Have the smelling salts standing by...

I bet it was the EUs fault. 8-).

From that line, I was expecting something about domestic lighting!

I blame Harry for most things. Do you think this bit of political expediency was his doing?

Could be but I think its a reasonable thing to do so it can't be harry. I don't know what the private residents will think.

I have visions of the new tenants being able to choose between granite or marble for their on-suite walls.

The Express are currently employing more reporters for future stories.

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

IT won't take them two minutes to turn it into a s*it hole.

he meant that they get hot and aren't as bright as they could be and are mostly inefficint in what they do :-)

I wonder if I can buy one of the privately owned flats in Grenfell Tower (they must be going pretty cheap at the moment) then ask to be rehoused.

Owain

...out of the frying pan.

I see nothing wrong with it, other than what is wrong around here as well. its now common to mix social housing and luxury housing but the ones around here are totally segregated although in the same building, including lifts and entrances into the gated area.

The luxury has gates as you would think and much more parking and services.

I have no idea about the development mentioned, but its probably along similar lines. They effectively fund the poor plebs bit from the luxury bit I'd imagine and as there is no mixing of the residents, I suppose nobody much cares. Brian

En el artículo , snipped-for-privacy@gowanhill.com escribió:

H'mm

What colour's your skin?

I don't live in taxpayer subsidised housing or in London, so no problem for me. I guess it will be the average poor white Brit in London who will be a tad irritated, but then buffoons like you don't GAF about them.

LMAO

Are you writing about Dave and dense again?

S*it hole? Don't you mean ghetto? If I lived next door I would have my home on the market pronto.

I can make a fair guess at the colour of his neck.

I think you will find that the flats were already being built for affordable rent, councils quite often make it a condition of planning approval. They are not going to be the same as the pictures on the for sale site. However they are going to be a lot better than the s*it hole that burnt down, for now anyway. They probably need to be a bit choosy about who they put in there.

Are you insinuating that some of those poor people are better and more deserving than the others? You disgust me with your bigotry.

Yep they were..

I assume the only change may be that the ones that were earmarked for shared ownership may become rent only.

There are 1,2,3,4, and 5 bed flats. The social housing is in two blocks and the private stuff is in another two blocks.

Yes dear, problem tenants don't deserve to be put somewhere that they will destroy or make life a misery for others.

I have seen council properties destroyed by tenants (literally) but they usually get classified as making themselves homeless and don't get a new tenancy.

Some of them really think they have the right to remove internal walls and do loft conversions with no permission and without doing the job properly.