisoned chalice no MP ever wants to comment on....it's as though they are all terrified of rocking the housing market boat (probably because we have virtually no other major industry in this country anymore esp now that finance is sunk). Having said that, I did see Diane Abbot mention the issue during one interview after her announcement of running for leader. She cited it as something unmentionable but that needed serious debate and reform and I nearly fell over unable to believe that an MP finally came out and said what needs to be said. So yes James, just what IS your position on the dire housing crisis in this country?

I think that 12K figure sounds about right as a average. We are in danger though of having too many unemployed and too many people living in poverty. The estimate is that 10 million people of working age do not work (for various reasons)....that's a high figure (although some of them save the economy money in roles as carers etc). The private sector doesn't have anything like that number of vacancies, so the immediate future is not looking good for the unemployed or those the government intends to force onto cheaper benefits. Add to that pensioners living in poverty and the expectation that they should work longer too. Where are the jobs for that? The irony is that we are likely to see a rise in non taxed earnings, black market employment just at the time when the economy needs those taxes more than ever, as ever more desperate people do what they have to do to make ends meet. William Hague has said that he wants to make the gap between benefits and the minimum wage bigger so that people are always better off in work. So is he going to increase the minimum wage signifcantly? No, he's going to squeeze the already most vulnerable even more. Like most privileged politicians he has no idea of what long term unemployment does to a person and more importantly just how hard it is to get them back into work as the various agencies out there working with the LTU can testify. The same is true of those on IB with for example mental health problems. If you are an employer and you have ten candidates, are you going to take the person who hasn't worked for 5 years? or the person who might need days off at a whim because they suffer from severe depression? No you'll employ that person changing job, or recently unemployed every time. This has always been a hard problem to solve and the government should be a bit more realistic than it is being. A change in the rules on the number of hours an umemployed person can do voluntary work for would be far more useful to the economy than taking away benefits of a few vulnerable people for example.

I've read the document...wouldn't call it radical. You are in a coalition James and have sacrificed many of the policies your supporters voted on or have you conveniently forgotten that? It's a mixed bag of policy IMO. Some things for the better, some not. We'll see how much of it actually happens and what difference it makes in time no doubt.

The current economic difficulties in the UK are just as much a function of excessive public debt as they are of excessive private debt. Brought on by other things of course...like wreckless banking practise..... On Working Lunch yesterday they talked in depth about what the impact of required public sector cuts might have on unemployment. The estimates ranged from 300,000 to 600,000 former employees (and knock on services) which if born out might just make a mockery of the conservatives desire to cut the benefits bill. So the consensus was that the conservatives would have to limit the cuts to avoid mass lower end job losses in the short term. Most public sector employees are not on even the avarage salary let alone high salaries anyway. Someone with children earning 13k would cost around the same in benefits to keep (when you add the rent and council tax etc) so this is not an easy dilema to solve. We wait to see the budget for proposed welfare reform but even on this there will be problems. The government can't just cut the level of basic benefits as it wishes. There is a process whereby a review body has to determine what a person needs to live on. Any such review now would find that benefits are actually well below the poverty line given the real terms rise in the cost of living since the last one, gas and electric being the major increased expense. So the only real option the government has is to switch people from more expensive benefits like incapacity to cheaper ones like JSA - hence all the sound bites about IB. But again I think they will be in for trouble there too because the easiest target will be those with mental health problems, and the consequences for those wrongly transferred would be disastrous. At the end of the day, for most people, benefits are extremely difficult to live on and there won't be as much scope for savings there as the government and media seem to imply. I just hope that any cuts don't cut back in some of the excellent specialist agencies that curently exist to help the long term unemployed back into work because that really would be leaving the poorest out to rot.

the guy on the quad is legal, insured and has a license.so do the rest of the bikers.its summer time, and some people like to have fun,and enjoy life. I don't think anyone has any problem with that, but using residential roads as a racetrack won't be any fun if someone gets knocked over or crshed into. The whole reason he has a thread on here is because of his wreckless driving. His is not the only quad bike in the area and his friends are not the only bikers, but he is one who thinks he should have fun before observing the highway code.

That's rubbish..the same amount and effort and resources could be used to find them and deport them. People are fed up of being told this - 'oh the problem is too big so let's just let them stay here' and take jobs while those who are legally here or better still born here, are left unemployed. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer in benefits to those become unemployed instead of doing black market jobs, or better still keep their black market jobs and claim benefits too. Oh and then there's the message that would be sent to other aspiring illegal migrants. Just give more money to the Police and other agencies so that they can do a more effective job in finding these people, and keeping them out in the first place. You are completely out of touch with public opinion James and you can't depend on hung parliaments everytime there's an election.

Yeah I've seen this quad bike guy with balaclava twice...the first time was in Peckham on a residential road last week (Saturday afternoon) and he was definitely riding wrecklessly and the the other was on Saturday evening with a group of bikers at the petrol station next to Tesco Metro near Peckham Rye park. Shouldn't be too difficult for the Police to catch up with him. Don't think the vehicle has plates so can't be taxed or insured and that's reason enough for him to not be riding on public roads whether speeding or not.

Deluxe version lol http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/3/1/9/600_15217657.jpeg

There ya go :) http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/1/3/a/600_15217178.jpeg

LOL... not that I was suggesting white kids don't mimic american rappers either obviously...just that throwing race into the equation, or rather stereotyping...is something those that are stereotyped are sometimes themselves responsible for.

Go and ask at the planning office - they will be able to tell you. If it were to be turned into a bar then aplications for licences and for change of use would be required and you would have the right to oppose. Your views would be taken into consideration.

I agree with you both. We don't fire a teacher because they have personal views that we don't want children to hear.....as long as they stick to teaching the curriculum in an impartial way of course. I think there is a grey area though with those who are in a position to shape policy....because inevitably their views on things will play some part. Having said that, if Therasa May wanted to change the law in any respect she'd have to get it through parliament and before she could do that it would have to be adopted as party policy. In that respect I think the gay community are safe from losing any of the rightly given equalities put into law by New Labour. On the other hand, given the deplorable attitude of the last Conservative government towards gay people (reinforced by equally deplorable laws like clause 28) I can totally understand why a minister who in recent memory held opposing views could be untrustworthy. I think she should at least explain what made her change her mind because in my experience, those with negative views on sexuality are usually emotively entrenched in those views and beyond reason. On Question Time she did't explain why she'd change her mind after all.

The Lib Dems were dishonest in Peckham Rye Ward for sure. On illegal migrants. A good number of illegal migrants are trafficked here by a whole variety of criminal gangs for various reasons. That is the issue that needs to be addressed by politicians - an effective way to stop that. Those here already illegally are ILLEGAL and should not be rewarded for having evaded capture so long with citizenship. The black market jobs (and worse still criminal activity) they fill won't disappear because illegal migrants suddenly become legal. People traffickers will simply make more money than they've ever done shipping the required numbers over to fill the void. The Police already know where they are likely to find illegal migrants - they just need more resources to keep up. That's what government should be providing - the resources need to quickly get people processed and deported when caught. It has always mystified me as to how, a country that is an island has been so useless at keeping so many illegal migrants out. Granted, most countries have problems with illegal migration but you would think the water around us would give us a bit of an advantage. Sorry James but that particular Lib Dem idea is completely out of touch with public opinion and your party, if it has any sense, should ditch it.

It is a legal requirement under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that both a Landlord (or the Letting Agent representing them) give upon request the primary address and name of the Landlord within 21 days. It sounds as though that landlord was probably breaking the law in other respects too. If other parts of the house were 'unfit' and they were being rented out then the ESO should have taken action irregardless of whether the Landlord played ball or not. They don't need the co-operation of the Landlord to condemn a property. The ESO can in fact order repairs to be done by the local authority and then charge the Landlord if serving a notice of disrepair fails. Again, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is vey clear on what is deemed unfit and the consequences to landlords if they ignore the law. Similarly there are records of who owns property elsewhere. If there has been a fraud committed in relation to that then it becomes a police matter and again the ESO could have referred it over. The bank statements in different names alone sounds highly suspicious of ID fraud. It sounds as though the ESO ignored their resposibility to enforce the law going by your account above.

Well it's a question of whether she can be believed or not I guess and of course se has to say she has changed her view because otherwise her views would be incompatable with her job. What matters are the policies she puts into practise. At the first sign of hypocrasy, may the hammer fall swiftly.

Black on white racism obviously ;-) Totally agree we've gone PC mad. Everyone knows that gangs are cultural and that culture is often reflected ethnically too, especially in a city of so many first generation migrants. But then you are faced with the argument that it's not the colour of someones skin that makes them violent or antisocial of course....nonetheless, there have been chinese gangs, asian gangs, turkish gangs and so on since the start of time. Bullies will surround themselves with people like them and bully those that are different. When I see a group of black teenagers mimmicking black american rappers and talking about Peckham Rye as though it's an L.A. ghetto full of guns and drugs, then I ask myself who is imposing the steroetype there? The teenagers themselves on themselves of course. And we should be able to say that.

I think Huguenot has made some very good suggestions. It is all doable without damaging the finaces of those already invested in the Housing Market and would be a gradual process. And more importantly the free market would have stemmed the rise before now if the banks and consequtive governmets hadn't colluded to keep changing the rules so that growth could continue unhindered at that alarming pace. For example, whoever thought self certified mortgages were a good idea? Total lunacy.

Unfortunately what constitutes as overcrowding in this country is a grey area. Single rooms accomodating two people are fine. Where there are children under a certain age then a bathroom and kitchen is also considered an ok place to sleep. The law is completely outdated on this matter. Kate is right though...it should be registed as an HMO with your local council.

I'd definitely appeal that one....and complain about the complete lack of common sense of the issuing warden. What does the ticket say the actual offence is?

James, definitely a reduction in the use of plastic bags would be better and an overall reduction in wrapping too. I take your point Kerrie...it's not a perfect solution. One suggestion has been to fine residents that don't recycle which of course in your case would be a nightmare and like you, before door to door collection came along, I too took recycling to the nearest recycling point. My suggestion was just a polite way of trying to encourage those that don't recycle at all to start to do so. Maybe even just a reminder leaflet that a door to door recycling service exists would be enough I think.

Mitch what planet are you on? or do you really not care one iota for the vast numbers of people that see more than half their salaries go on rent and are living in real hardship. Your only suggestion being that they move...well where to? Do you really want a city without any key workers, retail staff, cleaners, bus drivers and so on because that's what your suggestion would mean in re#ality. Incidently it's not only the average waged and below that are being ripped off it's many middle income families too who are feeling the squeeze of the size of their mortgages in proportion to their income. - 1.8 million people are on council or social housing waiting lists. - Millions of pounds of TAX PAYERS money every year is paid out to private landords in housing benefit because tenants can not afford to pay the whole rent. - The average age of a first time buyer without parental help is 42 and rising! - Thousands of familes live in overcrowded unsuitable accomodation because of a lack of affordable family homes AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BRITSH......... It is the same all over the country. Average familes with both parents working with average salaries can not afford to either buy or save enough for a deposit. Do you really think there's nothing wrong with something as essential as housing being in that predicament? Of course there need to be landlords and of course they need to be able to make a profit and no reasonable peson would disagree with that. The issue here is the rate of rise of the market over the last 30 years. It has been too rapid and too inflated and it's the rate of rise that has to be stemmed so that salaries can at least begin to catch up and close the gap. Caps could be introduced (we already have fair rent legislation) that would not be detrimental to existing property owners. Housing needs to be returned to a long term investment opportunity if we are ever going to have any chance of sorting the dire housing needs that we currently face. More than anything I think that anyone that works hard deserves to be able to afford to live on their income to a reasonable level. It is completely immoral that such a sizeable section of the workforce are struggling with something as essential as housing.

There is quite a bit that can be done. The laws on noise nuisance apply to everyone and the local aurthority services for dealing with noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour can be used by anyone in the borough. Your local environmental services officer can take action against the tenants and/ or landlord for a whole range of issues and Southwark has a 24 hour dedicated noise nuisance team that can visit properties making excessive levels of noise. Everything you need to know is here - http:// www.southwark.gov.uk/info/412/noise_problems