Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Bony Fido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just seen Police in La Avril boutique and white

> van outside being loaded with goods from the shop

> - another victim of this wonderful "government"'s

> policies no doubt.



Police? Sounds more than you make out if they have the Police there.


Either way, nothing to do with this Govt. The last one, perhaps..........

If police were there It could well have been that they were selling counterfeit goods and that was why they were being loaded into a van.

I've never been in there so I'm just guessing.

Its always sad though to lose a local business however in this case I honestly can't say I ever felt inclined to walk down the road and pop in.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How are the high rents in this area and lack of

> custom in shops a result of government policies?

In case riceboy wasnt being ironic


well - 1. Real Wages down due to freezes.

2. Insecurity of employment increased - people spend less if they feel insecure.

3. More people in part time jobs who want full time jobs. Lower wages

4. permitting zero hour contracts. Again insecurity

5. Not to mention the failure to get to grips with the planning issues around town centres.

6. No increased regulation of banks.

7. failure to regulate energy prices


thats for starters.

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 4. permitting zero hor contracts. Again insecurity




I love to have a dig at this gov, but you can't blame them for that one, it's been going on for ages. At least it's come to light recently.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 4. permitting zero hor contracts. Again

> insecurity

>

>

>

> I love to have a dig at this gov, but you can't

> blame them for that one, it's been going on for

> ages. At least it's come to light recently.

They recently reviewed and decided not to ban them . So no I think I am right!

But bad banks have been unregulated for a long time and its not the first time price rises have outstripped wages but you let those go. And the Planning stuff they aren't the first gov to fail to deal. So if you agree that zero hours contracts cant be blamed on this government - who after all are In charge and do have the power to change then you cant blame anything on them.

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But bad banks have been unregulated for a long

> time


That's not true. May not have been effective enough in some areas but there was a lot of it about.

and, deeply unpopulist as it may be, people who actually think about these things rather than what's in their pocket right now and the particular bandwagon of the day, realise that a state imposed price freeze on energy bills will be an absolute disaster for the long term energy supply(in terms of investment and creating fit for purpose energy for the 21st century) but hey, everyone (without a brain or with a political agenda) loves it....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...