Stealing bolts from the fottbridge at Jesus Green
Robert
footbridge across the Cam at Jesus Green. Thismorning I noticed that
someone has been stealing the stainless steel bolts that hold down the
planks. So far about a dozen have gone. In most cases, but not all,
they have taken the washers as well.
Amazing.
Robert
Spam
Brings a whole new meaning to people only stealing things that aren't
bolted down?
zulu
"Spam" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:b97e8d90d1b6fc155dfac1a9674b2747@localhost...
Obvious solution = Locktite (sp)
Cambride solution = CCTV
Now 'aint that the truth!
--
Ś zulu Ś
s0x
I heard that man hole covers were dissappearing all up and down the
country since they're worth so much as scrap metal! Not sure what the
bolts would come in handy for though?!
Maybe they're going to come back when all the bolts have been removed
and take all the wood.
What a load of planks!
Malcolm Gray
When I walked over it on Sunday I noticed a number were missing,
I guess I assumed that they would be sorted at the same time as the
temporary edges were replaced.
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>* Robert wrote:
>> A few days ago they finished replacing all the wooden planks of the
>> footbridge across the Cam at Jesus Green. Thismorning I noticed that
>> someone has been stealing the stainless steel bolts that hold down the
>> planks. So far about a dozen have gone. In most cases, but not all,
>> they have taken the washers as well.
>
>I heard that man hole covers were dissappearing all up and down the
>country since they're worth so much as scrap metal! Not sure what the
>bolts would come in handy for though?!
Possbily the time has just about come when coins have become worth
less than the metal that they are stamped upon.
--
GR
Martyn Pollard
> Cambride solution = CCTV
Has anyone else noticed all the new mini CCTV cameras appearing on
lamp-posts all over Cambridge: Maids Causeway, East Road (near roundabout),
Hills Road (junction with station road) to name a few locations.
Are these the next logical progression to a '1984' society? A camera on
almost every lamp-post across town.
Martyn
--
Geosolar, Cambridge. Gas central heating installations.
High quality ATAG boilers www.geosolar.co.uk
Tim Harris
> become worth less than the metal that they are stamped
> upon.
No, not yet...
Looking at http://www.metalprices.com/ and the British coinage
section on http://www.royalmint.com, it looks like the face
value of copper coins is almost exactly the same as that
weight of copper.
But that's no good because the coins are now "copper-plated steel"
which I guess is worth a lot less, and presumably less still as
scrap.
There are 140 2p coins in a kg, worth £2.80 as coins, approx
$4.90. Compared with $4.98 for a kg of copper. 1p and 2p
coins have the same face value per weight. Melting down my
5p and 10p coins for their 75%-copper 25%-nickel is similarly
a fools game (and a crime? i remember at school we were
always forbidden from putting coins in the bunsen flame, which
is rather surprising because nearly everything else went in at
some point) -- I make it about $7 to buy the metal that goes
into $26 of coins.
Tim
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:05:44 GMT, zulu wrote:
>
>> Cambride solution = CCTV
>
> Has anyone else noticed all the new mini CCTV cameras appearing on
> lamp-posts all over Cambridge: Maids Causeway, East Road (near roundabout),
> Hills Road (junction with station road) to name a few locations.
>
> Are these the next logical progression to a '1984' society? A camera on
> almost every lamp-post across town.
>
> Martyn
>
>
tony sayer
<mar...@geosolarabc.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:05:44 GMT, zulu wrote:
>
>> Cambride solution = CCTV
>
>Has anyone else noticed all the new mini CCTV cameras appearing on
>lamp-posts all over Cambridge: Maids Causeway, East Road (near roundabout),
>Hills Road (junction with station road) to name a few locations.
>
>Are these the next logical progression to a '1984' society? A camera on
>almost every lamp-post across town.
>
These are supposedly moved around from location to location. They are
linked by microwave radio to the CCTV control room at the guildhall.
The idea is that it saves money having a few of them and moving them
around but I'd have thought it costs more to move them than the original
capital cost of the equipment's......
--
Tony Sayer
CWatters
>"Tim Harris" <t...@timharris.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1140859709.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Possbily the time has just about come when coins have
>> become worth less than the metal that they are stamped
>> upon.
>
>No, not yet...
>
>Looking at http://www.metalprices.com/ and the British coinage
>section on http://www.royalmint.com, it looks like the face
>value of copper coins is almost exactly the same as that
>weight of copper.
Depends where you buy your metal. Seen the price of washers in the DIY
stores? Cheaper to drill a hole in a coin.
Tim Ward
news:KNVhdiAv...@bancom.co.uk...
>
> The idea is that it saves money having a few of them and moving them
> around but I'd have thought it costs more to move them than the original
> capital cost of the equipment's......
There is something of a cost to moving them, yes. If you search Environment
Committee papers for long enough you'll find the actual numbers - off the
top of my head it's a small number of hundreds of pounds a time to hire a
cherry picker, but don't trust my memory on that if you really want to know.
Bottom line is that it's *lots* cheaper to redeploy the moveable cameras
than to put fixed cameras in each of the locations where cameras are
requested to deal with particular problems.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KNVhdiAv...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> The idea is that it saves money having a few of them and moving them
>> around but I'd have thought it costs more to move them than the original
>> capital cost of the equipment's......
>
>There is something of a cost to moving them, yes. If you search Environment
>Committee papers for long enough you'll find the actual numbers - off the
>top of my head it's a small number of hundreds of pounds a time to hire a
>cherry picker, but don't trust my memory on that if you really want to know.
>Bottom line is that it's *lots* cheaper to redeploy the moveable cameras
>than to put fixed cameras in each of the locations where cameras are
>requested to deal with particular problems.
Really?, you surprise me there. Some of the CCTV projects we've been
involved recently suggest that the gear isn't that expensive. Well put
that another way, for the same level of performance the price is falling
and Microwave links are getting cheaper too!.
Still perhaps it wouldn't be that acceptable to have all of Cam under
surveillance now would it;-?....
--
Tony Sayer
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KNVhdiAv...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> The idea is that it saves money having a few of them and moving them
>> around but I'd have thought it costs more to move them than the original
>> capital cost of the equipment's......
>
>There is something of a cost to moving them, yes. If you search Environment
>Committee papers for long enough you'll find the actual numbers - off the
>top of my head it's a small number of hundreds of pounds a time to hire a
>cherry picker, but don't trust my memory on that if you really want to know.
>Bottom line is that it's *lots* cheaper to redeploy the moveable cameras
>than to put fixed cameras in each of the locations where cameras are
>requested to deal with particular problems.
And presumably a lot kinder to the environment, in terms of crappy
street furniture.
Mind you, how many years do you think it will be before we get video
surveillanxce equipment installed in our homes, by government
agencies? It is now only a little way up the statistical curve.
--
GR
Duncanwood
Cheap CCTV systems are virtually free compared with the install cost but
anything waterproof with a decent low light high contrast capability is
still quite pricey
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Guaranteed weatherproof, evidential-quality systems that can be
controlled over the link are still not cheaper than a couple of hours
cherry-picker rental.
Tim Ward
news:hqk002t2b03ftib5l...@4ax.com...
>
> Mind you, how many years do you think it will be before we get video
> surveillanxce equipment installed in our homes, by government
> agencies? It is now only a little way up the statistical curve.
I've not heard any public demand for that. There is considerable public
demand for CCTV in public places.
Tim Ward
news:op.s5i48fcu4wom51@amy...
>
> Cheap CCTV systems are virtually free compared with the install cost but
> anything waterproof with a decent low light high contrast capability is
> still quite pricey
Plus pan and zoom systems that survive years out in the weather, plus we're
not talking about systems that produce the crappy blurred unrecognisable
pictures you usually see on the telly, we're using quality stuff. I'm not
going to tell you from how far away the system lets you zoom in and read
someone's newspaper, but it's pretty impressive to watch!
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hqk002t2b03ftib5l...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Mind you, how many years do you think it will be before we get video
>> surveillanxce equipment installed in our homes, by government
>> agencies? It is now only a little way up the statistical curve.
>
>I've not heard any public demand for that. There is considerable public
>demand for CCTV in public places.
My mind boggles. It already happens routinely with phone surveillance.
The will simply has to be there with the Government to survey whoever,
wherever and whenever they like (aside from the cost). The will of the
present Government regarding a lot of astonishing and improbable
personal privacy and freedom issues is well established. And aren't
you a Lib Dem?
--
GR
tony sayer
writes
Think so?. Not from what I've heard re price quality. And yes install
cost. You contradict yourself a bit there as they have to keep moving
this gear around from pillar to post;) and if its that cheap compared to
install costs. If you keep re-installing it, it will be expensive to
install!..
Mind you from some of what I've seen of the stuff the council have
installed it isn't that waterproof!..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>"Duncanwood" <nip...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:op.s5i48fcu4wom51@amy...
>>
>> Cheap CCTV systems are virtually free compared with the install cost but
>> anything waterproof with a decent low light high contrast capability is
>> still quite pricey
>
>Plus pan and zoom systems that survive years out in the weather, plus we're
>not talking about systems that produce the crappy blurred unrecognisable
>pictures you usually see on the telly, we're using quality stuff. I'm not
>going to tell you from how far away the system lets you zoom in and read
>someone's newspaper, but it's pretty impressive to watch!
You don't have to Tim its all there on the web. Yes its good equipment
but I've got some Philips cameras from a few year's ago and what you can
get that for now isn't the same price as what you paid for the Philips
gear even allowing for inflation. The Chinese are quite good at this
sort of thing now, and are getting better.
One things for sure it ain't made in the UK......
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> writes
Cherry picker and staff again and again?. Really?.
--
Tony Sayer
Deryck
> "Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqk002t2b03ftib5l...@4ax.com...
>> Mind you, how many years do you think it will be before we get video
>> surveillanxce equipment installed in our homes, by government
>> agencies? It is now only a little way up the statistical curve.
>
> I've not heard any public demand for that. There is considerable public
> demand for CCTV in public places.
>
Fortunately we don't live in Seattle:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Police_Cameras.html
(OK, thats not public demand)
Cheers,
Deryck
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Duncanwood" <nip...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:op.s5i48fcu4wom51@amy...
>>
>> Cheap CCTV systems are virtually free compared with the install cost but
>> anything waterproof with a decent low light high contrast capability is
>> still quite pricey
>
>Plus pan and zoom systems that survive years out in the weather, plus we're
>not talking about systems that produce the crappy blurred unrecognisable
>pictures you usually see on the telly, we're using quality stuff. I'm not
>going to tell you from how far away the system lets you zoom in and read
>someone's newspaper, but it's pretty impressive to watch!
You seem more impressed by the technology for looking over individual
citizens' shoulders than with the ethical and personal freedom issues
associated with doing so. I would ignore what you said, writing you
off as a geek, if it weren't for the fact that you are a LibDem
Councillor.
--
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. I was aware of that. For the unitintiated, here are the summary
quotes:
"HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing
surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets,
shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage
of police officers.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my
response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a
regular briefing."
I am also aware that a radar method has recently been devised in the
US for police helicopters to view what is happening inside any
building (sorry, I forget the reference for now), in a way similar to
that depicted in a popular movie some years ago (Thundercopter or
something like that).
I think the point is, not what can be done technically, with or
without a warrant, or a Home Office chiity, but what should be done,
in the context of individual freedom and privacy. It is possible to
argue that such techniques are only applicable where citizens are
suspected of committing some crime. It is also possible to argue that
the Prevention of Terrorism Act is making random invasions more
probable, and that furture administrations may well make such
invasions more invasive, and routine. You have to ask yourself whether
this extremey invasive 'Big Brother' approach is acceptable, and also
whether your political representatives are being responsible in
supporting the technology and ignoring the human rights issues.
--
GR
Michael Hoffman
> I'm not going to tell you from how far away the system lets you
> zoom in and read someone's newspaper, but it's pretty
> impressive to watch!
Why not?
--
Michael Hoffman
zulu
"Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <r.moss-...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:9BYLf.60038$mf2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
The cameras et al are owned and yet they have to RENT cherry pickers to
service them?
FFS
--
Ś zulu Ś
Tim Ward
>
> And aren't
> you a Lib Dem?
Yes. So? - I wasn't giving any opinion here, I was simply stating as fact
that:
> >I've not heard any public demand for that. There is considerable public
> >demand for CCTV in public places.
I can *imagine* some public demand arising for CCTV in people's homes, for
example after the new few child protection failures whenever and wherever
they might be, but I haven't actually *heard* any such public demand yet. I
might be surprised that I haven't heard any public demand for CCTV in the
homes of tagged and curfewed offenders (but then perhaps that's because I
don't read the Daily Mail).
Tim Ward
>
> Cherry picker and staff again and again?. Really?.
Cheaper than digging up the road and fitting and paying rental on wired
backhaul for permanent cameras again and again as the problems that need
monitoring move around, yes, really.
So, you're going to ask, why not leave the moveable temporary wireless
cameras permanently in position instead of buying new fixed ones? That is in
fact (with today's kit and prices, and given that we've now installed the
wireless infrastructure) a plausible proposition for some locations if and
when there's a need and budget to expand the area covered permanently.
Tim Ward
>
> You seem more impressed by the technology for looking over individual
> citizens' shoulders than with the ethical and personal freedom issues
> associated with doing so.
I was joining in a discussion about cost of hardware, giving some factual
information which I thought might be helpful to inform the debate. This is
surely more useful than if I said nothing.
If there were a discussion about these other issues I might well join in
that too.
One "ethical and personal freedom issue" that one of our magistrates keeps
reminding us of is that the Cambridge CCTV system has GOT INNOCENT PEOPLE
OFF when the tapes have shown who was lying and who wasn't, and who was
joining in the fight and who wasn't, and who who really was, despite initial
appearances, an innocent bystander.
Tim Ward
news:dtpo8n$jml$2...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to tell you from how far away the system lets you
> > zoom in and read someone's newspaper, but it's pretty
> > impressive to watch!
>
> Why not?
Is the system more or less capable than the baddies think it is? It's
considered better that the baddies don't actually know.
Tim Ward
news:3VZLf.54155$m13....@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
> The cameras et al are owned and yet they have to RENT cherry pickers to
> service them?
Er, yes? The problem being? Suppose the council actually owned the cherry
picker and used it a couple of hours every other month and kept it doing
nothing in the Mill Road depot the rest of the time, at a cost to *you* of
an order of magnitude or two higher than the occasional hire, you'd think
that was a sane idea would you?
Public authorities can (unless constrained by ludicrous government rules
about borrowing for capital expenditure) make sensible decisions as to
whether it's cheaper to buy or rent something just as private businesses do
and just as you do in your private life. Did you *buy* a scaffolding tower
last time you wallpapered your stair well, or did you rent one?
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7qm002plfet7nrigu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You seem more impressed by the technology for looking over individual
>> citizens' shoulders than with the ethical and personal freedom issues
>> associated with doing so.
>
>I was joining in a discussion about cost of hardware, giving some factual
>information which I thought might be helpful to inform the debate. This is
>surely more useful than if I said nothing.
>
>If there were a discussion about these other issues I might well join in
>that too.
>
>One "ethical and personal freedom issue" that one of our magistrates keeps
>reminding us of is that the Cambridge CCTV system has GOT INNOCENT PEOPLE
>OFF when the tapes have shown who was lying and who wasn't, and who was
>joining in the fight and who wasn't, and who who really was, despite initial
>appearances, an innocent bystander.
Yes, I would hope and expect this to be the case in a basic street
system. It's the more intrusive stuf that I object to.
Put it this way, if I walk down the street then anyone and everyone
can observe me, whether with their eyes or via a cam. Fair enough for
law enforcement. Go to my street, into my house, into my bedroom even,
with or without audio, and it is a gross intrusion. But this is what
modern technology is capable of (even from outside the walls!), and
this is what the present government is partly capable of, and which
future governments will doubtless find necessary, building on and
modifyiing existing access laws.
--
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xrvP0MCF...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> Cherry picker and staff again and again?. Really?.
>
>Cheaper than digging up the road and fitting and paying rental on wired
>backhaul for permanent cameras again and again as the problems that need
>monitoring move around, yes, really.
>
>So, you're going to ask, why not leave the moveable temporary wireless
>cameras permanently in position instead of buying new fixed ones? That is in
>fact (with today's kit and prices, and given that we've now installed the
>wireless infrastructure) a plausible proposition for some locations if and
>when there's a need and budget to expand the area covered permanently.
Toys for the boys. All exciting and interesting stuff. But what a
price to ay for the populace, in human rights terms!
--
GR
Tim Ward
>
> Put it this way, if I walk down the street then anyone and everyone
> can observe me, whether with their eyes or via a cam. Fair enough for
> law enforcement. Go to my street, into my house, into my bedroom even,
> with or without audio, and it is a gross intrusion.
Yes, I've seen the news items about abuse of CCTV systems elsewhere.
In Cambridge, if a camera pans across someone's bedroom window, then a black
square appears on the screen instead of the view through the window, and
this event is logged by the system, and if there isn't a corresponding
signed entry in the control room log book with a legitimate explanation (in
my case "demonstrating the black blob to some councillors") then the
operator is in trouble.
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d9m002dbtiit841t2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> And aren't
>> you a Lib Dem?
>
>Yes. So? - I wasn't giving any opinion here, I was simply stating as fact
>that:
>
>> >I've not heard any public demand for that. There is considerable public
>> >demand for CCTV in public places.
>
>I can *imagine* some public demand arising for CCTV in people's homes, for
>example after the new few child protection failures whenever and wherever
>they might be, but I haven't actually *heard* any such public demand yet. I
>might be surprised that I haven't heard any public demand for CCTV in the
>homes of tagged and curfewed offenders (but then perhaps that's because I
>don't read the Daily Mail).
I appreciate your points regarding specific domestic requests - much
in the way that a householder can currently request monitoring of
nuisance calls. But the surveillance issue is a whole new ball game.
Now and forever.
--
GR
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xrvP0MCF...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> Cherry picker and staff again and again?. Really?.
>
>Cheaper than digging up the road and fitting and paying rental on wired
>backhaul for permanent cameras again and again as the problems that need
>monitoring move around, yes, really.
You wouldn't dig roads up for just one cable, you'd rent that, it if
possible have your own ducts you'd use those etc. No you wouldn't use a
fixed landline as its bloody expensive, you'd use ODFM wireless like
your more or less doing and thats very inexpensive....
>
>So, you're going to ask, why not leave the moveable temporary wireless
>cameras permanently in position instead of buying new fixed ones? That is in
>fact (with today's kit and prices, and given that we've now installed the
>wireless infrastructure) a plausible proposition for some locations if and
>when there's a need and budget to expand the area covered permanently.
Well if you've got a few repeaters around then thats fine use those. Use
the net for control even;-)....
--
Tony Sayer
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5os002926k8jcs8vr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Put it this way, if I walk down the street then anyone and everyone
>> can observe me, whether with their eyes or via a cam. Fair enough for
>> law enforcement. Go to my street, into my house, into my bedroom even,
>> with or without audio, and it is a gross intrusion.
>
>Yes, I've seen the news items about abuse of CCTV systems elsewhere.
>
>In Cambridge, if a camera pans across someone's bedroom window, then a black
>square appears on the screen instead of the view through the window, and
>this event is logged by the system, and if there isn't a corresponding
>signed entry in the control room log book with a legitimate explanation (in
>my case "demonstrating the black blob to some councillors") then the
>operator is in trouble.
Yes, but I am asking you to project the capablities of the (very
impressive) new technology, and asking whether it is likely that it
will be extended in future years to intrude grossly on people's
personal and domestic privacy. I suggest that it will, based on
existing extensions of the law (which are now extremely wide ranging),
and likely extensions of future laws under furture administrations. It
is an exponential curve. This is the time, if any, to speak out and
interrupt the trend, until the populace realise and debate what can,
and might, be done to them. In recent times, technology and government
agencies just go ahead without consultation with the ordinary voting
public, or without proper parliamentary consultation. It seems to be
presumed that the public implicitly consent to measures that the
authorities deem necessary, under recent cabinet-led legislation. In
most cases, I suspect, the public have little or idea or understanding
of what is going on, and the general implications They deserve to have
the issues explained properly, to have their options explained, and to
be represented by responsible politicians.
--
GR
Tim Ward
>
> Yes, but I am asking you to project the capablities of the (very
> impressive) new technology, and asking whether it is likely that it
> will be extended in future years to intrude grossly on people's
> personal and domestic privacy. I suggest that it will, based on
> existing extensions of the law (which are now extremely wide ranging),
> and likely extensions of future laws under furture administrations. It
> is an exponential curve. This is the time, if any, to speak out and
> interrupt the trend, until the populace realise and debate what can,
> and might, be done to them. In recent times, technology and government
> agencies just go ahead without consultation with the ordinary voting
> public, or without proper parliamentary consultation. It seems to be
> presumed that the public implicitly consent to measures that the
> authorities deem necessary, under recent cabinet-led legislation. In
> most cases, I suspect, the public have little or idea or understanding
> of what is going on, and the general implications They deserve to have
> the issues explained properly, to have their options explained, and to
> be represented by responsible politicians.
Oh yes, no problem with any of that. Changes to the law allowing more
intrusive surveillance without informed consultation and public support must
in general be a Bad Thing, but that's a world away from the city council
buying a couple more wireless cameras every now and then when we can afford
them to meet public demand (if and when there stop being requests to deploy
the cameras obviously we'll not buy any more; this service is pretty well
entirely demand led).
Espen Koht
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> You don't have to Tim its all there on the web. Yes its good equipment
> but I've got some Philips cameras from a few year's ago and what you can
> get that for now isn't the same price as what you paid for the Philips
> gear even allowing for inflation. The Chinese are quite good at this
> sort of thing now, and are getting better.
>
> One things for sure it ain't made in the UK......
I have to second that. I designed a (now 17 camera) site-wide CCTV
system for a Cambridge College about 2.5 years ago, and two of the
factors leading us to doing it in-house was the arrival on the market of
very decent quality equipment from Chinese manufacturers, and new
thinking from on-line retailers willing to deal directly with customers.
There are probably lots of contractors who still think its reasonable to
put ludicrous mark-ups the material costs, but I'm now seeing more and
more adjusting their practices to the reality that customers can source
the hardware themselves.
Espen
maxb...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
You can find out all about the City Council's CCTV operation (which covers
Ely & Soham as well as Cambridge) at:
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/environment/city-centre-managem
ent/cctv
(watch the wrap) And that includes detailed info on what some of the
cameras can read.
One of the links off that site leads to the code of conduct. Cambridge was
one of the first councils to introduce one, and it has been used as a
model for other authorities' codes. The Lib Dems fought long and hard to
ensure that the civil liberties aspects of CCTV were properly covered.
Which is why Tim can talk about 'black blobs' obscuring the view into
domestic properties.
Max Boyce.
Tim Ward
news:GoSdneb1LL3yPJ3Z...@eclipse.net.uk...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
> > In Cambridge, if a camera pans across someone's bedroom window, then a
black
> > square appears on the screen instead of the view through the window, and
> > this event is logged by the system, and if there isn't a corresponding
> > signed entry in the control room log book with a legitimate explanation
(in
> > my case "demonstrating the black blob to some councillors") then the
> > operator is in trouble.
>
> square get there?
>
> I assume from the further comment that it is not automatic if there is a
> need to log it in a book, so how *does* it work?
The black square appears automatically. When the system puts up the black
square it logs the fact that it has done so. In due course some supervisor
will have their attention drawn to this log entry. They will then look at
the (paper) control room log and expect to find an appropriate written entry
from the operator in duty at the time explaining why the camera traversed
the bedroom window, ie this is a reconciliation exercise between the
computer log of where the camera was pointing and the operator's log of why
he was doing it.
Gropius Riftwynde
<scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>Tim Ward wrote:
>> The black square appears automatically. When the system puts up the black
>> square it logs the fact that it has done so. In due course some supervisor
>> will have their attention drawn to this log entry. They will then look at
>> the (paper) control room log and expect to find an appropriate written entry
>> from the operator in duty at the time explaining why the camera traversed
>> the bedroom window, ie this is a reconciliation exercise between the
>> computer log of where the camera was pointing and the operator's log of why
>> he was doing it.
>
>IOW it is thought that the black square generating software isn't
>infallible otherwise it would be impossible to see into the window and
>hence the operator could point the camera there as much as s/he liked
>without being able to actually see anything.
>
>Procedures, don'tcha love 'em ;-)
So if it is deemed 'necessary' to look through a window, then the
black blob mechanism would have to be disabled. And who would disable
it? The operator.
--
GR
Jules
I suppose one would hope that when the system was installed, some legal
document was signed to say that the cameras would never be used for
anything outside the boundaries of their narrow purpose - and of course
that said document holds true for any subsequent council too. In other
words, nobody could use the existing camera system for anything other than
the (hopefully well-defined) original purpose; they'd have to rip the
whole lot out and start again.
Whether such a thing can and was legally done is another matter.
I believe the CEN the other day carried an article saying that its readers
wanted even more cameras around however, so we're probably all doomed :)
cheers
Jules
Jules
>> Possbily the time has just about come when coins have
>> become worth less than the metal that they are stamped
>> upon.
>
> No, not yet...
>
> Looking at http://www.metalprices.com/ and the British coinage
> section on http://www.royalmint.com, it looks like the face
> value of copper coins is almost exactly the same as that
> weight of copper.
>
> But that's no good because the coins are now "copper-plated steel"
> which I guess is worth a lot less, and presumably less still as
> scrap.
>
> There are 140 2p coins in a kg, worth £2.80 as coins, approx
> $4.90. Compared with $4.98 for a kg of copper. 1p and 2p
> coins have the same face value per weight.
Wonder what the minting costs are (power, machine procurement and
maintenance etc.) and the cost of distribution after production?
Jon Anderson
> Has anyone else noticed all the new mini CCTV cameras appearing on
> lamp-posts all over Cambridge: Maids Causeway, East Road (near roundabout),
> Hills Road (junction with station road) to name a few locations.
The same CCTV which will help the police find out who bottled my work
colleagues a week ago maybe?
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Tim Ward
>
> So if it is deemed 'necessary' to look through a window, then the
> black blob mechanism would have to be disabled. And who would disable
> it? The operator.
That one I don't know the answer to - it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that the police might request that the cameras record what they
believe to be an ongoing assault visible through a bedroom window.
Ghastly Gertie, she's so shirty.
". The Chinese are quite good at this
> sort of thing now, and are getting better.
I just bet they are.
Ghastly Gertie, she's so shirty.
"> I appreciate your points regarding specific domestic requests - much
> in the way that a householder can currently request monitoring of
> nuisance calls. But the surveillance issue is a whole new ball game.
> Now and forever.
Should you ever get the chance you should have a look at the Grangetown area
of Middlesborough. Now it has to be said that it's improved things - the
handbrake turning loony brigade have been well and truly tamed. But I
reckon you would have to be very, very far down the pro-surveillance society
road to not find it sinister up there. Huge metal towers in the middle of
housing estates which survey everything around. Very weird.
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
>"Gropius Riftwynde" <rift...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pog102l4d855t645k...@4ax.com...
>>
>> So if it is deemed 'necessary' to look through a window, then the
>> black blob mechanism would have to be disabled. And who would disable
>> it? The operator.
>
>That one I don't know the answer to - it is not beyond the bounds of
>possibility that the police might request that the cameras record what they
>believe to be an ongoing assault visible through a bedroom window.
They might. It seems to me that the current regulations are fairly
hazy on this, because of recent adjustments to the law. It would be
interesting to know what checks and balances are built in to the
current regulations and technical procedures to preserve the rights of
individuals from operational police tactics, from other government
agencies, and even from the random curiosity of camera surveillance
operators.
--
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
<julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I suppose one would hope that when the system was installed, some legal
>document was signed to say that the cameras would never be used for
>anything outside the boundaries of their narrow purpose - and of course
>that said document holds true for any subsequent council too. In other
>words, nobody could use the existing camera system for anything other than
>the (hopefully well-defined) original purpose; they'd have to rip the
>whole lot out and start again.
>
>Whether such a thing can and was legally done is another matter.
>
>I believe the CEN the other day carried an article saying that its readers
>wanted even more cameras around however, so we're probably all doomed :)
Well, there is a reasonable public demand for better surveillance
against crime and terrorism, set against people's rights to go about
their daily (and especialy their domestic) business in freedom, wthout
the 'Big Brother' factor. At the very least, the options and
regulations should be made clear, so that people at least know what
rights they hold, those they have signed away, and the long term
implications of both.
--
GR
tony sayer
<j...@durge.org> writes
>Martyn Pollard wrote:
>> Has anyone else noticed all the new mini CCTV cameras appearing on
>> lamp-posts all over Cambridge: Maids Causeway, East Road (near roundabout),
>> Hills Road (junction with station road) to name a few locations.
>
Apparently those sites now seem to be permanent ones....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
shirty. <ano...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>". The Chinese are quite good at this
>> sort of thing now, and are getting better.
>
>I just bet they are.
Yes sad isn't it?...
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
shirty. <ano...@hotmail.com> writes
>
Wonder who made it like that?.
Something's broken down for a fair bit of society.......
--
Tony Sayer
maxb...@cix.compulink.co.uk
julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk (Jules) wrote:
> I suppose one would hope that when the system was installed, some legal
> document was signed to say that the cameras would never be used for
> anything outside the boundaries of their narrow purpose - and of course
> that said document holds true for any subsequent council too
Its called the Code of Conduct. See my previous post.
Max Boyce.
Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:
The banks have a code of conduct. It is called the Banking Code. It
doesn't dter them from routinely breaking the Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999, with respect to charges. I wouldn't trust voluntary
codes of conduct. They are a form of PR, whether subscribed to
commercially or by government agencies.
--
GR
Paul
1) The sale of council houses.
2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
to 40% in the late 1980s.
3) In one word, Thatcher.
Paul
Colin Rosenstiel
rift...@hotmail.com (Gropius Riftwynde) wrote:
The cameras run by the City Council are covered by the Council's own
Code of Practice which is rather stricter than that. It's on the web
site somewhere.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Kevin Symonds
"Gropius Riftwynde" <
> So if it is deemed 'necessary' to look through a window, then the black
> blob mechanism would have to be disabled. And who would disable it? The
> operator.<
But then surely the system would register that it was disabled which would
then need to be explained etc.
Kevin
Kevin Symonds
"Tim Ward" <
> Er, yes? The problem being? Suppose the council actually owned the cherry
> picker and used it a couple of hours every other month and kept it doing
> nothing in the Mill Road depot the rest of the time, at a cost to *you* of
> an order of magnitude or two higher than the occasional hire, you'd think
> that was a sane idea would you?<
I'm actually surprised that the council doesn't own one.
I guess this explains some of the questions asked in the past about things
such as the christmas lights.
Everyone that I've seen in Cambridge has obviously been owned by a private
business. Ah well.
I'd be surprised if there aren't some things that the council owns that
doesn't get used all the time so could be called a waste as well.
Kevin
tony sayer
<pb...@ntlworld.com> writes
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:gW5bbdEf...@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <dtr298$7b9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ghastly Gertie, she's so
>> shirty. <ano...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>"> I appreciate your points regarding specific domestic requests - much
>>>> in the way that a householder can currently request monitoring of
>>>> nuisance calls. But the surveillance issue is a whole new ball game.
>>>> Now and forever.
>>>
>>>Should you ever get the chance you should have a look at the Grangetown
>>>area
>>>of Middlesborough. Now it has to be said that it's improved things - the
>>>handbrake turning loony brigade have been well and truly tamed. But I
>>>reckon you would have to be very, very far down the pro-surveillance
>>>society
>>>road to not find it sinister up there. Huge metal towers in the middle of
>>>housing estates which survey everything around. Very weird.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wonder who made it like that?.
>>
>> Something's broken down for a fair bit of society.......
>
>1) The sale of council houses.
Why?..
>
>2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
>to 40% in the late 1980s.
>
Why Again
>3) In one word, Thatcher.
Really think so after she's now been out of power for a long time?...
>
>Paul
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Duncanwood
wrote:
Snag is you don't just one size of them, & bthey're quite cheap to rent
compared with the purchase//running costs, I don't think i've even come
across a construction company that owns one.
Al Grant
> A few days ago they finished replacing all the wooden planks of the
> footbridge across the Cam at Jesus Green. Thismorning I noticed that
> someone has been stealing the stainless steel bolts that hold down the
> planks. So far about a dozen have gone. In most cases, but not all,
> they have taken the washers as well.
The 'temporary edging' is held in by apparently
identical bolts. Could it be that these bolts are in
fact the missing ones, and they will be restored
when the temporary edging is removed?
The Luggage
Tim Harris wrote:
> > Possbily the time has just about come when coins have
> > become worth less than the metal that they are stamped
> > upon.
>
> No, not yet...
>
> Looking at http://www.metalprices.com/ and the British coinage
> section on http://www.royalmint.com, it looks like the face
> value of copper coins is almost exactly the same as that
> weight of copper.
Arbut 'copper' coins were actually made of brass before they started
making them from steel.
>From the same site, scrap brass is only worth about £2.20 / kg,
compared with the £2.80 face value.
TL
Alan Levy
>>>
>>> Something's broken down for a fair bit of society.......
>>
>>1) The sale of council houses.
>
>Why?..
>
>>
>>2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
>>to 40% in the late 1980s.
>>
>
>Why Again
>
>>3) In one word, Thatcher.
>
>Really think so after she's now been out of power for a long time?...
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for more than 10 years and in
many respects John Major simply carried on where she had left off.
During their period in office the Conservative government did many
things that had consequences which may have appeared positive in the
short term but which were disastrous in the longer term. Cutting back
on investment in housing and infrastructure to fund tax cuts is merely
the most obvious example. It's also generally much easier to create
problems than it is to cure them. Consequently we're still stuck with
many of the problems her government first created.
To be fair though, poorly thought out, short-term policies,
implemented by politicians more concerned with votes and headlines
than with outcomes didn't start with Thatcher, nor did they suddenly
come to an end in 1997.
--
Alan Levy (alan...@delete-this-first-ntlworld.com)
Delete the spoiler to reply by email!
Ghastly Gertie, she's so shirty.
"> >>> Something's broken down for a fair bit of society.......
> >>
> >>1) The sale of council houses.
> things that had consequences which may have appeared positive in the
> short term but which were disastrous in the longer term.
Well, I can't really be bothered to de-construct the Thatch years but I do
know that Middlesborough was a desperate and decrepit shithole long before
she got her foot in the door of number ten. It was a town which grew from
virtually nothing at the turn of the nineteenth century into a major
population centre a hundred years later and I suspect that the decline of
the industries which supported it / spawned it probably has more to do with
it.
tony sayer
<inever....@ntlworld.com> writes
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Something's broken down for a fair bit of society.......
>>>
>>>1) The sale of council houses.
>>
>>Why?..
>>
>>>
>>>2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
>>>to 40% in the late 1980s.
>>>
>>
>>Why Again
>>
>>>3) In one word, Thatcher.
>>
>>Really think so after she's now been out of power for a long time?...
>
>Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for more than 10 years and in
>many respects John Major simply carried on where she had left off.
>During their period in office the Conservative government did many
>things that had consequences which may have appeared positive in the
>short term but which were disastrous in the longer term. Cutting back
>on investment in housing and infrastructure to fund tax cuts is merely
>the most obvious example. It's also generally much easier to create
>problems than it is to cure them. Consequently we're still stuck with
>many of the problems her government first created.
>
Did you grow up on a council estate?....
>To be fair though, poorly thought out, short-term policies,
>implemented by politicians more concerned with votes and headlines
>than with outcomes didn't start with Thatcher, nor did they suddenly
>come to an end in 1997.
--
Tony Sayer
Alan Levy
Alan Levy
I come from Liverpool - which was also decaying long before Mrs
Thatcher came into office for exactly the kind of reason that you
suggest. As I pointed out in my final paragraph, Mrs Thatcher was by
no means the author of all this country's present woes. She was
however the author of a lot of them and she made many others worse.
tony sayer
<inever....@ntlworld.com> writes
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Did you grow up on a council estate?....
>
>Your point being?
Well I did. And there was a sense of social order and to some extent it
was all very much self policing, and "they" i.e. the police and council
and government, didn't figure that much in it all.
There was a sense of order and respect, and if anyone was out of order
it was put right "in" that community. It was permissible for an adult to
chastise any child. A teacher, a copper, parent, and more or less any
other adult. A clip round the ear was the standard currency, and tell
you what it did us no harm whatsoever, except that we learnt very
quickly that it was best to comply and toe the line and not offend
again. Adults too had their ways of settling disputes, sometimes with a
bout of fisticuffs but even if and when that happened it was all
resolved, and men were mates again;).
Wanton vandalism and law breaking were very rare, course people did the
odd burglary and committed punishable crimes like they had always done.
But then again there was good and bad anywhere. However drugs etc were
unknown at that time so I suppose that might have had an effect if they
were around.
Money or lack thereof had sod all to do with it, we were very much in
the same boat and almost everyone was a bit hard up. Thatcher, well it
was a bit before her time, but I very much doubt that sale of council
houses would have anything to do with it either, as no one had
aspirations of owning their own home at all.
Seems that the self policing in that community has disappeared, and
nothing really has taken its place and that respect thing, children for
adults, just isn't there anymore, perhaps the nanny state has taken
over?. Course national service was still on the go in those days and I
never heard anyone say that it did them harm most everyone said that it
made men of them and they grew up..
Anyway, enough rosy glowing rantings from a decaying "everything was
better in the old days" brain........
--
Tony Sayer
Paul
>
> Why?..
The sale of council houses reduced the former mobility of those
fortunate enough to gain work elsewhere or who wished to move closer to
other family members but who could not at that time, afford to buy
property, even at a discount.
The reduction of mobility for work, over a long period, tended to
concentrate people of a particular financial status, poor, in specific
areas that others, better able to do so, were able to move out of, and
did, leaving the less fortunate behind.
Far worse in my view, was the gross and sinful handout of public money
by Mrs Thatcher, previously spent over many decades, by a variety of
governments, working within a consensus to house people, and to provide
council houses and flats to this end.
The discounts given, based on rents paid to that date, resulted in many
people being able to buy in the open market and let their former
council dwelling at a rent that contributed significantly towards their
mortgage and thus created a land of dual property owners that simply
didn't exist before this.
For those left behind, the quality of life deteriorated as the number
of unemployed rose along with vandalism and crime and all the problems
associated with unemployment and lack of income in a small area.
Thus the sink estates. Yes there were some before 1979, but many more
since, and the inhabitants have less chance of leaving now than they
did before 1979.
The withholding of capital receipts from the sale was verging on the
criminal since it prevented councils using the money to maintain the
remaining rented housing, and more importantly build more to replace
those sold off. A process once begun very difficult to reverse owing
to the migration of people who could afford to buy at a discount, then
move out on the proceeds of the sale, or the rental income.
> >
> >2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
> >to 40% in the late 1980s.
> >
>
> Why Again
My concern is simply that less money was then available from the public
purse to deal with the causes of, and solutions to, problems arising in
Middlesborough and other towns in a bad way. It is not relevant that
they had problems before 1979. It is the case they got worse under
Thatcher because she did nothing to ease their plight and in so (not)
doing, allowed them to decline further.
> >3) In one word, Thatcher.
>
> Really think so after she's now been out of power for a long time?...
This is the most fallacious argument you use. Alan Levy has answered
for me very well below. A program or act once initiated cannot always
be easily undone, the length of time out of power (Thatcher) is
irrelevant to the argument. The sale of council houses allowed those
who could afford to, to move away from areas they didn't necessarily
want to stay in. That in isolation was a good thing for those people,
perhaps better to say that those who liked where they were, were able
to consolidate their position by buying. But what of those who didn't
like where they were but couldn't move? Was anything done for them?
No.
She (Thatcher), initiated a process, through several acts (in both
senses), that improved the mobility of one set of people *by no efforts
of their own*, at the expense of others whose lives were adversely
affected by being left behind, so to speak. She gave away billions of
pounds worth of housing by selling at such discounts, money to people
to whom it did not belong, who had not paid it in, at the expense of
others, who had. It was a one off redistribution of public money that
wasn't hers to give away, at the future expense of people no longer
able to move easily about the country by council house exchanges, or
simply by moving to another town and getting on the list, because as
the years went by, there were fewer publicly owned properties for rent.
I am dismayed to say the least, at that single act of government
vandalism which so damaged this country. I lived and worked in London
for eight years in the 1970s both with and among people who lived in
council houses and flats, (I was one for a time), and saw at first
hand the benefits and the problems, but remain convinced that this was
by far a more equitable distribution of housing than now exists. Great
for the 70%, what about the 30%?
I can only speak from personal experience but when you add in the
damage done by the dissollution of the GLC, formerly the LCC, and the
change of financing to individual boroughs, so that some became more
wealthy and others poorer, I cannot see what Thatcher did to improve
the quality of life for the many. She improved the quality of life for
the few, at the expense of the many.
Lastly, I shouldn't have to put this into words. The existence of
towns like Middlesborough and their problems, and the concentration of
poor people in sink estates with little hope of escape, have more than
one cause no doubt, but it wasn't like that before 1979 and I hold
Thatcher responsible.
Paul
Andrew Shires
"Paul" <test.r...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> Lastly, I shouldn't have to put this into words. The existence of
> towns like Middlesborough and their problems, and the concentration of
> poor people in sink estates with little hope of escape, have more than
> one cause no doubt, but it wasn't like that before 1979 and I hold
> Thatcher responsible.
Your argument is very clear and persuasive. But as a native of the
town (and a regular visitor to the particular area) which has provoked
this part of the discussion, I always feel compelled in these cases to
point out, for the record and all that, that it is spelled
_Middlesbrough_.
Otherwise, nice job.
Andrew
tony sayer
<test.r...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> >1) The sale of council houses.
>>
>> Why?..
>
>The sale of council houses reduced the former mobility of those
>fortunate enough to gain work elsewhere or who wished to move closer to
>other family members but who could not at that time, afford to buy
>property, even at a discount.
So why hasn't the labour government reversed this if its such a
problem?. After all they've been in power since 1997?...
>
>The reduction of mobility for work, over a long period, tended to
>concentrate people of a particular financial status, poor, in specific
>areas that others, better able to do so, were able to move out of, and
>did, leaving the less fortunate behind.
Well about 3/4 years ago we had a firm doing cable installations in
'Middlesbro and the bane of the contracts managers life was finding
anyone who "wanted" to work, and they were offering around £400 odd quid
a week but very few takers. Most wanted the easy life on benefits etc.
Working.. was too much like, hard work;(. Same over in St Helens and
Knowsley, and the 'Pool wacker!. Oh yes , Harehills and its environs
over in Leeds.
>
>Far worse in my view, was the gross and sinful handout of public money
>by Mrs Thatcher, previously spent over many decades, by a variety of
>governments, working within a consensus to house people, and to provide
>council houses and flats to this end.
Well my mum and dad bought their council house but they paid a LOT of
money in rent before they could and they were very grateful to Mrs T to
let them do that.
An old friend of mine, labour through and through, and thought the sun
shined out of Anne Campbell's botty.. WHEN he had the opportunity to buy
the council house, threw away all those good old socialist values and
bought his gaff, and in doing so sold it off to another outfit to gain
access to another bit of land and has made a tidy sum and provided well
for his retirement, and now lives in a small cottage out in the fens..
Funny how he never wants to discuss his good old labour unionised past
eh brother;)
>
>The discounts given, based on rents paid to that date, resulted in many
>people being able to buy in the open market and let their former
>council dwelling at a rent that contributed significantly towards their
>mortgage and thus created a land of dual property owners that simply
>didn't exist before this.
Yes good thing too, removed a lot of social division that did. Worst
thing invented was the council house, marked more of a stupid class
division line than most anything!..
Yep so it did. And that was in my ever so umble opinion a very good
thing. Look at the houses which people do now own you can see how much
they have improved most of them now freed of the dead hand of the
council.
>For those left behind, the quality of life deteriorated as the number
>of unemployed rose along with vandalism and crime and all the problems
>associated with unemployment and lack of income in a small area.
As above, perhaps they've now been conditioned to a life on benefits
'cos they want to be that way?. Much easier than working.
>
>Thus the sink estates. Yes there were some before 1979, but many more
>since, and the inhabitants have less chance of leaving now than they
>did before 1979.
If they "wanted" to leave they would. But the "jobs" have to be there
first.
>
>The withholding of capital receipts from the sale was verging on the
>criminal since it prevented councils using the money to maintain the
>remaining rented housing, and more importantly build more to replace
>those sold off.
So where did the money go then;-??
>A process once begun very difficult to reverse owing
>to the migration of people who could afford to buy at a discount, then
>move out on the proceeds of the sale, or the rental income.
What they should do is to do away with local authority housing and throw
that out to the private sector!. Heresy to the noble socialist cause of
course, after all we want them to be in their socially divisive council
houses don't we?. No brother, the REAL problem is the price of land and
the relevant planning permission/s. Make the land available at the right
price for "affordable" housing, and let the private sector get on with
it. Yes affordable houses, not just for the essential workers those who
work for the local authority and nurses, police etc, but those who
generate the wealth and who work in factories etc that what !!wants!!
Doing.. not more council estates.....
>
>> >
>> >2) The reduction in the higher rate of income tax by Nigel Lawson from 60%
>> >to 40% in the late 1980s.
>> >
>>
>> Why Again
>
>My concern is simply that less money was then available from the public
>purse to deal with the causes of, and solutions to, problems arising in
>Middlesborough and other towns in a bad way. It is not relevant that
>they had problems before 1979. It is the case they got worse under
>Thatcher because she did nothing to ease their plight and in so (not)
>doing, allowed them to decline further.
OK. So what "should" she have done then?.
>
>> >3) In one word, Thatcher.
>>
>> Really think so after she's now been out of power for a long time?...
>
>This is the most fallacious argument you use. Alan Levy has answered
>for me very well below. A program or act once initiated cannot always
>be easily undone, the length of time out of power (Thatcher) is
>irrelevant to the argument.
Hollyhocks..At this rate you'll be blaming supermac, Disraeli, and even
Gladstone for something or other..
>The sale of council houses allowed those
>who could afford to, to move away from areas they didn't necessarily
>want to stay in. That in isolation was a good thing for those people,
>perhaps better to say that those who liked where they were, were able
>to consolidate their position by buying. But what of those who didn't
>like where they were but couldn't move? Was anything done for them?
>No.
As above, let the market sort that one out, if theres a demand and REAL
jobs then this problem will resolve itself, thats if the people there
aren't too bloody spoilt by being featherbedded too much.
ANY area can be renovated if its wanted to be, and the bast start is
real jobs...
>
>She (Thatcher), initiated a process, through several acts (in both
>senses), that improved the mobility of one set of people *by no efforts
>of their own*,
Balls.. In the politest possible way. She did some good things and gave
those who wanted to get on the chance to do so, and got rid of the
un-elected who were running and ruining the country i.e. Scargill and
Red Robbo and his ilk. OK the British ""management"" weren't a lot
better, but thats improved since then...
> at the expense of others whose lives were adversely
>affected by being left behind, so to speak. She gave away billions of
>pounds worth of housing by selling at such discounts, money to people
>to whom it did not belong, who had not paid it in, at the expense of
>others, who had. It was a one off redistribution of public money that
>wasn't hers to give away, at the future expense of people no longer
>able to move easily about the country by council house exchanges, or
>simply by moving to another town and getting on the list, because as
>the years went by, there were fewer publicly owned properties for rent.
Good thing too in my opinion. As above let the land go for the right
money and the private sector will take care of that, as its doing and
could do better if housing was cheaper.
>
>I am dismayed to say the least, at that single act of government
>vandalism which so damaged this country. I lived and worked in London
>for eight years in the 1970s both with and among people who lived in
>council houses and flats, (I was one for a time), and saw at first
>hand the benefits and the problems, but remain convinced that this was
>by far a more equitable distribution of housing than now exists. Great
>for the 70%, what about the 30%?
Make the 30% up to the 70% perhaps. How?, reduce the stupid cost of
housing which is dictated by the cost of LAND. Building costs aren't
that great in comparison. Perhaps some on your sink estates could then
get off their arses and get a trowel in hand and get on building perhaps
instead of having all those Poles and Latvians over here Why?, cos
people like my bro in law cant get bloody British bricklayers thats why
and why is that?. Cos they don't want to do the job get their hands
dirty by working!..
>
>I can only speak from personal experience but when you add in the
>damage done by the dissollution of the GLC, formerly the LCC, and the
>change of financing to individual boroughs, so that some became more
>wealthy and others poorer, I cannot see what Thatcher did to improve
>the quality of life for the many. She improved the quality of life for
>the few, at the expense of the many.
Oh!, Bollkx..
>
>Lastly, I shouldn't have to put this into words. The existence of
>towns like Middlesborough and their problems, and the concentration of
>poor people in sink estates with little hope of escape, have more than
>one cause no doubt, but it wasn't like that before 1979 and I hold
>Thatcher responsible.
Yes it was, remember such real sink places like Toxteth they were shit
tips of the first order LONG before she was elected...
>
>Paul
>
I don't suppose we're ever going to see eye to eye over this one, and
perhaps in your good old socialist book I must be one of the very worst
there is. Son of poor, yes really POOR, working class parents who was
born on a council estate lived there for years and has now moved from
there and now lives in one of the most expensive parts of Cambridge.
Simple that wasn't it, just got of my arse and worked for it all, and
never once bleated about the fact that my poor mother was forced to hide
from the rent collector because my dad couldn't work because there
wasn't any work in the area he was at the time. And what did he do?, got
on his bloody bike and went looking for it, and found it. Its there,
simply for people who want to do it. Trouble is years of socialism have
done away with that wanting to better yourself.
No perhaps not. I have a young friend in London who is from Bulgaria and
spent her life being bought up in a commie state. She moved to London
some 3 years ago and now wants to be a neutralised British subject and
thinks that this is the land of milk and honey, and has never seen so
many business opportunities. Oh yes, where did she live once?. Saw a
picture of it , all the best in Soviet housing a bloody concrete
monstrosity that she so desperately wanted to move away from;)
Nothing really wrong with council estates you know. Most of them were
built very well, better than the rabbit hutches that the private sector
chucks up these days. Perhaps its because of the cost of land that they
can't afford a bit more quality in the build. No the only thing wrong
with council houses is they are one of the most socially divisive class
ridden things in the country.
Next?..
--
Tony Sayer
Robert Campbell
Paul wrote:
> Lastly, I shouldn't have to put this into words. The existence of
> towns like Middlesborough and their problems, and the concentration of
> poor people in sink estates with little hope of escape, have more than
> one cause no doubt, but it wasn't like that before 1979 and I hold
> Thatcher responsible.
>
> Paul
Ah. The age-old "little hope of escape" sob story. I've not only moved to a
different town before, but a different continent in search of a better life.
There's nothing fundamental stopping somebody moving to a more pleasant area with
better job opportunities. Unfortunately, as long as people have no motivation to
improve their lives, they'll stay where they are and bitch about their (pretty
much self-inflicted) problems.
Others, of course, may disagree.
Paul
Your right wing views are well known to me from your previous posts on
this group over the years. I would ask only that you consider the fact
that as human beings on this planet we necessarily have a duty of care
to those less fortunate than ourselves because "there but for the grace
of God go I" etc. I'm an aethiest so I'm not using the God quote out
of piety but just because it's a good example of what I'm getting at.
There will always be a section of society who require assistance paid
out of higher taxation but I do not ever expect you to agree.
The thirties were well recognised as a period of dreadful inequality in
many areas hence the "five giants" of Beveridge, (
http://www.citizensincome.org/reviews/The%20Five%20Giants.shtml ) and
the post war concensus did much to level playing field but now there is
a real danger of an emerging underclass as society, or sadly a section
of it, slides backwards. I wish I didn't have to say it but there does
seem to be a pressing need to rescue that section of society from
itself in a humanitarian way rather than by the brutal application of
more and more "lor'n'order".
I'm not one of the luvvies who think that criminals should be sent on
foreign holidays as a reward for burglary but I do think that
environment in every sense has a part to play in the welfare of us all,
and that includes the built environment, what we see when we venture
out from whatever constitutes our home. Not cameras on towers.
During the 1970s it was certainly common to see an apparently expensive
car outside a council house or perhaps two and the feeling was "if they
can afford that why havent' they moved into private housing", but
equally one did not trip over 17 year old in the Stand underpass and
every doorway because people at various difficult stages of their lives
had somewhere to live.
I really fear that we as a society are sliding towards the brutal
American standards where it is fine to trip over and ignore people
lying in the street. I can remember only too well the transition from
the "socialist" (a sop to you Robert), standards of the 1970s when one
did not find people lying in the street in London - to the dreadful
slide of the 1980s when on my infrequent returns from overseas, I
became increasingly aware of the numbers of people sleeping rough in
the Strand underpass. At that time this phenonomem was not obvious
during the daytime (no bodies in doorways and few beggars), but as the
years went by, the former aloholics who had traditionally been men in
their 50s and beyond, grey bearded and smelly, were joined by those in
their late teens.
If you wonder what this has to do with the sale of council houses, then
just think about the effects of withdrawing large numbers of housing
(and the most desirable went first of course), on those seeking a first
foothold in the world, and grants, but that's another subject.
No, there wasn't a socialist Utopia in the 1970s, certainly but how
much better than the right wing revolution that followed and the
selfishness that has followed.
Entire books have been written about all this and Will Hutton has
written some wonderful articles in the Guardian on a similar theme, far
more widely researched than my subjective rantings but the fact remains
that the sale of council houses and decline in social and vocational
mobility as a result has been "a bad thing" for this country and led to
an unhealthy stasis with the consolidation of poor areas.
Lack of government action to curtail the purchase of second homes has
added to the problem but that is for another day.
I still blame Thatcher.
Paul
Robert Campbell
Paul wrote:
> Robert Campbell wrote:
>
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > > Lastly, I shouldn't have to put this into words. The existence of
> > > towns like Middlesborough and their problems, and the concentration of
> > > poor people in sink estates with little hope of escape, have more than
> > > one cause no doubt, but it wasn't like that before 1979 and I hold
> > > Thatcher responsible.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Ah. The age-old "little hope of escape" sob story. I've not only moved to a
> > different town before, but a different continent in search of a better life.
> > There's nothing fundamental stopping somebody moving to a more pleasant area with
> > better job opportunities. Unfortunately, as long as people have no motivation to
> > improve their lives, they'll stay where they are and bitch about their (pretty
> > much self-inflicted) problems.
> >
> > Others, of course, may disagree.
>
> Your right wing views are well known to me from your previous posts on
> this group over the years. <snip>
"right wing"? "a sop to you"? "There will always be a section of society who require
assistance paid out of higher taxation but I do not ever expect you to agree."?
When did this thread start getting personal? I'm not sure if you follow current
affairs, but Thatcher's been out of power for sixteen years now. A certain Mr Blair of
the Labour Party has been running this country since 1997. As far as my limited
knowledge of UK politics goes, the government of the day has the power to change
things. For various reasons, they seem to have chosen not to. Your call.
Paul
I apologise for getting personal, I will desist.
This Labour party is Labour in name only, not in action, they are more
or less a continuation of the Tories. You cannot seriously be
suggesting that they have any of the socialist ideals of the post war
years. Sadly. There is now no electable left of center party. Not
until the LibDems make up their collective mind which way they hang
anyway.
Tory Blair speaks the centre ground language then puts forward
rightwing policies and tries to bully them through parliament. None of
this is news.
Paul
Robert Campbell
> I apologise for getting personal, I will desist.
>
> This Labour party is Labour in name only, not in action, they are more
> or less a continuation of the Tories. You cannot seriously be
> suggesting that they have any of the socialist ideals of the post war
> years. Sadly. There is now no electable left of center party. Not
> until the LibDems make up their collective mind which way they hang
> anyway.
>
> Tory Blair speaks the centre ground language then puts forward
> rightwing policies and tries to bully them through parliament. None of
> this is news.
>
> Paul
Not a problem - I think I got personal too. I agree with you about the Labour party -
heard/read something the other day that there are two Tory leaders, with Cameron being
slightly more left wing than Blair. You're also right about there being no electable left of
centre party - hopefully a new leader will improve things...
tony sayer
<test.r...@ntlworld.com> writes
Yes some poor bu**er will always be poor, always was, and always will
be;)(.....
>
>The thirties were well recognised as a period of dreadful inequality in
>many areas hence the "five giants" of Beveridge, (
>http://www.citizensincome.org/reviews/The%20Five%20Giants.shtml ) and
>the post war concensus did much to level playing field but now there is
>a real danger of an emerging underclass as society, or sadly a section
>of it, slides backwards. I wish I didn't have to say it but there does
>seem to be a pressing need to rescue that section of society from
>itself in a humanitarian way rather than by the brutal application of
>more and more "lor'n'order".
Quite. Perhaps propping them up on a benefit diet isn't the best way to
solve the problem.
>
>I'm not one of the luvvies who think that criminals should be sent on
>foreign holidays as a reward for burglary but I do think that
>environment in every sense has a part to play in the welfare of us all,
>and that includes the built environment, what we see when we venture
>out from whatever constitutes our home. Not cameras on towers.
>
Agreed..
>During the 1970s it was certainly common to see an apparently expensive
>car outside a council house or perhaps two and the feeling was "if they
>can afford that why havent' they moved into private housing", but
>equally one did not trip over 17 year old in the Stand underpass and
>every doorway because people at various difficult stages of their lives
>had somewhere to live.
Yep. People lived at home longer then. I was in the parental home till I
was 27 something perhaps unthinkable now. In the good 'ole days it was
quite common for people in the early years of their marriage to live
with the in-laws, something really unthinkable nowadays.
And dontcha 'tink that this is the real reason for a lot of these other
housing problems?..
>
>I really fear that we as a society are sliding towards the brutal
>American standards where it is fine to trip over and ignore people
>lying in the street. I can remember only too well the transition from
>the "socialist" (a sop to you Robert), standards of the 1970s when one
>did not find people lying in the street in London - to the dreadful
>slide of the 1980s when on my infrequent returns from overseas, I
>became increasingly aware of the numbers of people sleeping rough in
>the Strand underpass. At that time this phenonomem was not obvious
>during the daytime (no bodies in doorways and few beggars), but as the
>years went by, the former aloholics who had traditionally been men in
>their 50s and beyond, grey bearded and smelly, were joined by those in
>their late teens.
No I don't like to see people lying in the streets either, homeless and
or out of their heads on drink or drugs and you are quite right
something needs be done better than what it is currently to address
that.
And I do appreciate that their for the grace of <insert deity of choice>
go I. And sincerely hope that someone will be around to pick me up
should I fall..
>
>If you wonder what this has to do with the sale of council houses, then
>just think about the effects of withdrawing large numbers of housing
>(and the most desirable went first of course), on those seeking a first
>foothold in the world, and grants, but that's another subject.
>
>No, there wasn't a socialist Utopia in the 1970s, certainly but how
>much better than the right wing revolution that followed and the
>selfishness that has followed.
Yes but isn't that the nature of the human beast!. Propose a a house for
patients on the way from recovering from a mental malady anywhere and
immediately a protest "committee" is whipped up, propose some lo cost
flats somewhere for young people, and yet another bunch of NIMBY's will
be up with pen in arms about spoiling the view etc.
>
>Entire books have been written about all this and Will Hutton has
>written some wonderful articles in the Guardian on a similar theme, far
>more widely researched than my subjective rantings but the fact remains
>that the sale of council houses and decline in social and vocational
>mobility as a result has been "a bad thing" for this country and led to
>an unhealthy stasis with the consolidation of poor areas.
>
Well its all down to the lack of planning permission and the will to
build places, isn't it, really. Look at the present market, try to find
anywhere for a single person the live and their just ain't anywhere
almost nowhere.! Unless your elderly and possibly you'll find a one
person flat in a retirement complex, and some of those have age
requirements stipulated. No what's required is the release of land with
the necessary permissions for building what's wanted most, homes for
young persons and those with families.
Land in Cambridge is too expensive to do that . Look at the penthouse
flat atop the new development in Hills road that land is simply too
expensive to build low cost housing. Until that is done the real problem
won't go away.
Course there are an awful lot of people who like Cambridge as it is
thank you and just do NOT want to see it altered or expanded in anyway
shape or form and thats a REAL problem here.
>Lack of government action to curtail the purchase of second homes has
>added to the problem but that is for another day.
Yes I might well agree with you on that one especially for places like
North Norfolk.
>
>I still blame Thatcher.
Yes I suppose you will find comfort in that mindset, but what would
!You! suggest be done in practice ought be done to remedy what you blame
her for?...
--
Tony Sayer
Paul
tony sayer wrote:
<giant snip>
> Yes I suppose you will find comfort in that mindset, but what would
> !You! suggest be done in practice ought be done to remedy what you blame
> her for?...
Whilst I would like to answer that question in depth, I feel the need
to do some reading beforehand.
Perhaps the entire works of Charles Dickens to get a perspective on
poor Victorian London, J. B. Priestley for between the wars, George
Orwell who also travelled with a view to observing poverty and its
causes, and of course the Nicholas Timmins book I linked to earlier on.
However, failing that, was it really necessary to hack our own coal
industry to pieces simply to avoid regular fights with the miners?
Thus damaging entire regions economically.
Middlesbrough and its ilk are perhaps more difficult to tackle having
previously been large centres of manufacturing long since lost in both
efficiency and productivity to the Far East. I am not quite sure what
should have been done there but I do know that the excellent six month
training courses run by the Manpower Services Commision(?) and the TSA
(Training Services Agency) in the 1970s, were dropped somewhere along
the line (sorry wasn't living in the country when it happened). Some
of the money lost to reductions in the rate of income tax might have
gone to providing reskilling for many of the people who lost their jobs
in the industrial north.
One of the young people (17) I sat and talked to back in the late
1980s, with his Salvatioin Army sleeping bag, told me that the
government (Thatcher's), had removed an allowance (don't remember the
name) for young people between the ages of 16 - 18. His own case was
that he had had to leave home owing to difficult circumstances there
(not uncommon surely?), but lacking the money previously available to
support him, he had fallen on hard times and then lived on the street
(just off the Strand).
The loss of council housing by sale to the then tenants of course fixed
in place the people there, removing the opportunity for properties in a
given area to become vacant for others, like the young man I spoke to.
Nothing I saw or heard during the 1980s convinced me that the changes
happening then (deregualation included), were doing anything to help
those on the margins of society, and while I have only personal
experience and recollections to go on, the trend does seem to have been
in favour of some at the expense of others. I cannot accept that this
is or was a just way to run a society.
Should I happen to get through that reading list above, I'll write to
you again in a years time, but somehow I think not.
Paul
Patrick Gosling
Paul <test.r...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>lying in the street. I can remember only too well the transition from
>the "socialist" (a sop to you Robert), standards of the 1970s when one
>did not find people lying in the street in London - to the dreadful
>slide of the 1980s when on my infrequent returns from overseas, I
>became increasingly aware of the numbers of people sleeping rough in
>the Strand underpass. At that time this phenonomem was not obvious
>during the daytime (no bodies in doorways and few beggars), but as the
>years went by, the former aloholics who had traditionally been men in
>their 50s and beyond, grey bearded and smelly, were joined by those in
>their late teens.
I remember exactly the same observations of London over the same period.
You'd be unwise to neglect the role that "care in the community" had
in that. That's not to say that changes in council housing policy
wouldn't have also had an effect.
-patrick.
Paul
news:dv208r$28i$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
You are quite right. I was only able to follow the declining social support
from what little came over the World Service on shortwave and the odd - days
old copies - of UK newspapers, but this coupled with occasional visits home
and comments from leftward leaning family members painted a sorry picture
indeed.
The closure of the Victorian institutions had effects about which I still
feel ambivalent, both in general and in particular, (I have personal
knowlege of this), I really could not argue for them (large numbers of
unfortunate people incarcerated in institutions), or against (large numbers
of unfortunate people abandoned in their families homes, or worse, on the
street). I could not argue for them because there are documented stories of
people who had been placed there for what we (as a society) would consider
ridiculous reasons (having a child out of wedlock), and having been left
there for life. [The Observer Review front page artice within the last
couple of years, sorry I don't have the copy to hand].
I know that the closure of the Victorian asylums was the long term result of
progress in developing drugs that help schizophrenia and other psychotic
disorders of the mind, but it would appear that this was seized upon by
government as an opportunity to save money by closing institutions that were
still required for the most disturbed people. The result has been a gross
polarisation where the majority were kicked out onto the streets and the
most disturbed locked up for life in Broadmoor and Rampton. Many of the
rest are now on the streets or living with and disrupting the lives of their
aging relatives.
Quote
The development of alternatives to the large mental hospitals began, but was
slow and patchy, often relying on enthusiastic and dedicated innovators.
Psychiatric units were developed in District General Hospitals, beginning in
the Manchester area. Outpatient departments opened; the beginnings of a
community psychiatric nursing service emerged; day hospitals were
established. But there was no effective system of planning, no overall
organisation of community services and no financial backing to allow
substantial development. Warnings were made at an early stage that community
care for the mentally ill was not helpful if the rhetoric could not be met
with adequate resources (Titmuss, 1961).
Unquote
from
http://www.scmh.org.uk/80256FBD004F3555/vWeb/flPCHN6FMJSN/$file/overview+of+mental+health+policy.pdf
and http://www.institutions.org.uk/asylums/index.htm
The sale of many to developers for conversion to luxury flats has been akin
to rubbing salt in the wound. I used to pass Friern Barnet twice a day on
the bus going to work for Finchley Borough Council as a carpenter during the
1970s - and now it's sold as luxury flats - see below, it makes me want to
vomit.
Quote
Princess Park Manor offers a rare and unique opportunity to acquire luxury
apartments in a period listed building, set within 30 acres of parkland all
within minutes of London’s main commuter network. Approached through
electronically controlled gates, Princess Park Manor projects a majestic
profile worthy of its’ original classic design. Originally conceived in
1845, Princess Park Manor stands as a monument to the originality and flair
of the original architect – S.W. Daukes Esq.
Unquote
from -
http://www.primelocation.com/new-homes/browse/agents/cohgr/come/come999000103/
It was not however the mentally ill that caught my attention in the 1980s,
on the Strand. It was those young people, forced to leave home through,
perhaps, not getting on with a step-parent, or for whatever other reasons
one leaves home at a young age, but being unable, until the age of 18, to
secure either housing or sufficent government funds to survive independently
in a city without using hostels for the homeless. To my mind this situation
was reminiscent of the Victorian days, and indeed if you recall, the phrase
"Victorian values" was used at the time, but presumably in the sense of
self-help, not with reference to the poverty of those time.
The sale of council housing, and incidentally, the abandonment of the
Parker-Morris standards (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee ) for new housing in
general, (space and amenties regulation for the uninitiated), was and
remains, a disgrace.
Lastly on a personal note, I admit to carrying a torch for public housing.
It has saved many from a life on the streets, and from time to time (mainly
it would seem after the last two world wars), resulted in legislation that
has had a positive knock on effect for private development as well, through
legislation. Thatcher undid all this, which is why modern houses have such
small rooms (and cardboard walls). It is not an accident. Why do people
buy them???
Paul
tony sayer
>Parker-Morris standards (
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee ) for new housing in
>general, (space and amenties regulation for the uninitiated), was and
>remains, a disgrace.
Yes I'd agree with you on that one. All down to planning policies etc...
>
>Lastly on a personal note, I admit to carrying a torch for public housing.
>It has saved many from a life on the streets, and from time to time (mainly
>it would seem after the last two world wars), resulted in legislation that
>has had a positive knock on effect for private development as well, through
>legislation. Thatcher undid all this, which is why modern houses have such
>small rooms (and cardboard walls). It is not an accident. Why do people
>buy them???
>
Simple.
The cost of the land that has been released by the powers that be, and
planning policies and a "build nothing nowhere" attitude on the behalf
of those who are housed already. This all makes building land very
expensive and forces the developers to cram as many dwelling units as
they can into the land available.
Which leads to the wrong sort of housing being built.
And why should it be "public" housing?
Something that could be reversed at anytime "if" the political will was
there......
--
Tony Sayer
s0x
> I heard that man hole covers were dissappearing all up and down the
> country since they're worth so much as scrap metal! Not sure what the
> bolts would come in handy for though?!
Well I only mentioned this a little while ago and it seems that suddenly
a load of manhole covers have gone missing in Cambridge. They're worth
£100 each as scrap, but cost a lot more to replace [IIRC]
Paul
tony sayer wrote:
The political will isn't there in any way shape or form towards any
policy resembling public or municipal support for the populace. The
redistributive policies of Gordon Brown to ward off child poverty are
welcome, but it is difficult to think of other areas of policy that
this wolf (Tory) in sheep's (old Labour) clothing Labour government has
come up with.
Even if, and it's a big if, I accept your position that council houses
were "a bad thing", why do they not reinstate housing standards. The
phrase "decent housing" is almost meaningless in a modern context. At
the time the phrase was first used (during the Attlee government), it
was being used with reference to inner city slums where several people
lived together in one or more rooms and had to go outside for water
from a tap shared with several families in the worst cases.
I would recommend the film "Housing Problems" from the BFI if you need
reminding what a slum is. I certainly needed reminding because I'd
never seen one and hope I never do. I do not regard leaking tower
blocks in the same light. Not great certainly but hot and cold running
water to all flats, large rooms, but slums, I don't think so.
To accept the position that we do not need council houses, you have to
accept that you are happy to be one of the 70% who have been born into
good circumstances, have a good education, and sufficient natural
talents to ensure that your life is likely to be a financial and social
success - and incidentally good health, all your life. Unless we
decide to adopt quasi-Nazi policies with respect to less talented or
successful members of society then a choice has to be made as to what
degree they may be supported in different ways through general
taxation.
My position is quite simply that some provision needs to be made from
general taxation for public housing for rent, thus preserving the lower
rungs of the ladder of life.
The basic rate of tax needs to go up to pay for it but this "Tory"
government won't even consider it.
Paul
Paul
tony sayer wrote:
The political will isn't there in any way shape or form towards any
Kevin Symonds
"Paul"
> My position is quite simply that some provision needs to be made from
> general taxation for public housing for rent, thus preserving the lower
> rungs of the ladder of life.<
Really you just want councils to own a decent amount of property to rent out
again right? Good idea.
Considering 2/3 of Cambridge council housing was sold off* I wonder how much
would be needed to get back to pre right-to-buy levels let alone the number
of actual residents (not 'incomers') like myself who would like to live in a
council house.
But more importantly does anyone know how much this would actually cost?
What is the unit cost price of building flats let alone 2-3 bedroom houses?
I'm sure it's a huge amount more than it used to be and thats part of the
problem.
It's a massive capital investment that would have to be given to local
authorities (which will never happen) instead of relying on private
companies only making money for themselves but I can't imagine that it is
financially viable in any way.
Love it to happen though.
Kevin
*however I feel the idea that this has meant so many more people cannot have
council housing now is wrong. It's right in the long term but in the shorter
term those people wouldn't have gone anywhere. Some residents would most
likely stay in the same house for a very long time so that house/flat
wouldn't be available now anyway.
tony sayer
<test.r...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>tony sayer wrote:
>
>> >The sale of council housing, and incidentally, the abandonment of the
>> >Parker-Morris standards (
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Morris_Committee ) for new housing in
>> >general, (space and amenties regulation for the uninitiated), was and
>> >remains, a disgrace.
>>
>> Yes I'd agree with you on that one. All down to planning policies etc...
>> >
>> >Lastly on a personal note, I admit to carrying a torch for public housing.
>> >It has saved many from a life on the streets, and from time to time (mainly
>> >it would seem after the last two world wars), resulted in legislation that
>> >has had a positive knock on effect for private development as well, through
>> >legislation. Thatcher undid all this, which is why modern houses have such
>> >small rooms (and cardboard walls). It is not an accident. Why do people
>> >buy them???
>> >
>>
>> Simple.
>>
>> The cost of the land that has been released by the powers that be, and
>> planning policies and a "build nothing nowhere" attitude on the behalf
>> of those who are housed already. This all makes building land very
>> expensive and forces the developers to cram as many dwelling units as
>> they can into the land available.
>>
>> Which leads to the wrong sort of housing being built.
>>
>> And why should it be "public" housing?
>>
>> Something that could be reversed at anytime "if" the political will was
>> there......
>
Suggest you read the other posting...
>The political will isn't there in any way shape or form towards any
>policy resembling public or municipal support for the populace. The
>redistributive policies of Gordon Brown to ward off child poverty are
>welcome, but it is difficult to think of other areas of policy that
>this wolf (Tory) in sheep's (old Labour) clothing Labour government has
>come up with.
It doesn't seem to be a big political issue anyway. How many people do
the politicos here have badgering them about affordable housing?. So all
I'll bet..
>
>Even if, and it's a big if, I accept your position that council houses
>were "a bad thing", why do they not reinstate housing standards. The
>phrase "decent housing" is almost meaningless in a modern context. At
>the time the phrase was first used (during the Attlee government), it
>was being used with reference to inner city slums where several people
>lived together in one or more rooms and had to go outside for water
>from a tap shared with several families in the worst cases.
Well even the best of Barrett boxes doesn't have one tap in the house
but as you say Paul the standards are piss poor. I note that theres
usually more than one place to do that though;-!...
>
>I would recommend the film "Housing Problems" from the BFI if you need
>reminding what a slum is. I certainly needed reminding because I'd
>never seen one and hope I never do. I do not regard leaking tower
>blocks in the same light. Not great certainly but hot and cold running
>water to all flats, large rooms, but slums, I don't think so.
I've seen a slum. My Aunt and her family lived in one up in Lancashire
back in the 50's 10 of 'em lived there in that Two bed room house. They
seemed happy with their lot though!. Course by today's standards it
would be unacceptable.
>
>To accept the position that we do not need council houses, you have to
>accept that you are happy to be one of the 70% who have been born into
>good circumstances, have a good education, and sufficient natural
>talents to ensure that your life is likely to be a financial and social
>success - and incidentally good health, all your life. Unless we
>decide to adopt quasi-Nazi policies with respect to less talented or
>successful members of society then a choice has to be made as to what
>degree they may be supported in different ways through general
>taxation.
I think that we've possibly moved on from there. What we now seem to
have done is encouraged a "benefit dependency".
And no.. I'm not advocating the camps for them..
>
>My position is quite simply that some provision needs to be made from
>general taxation for public housing for rent, thus preserving the lower
>rungs of the ladder of life.
>
>The basic rate of tax needs to go up to pay for it but this "Tory"
>government won't even consider it.
Don't think its a tax problem at all. Its down to real affordable
housing, but its where its built thats the problem....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<cleve...@hotmail.com> writes
As already stated its all down to the costs of land and the respective
permissions on that. It is housing that doesn't need to be provided by
the council at all, several housing societies are in existence already
doing this. If the cost of said housing was low enough then there would
be plenty of people in the private sector already doing that.
Its not happening and the reason is the lack of the political will to
release the land required. If land costs were lower or if it was simply
available, at anywhere the right price, then it would already be
happening. Its not though, its very expensive and who can blame the
developer ,making the maximum, call it profit if you like;-! From the
piece of land that the said house sits on.
There is no real sizeable developments likely to take place expect the
ones in my back yard at clay farm 'tho I'm not bothered about that but a
lot of people are, and don't want Cambridge to change the way or size it
is, they quite like its exclusivity. Note that any planned development
is met with opposition citing traffic, infrastructure water supply
sewage treatment capacity, and pollution and all the usual reasons when
what they really mean is NIMBY!.
That's most probably the reason why people can't afford to live here and
young people have been priced out of the market. Course its a very
selfish attitude but thats human nature for you!.
Anyway what's wrong with the people who live in "council houses" having
the right to buy a house?. If the want to rent as a lot do its a social
mobility issue then they can do that. Why shouldn't say the average
working person not be able to have an affordable house
if he/she wants?..
Land...
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Ward
news:cqzU0TCi...@bancom.co.uk...
>
> There is no real sizeable developments likely to take place expect the
> ones in my back yard at clay farm
Not correct. Part of the northern fringe is already being developed, there
are several other bits of it scheduled, and then there's the development in
the east. The southern fringe is just one of a number of urban extensions
that make up a very large growth agenda.
Personally I think council housing (whether actually run by a council or
some other RSL doesn't really matter) is a Bad Thing. It's a
once-in-a-lifetime lottery that some people win, due to being in the right
place in the right circumstances in the right time, and other people lose.
Someone who gets a council house due to their circumstances at age 25 might
be far too rich and well established in life to qualify for a new council
house by the time they're 45, but they get to keep the one they've got for
life at half the market rent, subsidised by other people many of whom are
less well off, and the next 25 year old who's in a bad way gets nowhere to
live. Google can probably remember the previous threads on this subject.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
>
> It doesn't seem to be a big political issue anyway.
In fact it is.
> How many people do
> the politicos here have badgering them about affordable housing?.
Lots. All the time.
> So[d?] all I'll bet..
You lose your bet.
Colin Rosenstiel
cleve...@hotmail.com (Kevin Symonds) wrote:
> Considering 2/3 of Cambridge council housing was sold off
Actually, more like one third but don't let that put you off.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Kevin Symonds
"Colin Rosenstiel"
> Actually, more like one third but don't let that put you off.<
Maybe I misheard the discussion in that case :) It was a councillor that was
talking about it.
Maybe he said 2/3rds were left?
Kevin
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cqzU0TCi...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> There is no real sizeable developments likely to take place expect the
>> ones in my back yard at clay farm
>
>Not correct. Part of the northern fringe is already being developed, there
>are several other bits of it scheduled, and then there's the development in
>the east. The southern fringe is just one of a number of urban extensions
>that make up a very large growth agenda.
>
As thats already on the go then I didn't count that in;).
The east?, meanest thou Marshals?...
>Personally I think council housing (whether actually run by a council or
>some other RSL doesn't really matter) is a Bad Thing. It's a
>once-in-a-lifetime lottery that some people win, due to being in the right
>place in the right circumstances in the right time, and other people lose.
>Someone who gets a council house due to their circumstances at age 25 might
>be far too rich and well established in life to qualify for a new council
>house by the time they're 45, but they get to keep the one they've got for
>life at half the market rent, subsidised by other people many of whom are
>less well off, and the next 25 year old who's in a bad way gets nowhere to
>live. Google can probably remember the previous threads on this subject.
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:XaBWYfCp...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be a big political issue anyway.
>
>In fact it is.
Pardon me guv, I don't recall reading much if anything about it in the
local press?. If its as big an issue as you say it is what are you doing
about it then?..
>
>> How many people do
>> the politicos here have badgering them about affordable housing?.
>
>Lots. All the time.
Is that the same for all local councillors?..
>
>> So[d?] all I'll bet..
>
>You lose your bet.
>
Winsome loose some;)
--
Tony Sayer
Jennifer Liddle
>
> Is that the same for all local councillors?..
>
It's the same for this one.
--
Jennifer Liddle
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/~js10/
Colin Rosenstiel
cleve...@hotmail.com (Kevin Symonds) wrote:
Figures.
--
Colin Rosenstiel