Confusion over housing policy after council loses legal challenge over 200-home scheme in Clifton

The Clifton grain store site

The Clifton grain store site

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political Reporter

UNCERTAINTY hangs over York’s housing policies after city leaders lost a legal challenge, allowing developers to build 200 homes without including any affordable ones.

The High Court yesterday dismissed City of York Council’s attempt to overturn a Government planning inspector’s ruling that Water Lane Ltd (WLL) can build on the former grain store site at Clifton with no affordable housing commitment.

The authority played down the potential implications for other city sites, but developers said a precedent had been set.

The council, which brought the case against WLL and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, wanted 25 per cent of the Clifton homes to be affordable, but WLL said this would leave it with a £1.7 million loss.

It appealed, and national planning inspector John Gray decided WLL could build with no affordable commitment.

He said the council needed a flexible policy because of York’s housing land shortage, and said affordable homes could be provided at the grain store site in future if the economy improved.

In its appeal, the council claimed Mr Gray’s reasoning was “inadequate” and his decision “irrational”, but both defendants said it was “sufficiently clear”.

Giving his judgment, Judge John Behrens said Mr Gray believed developments like the Clifton scheme “should not be unduly delayed by seeking too high a percentage of affordable housing”.

Mike Slater, the council’s assistant director of city and environmental services, said the judgment supported York’s need for affordable homes, and the position at the site had now been “clarified”.

But he said: “Because this was such a complex and difficult case, we are confident this was unique and will not create a precedent for future developments.”

Mr Slater said the council, which must pay the Government’s £8,648 legal costs, would work with the Clifton site’s owners and developers and he hoped affordable housing could be included as the economy recovers. WLL has yet to comment.

John Reeves, chairman of developers The Helmsley Group, said: “It’s a victory for common sense – the inspector felt the need for development was greater than the need for affordable homes, and there are probably implications for lots of York sites.

“I believe it justifies the stance many developers have been taking, that the inclusion of affordable housing makes development very difficult to deliver.”

Daniel Gath, managing director of Daniel Gath Homes, said the case “inevitably” set a precedent, but said: “We have to provide affordable housing as there is an acute shortage and I think York’s quotas are much better than they were and the council has been open to negotiation.”

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:02pm Fri 7 Feb 14

meme says...

a victory for common sense
As regards Mr Slater's attempt to make it look like Council were right to waste our money, as well as the developers time and costs, I suspect any intelligent reader can draw their own conclusion as to truth behind his quote which was probably written by the spin team of CoYC
a victory for common sense As regards Mr Slater's attempt to make it look like Council were right to waste our money, as well as the developers time and costs, I suspect any intelligent reader can draw their own conclusion as to truth behind his quote which was probably written by the spin team of CoYC meme
  • Score: -9

4:10pm Fri 7 Feb 14

yourkidding says...

meme well said
meme well said yourkidding
  • Score: -18

4:29pm Fri 7 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Great news, get going and build some houses. People moving up from small terraces make a gap for new buyers and at the cheaper end become more "Affordable".
Shame us taxpayers have to pick up the bill for yet another C of York Council fiasco.
Great news, get going and build some houses. People moving up from small terraces make a gap for new buyers and at the cheaper end become more "Affordable". Shame us taxpayers have to pick up the bill for yet another C of York Council fiasco. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: 2

4:51pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Dr Brian says...

Alexander and his buffoons wasting more of our money!
Alexander and his buffoons wasting more of our money! Dr Brian
  • Score: 1

5:27pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Redcap198 says...

At last a victory for common sense, it's about time the leader of York council and his sidekick realise that instead of trying to follow a political dogma they listen to builders about the problems their stance which has yet again cost York tax payers wasted money. hopefully the builders will now be able to go ahead with more jobs coming yo York people.
At last a victory for common sense, it's about time the leader of York council and his sidekick realise that instead of trying to follow a political dogma they listen to builders about the problems their stance which has yet again cost York tax payers wasted money. hopefully the builders will now be able to go ahead with more jobs coming yo York people. Redcap198
  • Score: -18

5:36pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Alexander and his buffoons wasting more of our money!
on a legal challenge that yesterday he said he wanted the government to get rid of !

James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “Due process should be followed and people should have the right to appeal, but legal challenges one after the other must end.”

“I would like to see the debate move from some people being against the development of homes at any cost to working in partnership with councillors and developers to ensure new homes meet the needs of local communities.”
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Alexander and his buffoons wasting more of our money![/p][/quote]on a legal challenge that yesterday he said he wanted the government to get rid of ! James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “Due process should be followed and people should have the right to appeal, but legal challenges one after the other must end.” “I would like to see the debate move from some people being against the development of homes at any cost to working in partnership with councillors and developers to ensure new homes meet the needs of local communities.” Ichabod76
  • Score: -28

5:52pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision.

I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing.

Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse.

York Council are clueless !
Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision. I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse. York Council are clueless ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -33

6:12pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

There are nine (9) comments posted so far, and all have +ve (thumbs up) scores so far as follows..

+20, +12, +14, +15, +4, +4, +4, +3 & +1

This is as a record before the Council/Labour score hacker starts his/her tampering.
There are nine (9) comments posted so far, and all have +ve (thumbs up) scores so far as follows.. +20, +12, +14, +15, +4, +4, +4, +3 & +1 This is as a record before the Council/Labour score hacker starts his/her tampering. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -32

6:19pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows..

+25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6

Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking.

This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.
The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows.. +25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6 Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking. This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -38

6:20pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Vine Weevil says...

The developer provided an affordability statement saying they could afford 15% affordable housing but not 25%. Planning Law is unambiguous and makes it explicitly clear that a council is legally obliged to accept the reduced level once a developer has produced the required documentation. The council is also entitled to claw back any profits above the level detailed in the affordability statement. What they cannot do is flout the law and assume a level of profitability which does not exist. Officers of York City council have demonstrated complete criminal negligence and should be sacked. More to the point, their actions have led to a loss of social housing and increase in council tax.
The developer provided an affordability statement saying they could afford 15% affordable housing but not 25%. Planning Law is unambiguous and makes it explicitly clear that a council is legally obliged to accept the reduced level once a developer has produced the required documentation. The council is also entitled to claw back any profits above the level detailed in the affordability statement. What they cannot do is flout the law and assume a level of profitability which does not exist. Officers of York City council have demonstrated complete criminal negligence and should be sacked. More to the point, their actions have led to a loss of social housing and increase in council tax. Vine Weevil
  • Score: -9

6:23pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Look out for the next story, which is about the Council's mismanagement of S106 monies, where they have been sitting on over £1m for over 5 years. Some of the money has been unspent from over 10 years ago, where the legal agreements require the money to be spent within 5 years, or if not, handed back to the donor (developer).

The story should be out by early next week at the latest.
Look out for the next story, which is about the Council's mismanagement of S106 monies, where they have been sitting on over £1m for over 5 years. Some of the money has been unspent from over 10 years ago, where the legal agreements require the money to be spent within 5 years, or if not, handed back to the donor (developer). The story should be out by early next week at the latest. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -28

6:25pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Vine Weevil wrote:
The developer provided an affordability statement saying they could afford 15% affordable housing but not 25%. Planning Law is unambiguous and makes it explicitly clear that a council is legally obliged to accept the reduced level once a developer has produced the required documentation. The council is also entitled to claw back any profits above the level detailed in the affordability statement. What they cannot do is flout the law and assume a level of profitability which does not exist. Officers of York City council have demonstrated complete criminal negligence and should be sacked. More to the point, their actions have led to a loss of social housing and increase in council tax.
Agreed - they should be sacked.

They know who they are !!!
[quote][p][bold]Vine Weevil[/bold] wrote: The developer provided an affordability statement saying they could afford 15% affordable housing but not 25%. Planning Law is unambiguous and makes it explicitly clear that a council is legally obliged to accept the reduced level once a developer has produced the required documentation. The council is also entitled to claw back any profits above the level detailed in the affordability statement. What they cannot do is flout the law and assume a level of profitability which does not exist. Officers of York City council have demonstrated complete criminal negligence and should be sacked. More to the point, their actions have led to a loss of social housing and increase in council tax.[/p][/quote]Agreed - they should be sacked. They know who they are !!! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -66

6:44pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows..

+27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7

A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!!

Get them out in 2015 !
Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -58

6:57pm Fri 7 Feb 14

jimbell says...

“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
― Émile Zola
“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” ― Émile Zola jimbell
  • Score: -45

7:20pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

jimbell wrote:
“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” ― Émile Zola
Yes, very true !

The lid will soon be lifted on the 'goings on' at the Council.
[quote][p][bold]jimbell[/bold] wrote: “If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” ― Émile Zola[/p][/quote]Yes, very true ! The lid will soon be lifted on the 'goings on' at the Council. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -46

8:12pm Fri 7 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Not a word yet from Buzz ,Jonthan, Budah and the rest...........I hope they are pleased that at last York will get some new houses built. I am sure that even they will applaud the fact that some progress at last is being made.
This is a bit like "What did the romans do for us"
Well......Housing, jobs, extra trade for all the merchants and suppliers.
Dare I say it........all that extra council tax going straight to C of York Council to fund all those wasteful pet projects that fly in the face of reason. I could go on but my T is going cold. So whos first ? The smart money is on Buzz...........the empty tomato can ................ratt
le on Buzz
Not a word yet from Buzz ,Jonthan, Budah and the rest...........I hope they are pleased that at last York will get some new houses built. I am sure that even they will applaud the fact that some progress at last is being made. This is a bit like "What did the romans do for us" Well......Housing, jobs, extra trade for all the merchants and suppliers. Dare I say it........all that extra council tax going straight to C of York Council to fund all those wasteful pet projects that fly in the face of reason. I could go on but my T is going cold. So whos first ? The smart money is on Buzz...........the empty tomato can ................ratt le on Buzz tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -52

8:25pm Fri 7 Feb 14

bjb says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows..

+27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7

A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!!

Get them out in 2015 !
So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves? bjb
  • Score: 81

9:01pm Fri 7 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

bjb wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows..

+27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7

A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!!

Get them out in 2015 !
So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?
At last you found me out..............rig
ht wing fascist ...well can I just say that
Ill Duce is no relation to me. Nor did I ever visit the Tyrol .....cant afford to, poverty you know ! Eureka that's it. I cant afford to visit the Tyrol so I must be in POVERTY...........pl
ease inform TLS..........she needs to keep abreast of these facts for her files and next announcement.
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?[/p][/quote]At last you found me out..............rig ht wing fascist ...well can I just say that Ill Duce is no relation to me. Nor did I ever visit the Tyrol .....cant afford to, poverty you know ! Eureka that's it. I cant afford to visit the Tyrol so I must be in POVERTY...........pl ease inform TLS..........she needs to keep abreast of these facts for her files and next announcement. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -51

9:52pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Black Fox says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision. I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse. York Council are clueless !
Not quite.

Daniel Gath successfully negotiated with CoYC recently to reduce the number of affordable houses on a development in Strensall called The Laurels.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision. I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse. York Council are clueless ![/p][/quote]Not quite. Daniel Gath successfully negotiated with CoYC recently to reduce the number of affordable houses on a development in Strensall called The Laurels. Black Fox
  • Score: -63

10:50pm Fri 7 Feb 14

X5019c says...

When will the Press sort out there IT. I have just watched as someone has rigged the comments in favour of their own political agenda.
One comment went from + 22 likes to - 64 in a minute.

It's a disgrace.
When will the Press sort out there IT. I have just watched as someone has rigged the comments in favour of their own political agenda. One comment went from + 22 likes to - 64 in a minute. It's a disgrace. X5019c
  • Score: 97

11:28pm Fri 7 Feb 14

courier46 says...

Good for them!
Good for them! courier46
  • Score: -10

12:36am Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Black Fox wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote: Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision. I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse. York Council are clueless !
Not quite. Daniel Gath successfully negotiated with CoYC recently to reduce the number of affordable houses on a development in Strensall called The Laurels.
Just looked at the committee report and the planning consent for this site (11/00676/FUL) and there is no mention of any affordable housing requirement or commuted sums in lieu of on site provision. There was a negotiation to drop the requirement for the development to be Code level 3 of the CfSH.

I'm aware that DGH provided one affordable dwelling and in addition paid a commuted sum of £61,710 in lieu of further on site provsion on their site of 9 dwellings, at The Green, Upper Poppleton (11/01134/FUL), so perhaps this is where they were able to negotiate a reduction from the 25% on site requirement, which would have meant two dwellings on site, not one ?

Whatever it was, this shows that the council is now trying to make good on its previous intransigence in negotiations, but, be under no illusion, Black Fox, they will play games when and where they can, and there is no guarantee of consistency or fairness with them. Ask the many developers who they have messed about, like Water Lane Ltd, Grantside and others !
[quote][p][bold]Black Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Danny Gath is wrong. The Council have not been flexible. That is why they lost this appeal, because they would not budge from 25%. The developer had offered 9% at one stage, but the council refused to negotiate - I read this in the appeal decision. I suggest that Mr Gath reads the draft Local Plan, to see what the Council are intending to do with the threshold. This is currently set at 15 dwellings for urban sites, with a threshold of 2 dwellings in rural (villages with less than 5,000 population), but, the DLP proposes a blanket 2 Dwelling threshold ! For a site of 14 dwellings, a developer will have to pay £300,000 to the council in lieu of on site provision of affordable housing. Furthermore, where a developer can show that a site is not viable to provide 20% (brownfield) or 30% (greenfield) the council are planning to force the developer to allow housing associations to take over the plots to build any difference. Instead of improving the system to allow private housebuilders to build more houses, they are making it worse. York Council are clueless ![/p][/quote]Not quite. Daniel Gath successfully negotiated with CoYC recently to reduce the number of affordable houses on a development in Strensall called The Laurels.[/p][/quote]Just looked at the committee report and the planning consent for this site (11/00676/FUL) and there is no mention of any affordable housing requirement or commuted sums in lieu of on site provision. There was a negotiation to drop the requirement for the development to be Code level 3 of the CfSH. I'm aware that DGH provided one affordable dwelling and in addition paid a commuted sum of £61,710 in lieu of further on site provsion on their site of 9 dwellings, at The Green, Upper Poppleton (11/01134/FUL), so perhaps this is where they were able to negotiate a reduction from the 25% on site requirement, which would have meant two dwellings on site, not one ? Whatever it was, this shows that the council is now trying to make good on its previous intransigence in negotiations, but, be under no illusion, Black Fox, they will play games when and where they can, and there is no guarantee of consistency or fairness with them. Ask the many developers who they have messed about, like Water Lane Ltd, Grantside and others ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -53

12:39am Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Correction, the DGH site at Poppleton had a planning ref of 12/01134/FUL.
Correction, the DGH site at Poppleton had a planning ref of 12/01134/FUL. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -34

12:48am Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bjb wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 !
So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?
At 7.20pm before the idiot hacker perverted the scores, the highest score for the first comment was +34. That meant that over 34 people had voted it a thumbs up, not 9. Add to that any negative scores that would have cancelled out a +ve score, and you have 34 more +ve than negative scores.

Interesting that bjb posted his/her nasty bitter and twisted comment at 8.25pm, and then the scores were hacked..... think we know who the culprit is.

MESSAGE TO PRESS:
Keep an eye on bjb, and if they are suspected of the hacking, suspend/cancel their account. Thanks. Lets face it he/she is the troll here !
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?[/p][/quote]At 7.20pm before the idiot hacker perverted the scores, the highest score for the first comment was +34. That meant that over 34 people had voted it a thumbs up, not 9. Add to that any negative scores that would have cancelled out a +ve score, and you have 34 more +ve than negative scores. Interesting that bjb posted his/her nasty bitter and twisted comment at 8.25pm, and then the scores were hacked..... think we know who the culprit is. MESSAGE TO PRESS: Keep an eye on bjb, and if they are suspected of the hacking, suspend/cancel their account. Thanks. Lets face it he/she is the troll here ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -25

4:43am Sat 8 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck!
good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck! Magicman!
  • Score: 20

6:30am Sat 8 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Magicman! wrote:
good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck!
You are quite right its going to get busy. They may have to experiment with the water lane traffic lights again and possibly Lendal Bridge.
Never mind they will have somewhere like £200000.00 per year in extra council tax to throw around. I wonder what rubbish pet projects that will get squandered on instead of keeping jobs and services.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck![/p][/quote]You are quite right its going to get busy. They may have to experiment with the water lane traffic lights again and possibly Lendal Bridge. Never mind they will have somewhere like £200000.00 per year in extra council tax to throw around. I wonder what rubbish pet projects that will get squandered on instead of keeping jobs and services. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -23

9:05am Sat 8 Feb 14

roskoboskovic says...

why do we need more homes in york.the speculators and investors will only buy them up and charge exhorbitant rents to students and the like.i have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we need more houses.our kids can t afford them,either buying or renting and there is no work in york.our infrastructure is full up our roads are gridlocked and developers are intent on building on flood plains.
why do we need more homes in york.the speculators and investors will only buy them up and charge exhorbitant rents to students and the like.i have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we need more houses.our kids can t afford them,either buying or renting and there is no work in york.our infrastructure is full up our roads are gridlocked and developers are intent on building on flood plains. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -44

9:26am Sat 8 Feb 14

chelk says...

See the Numbnut has altered the scores yet again
See the Numbnut has altered the scores yet again chelk
  • Score: -40

11:11am Sat 8 Feb 14

bjb says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
bjb wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 !
So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?
At 7.20pm before the idiot hacker perverted the scores, the highest score for the first comment was +34. That meant that over 34 people had voted it a thumbs up, not 9. Add to that any negative scores that would have cancelled out a +ve score, and you have 34 more +ve than negative scores.

Interesting that bjb posted his/her nasty bitter and twisted comment at 8.25pm, and then the scores were hacked..... think we know who the culprit is.

MESSAGE TO PRESS:
Keep an eye on bjb, and if they are suspected of the hacking, suspend/cancel their account. Thanks. Lets face it he/she is the troll here !
So it is quite in order for some to make references to left wing Marxists, but not right wing fascists!

If the press do investigate accounts I have no worries at all as I always post under my own alias and do not play games with the scores, unlike some on here that use multiple aliases. If the scores were to be analysed, and all the multiple aliases were removed there actually would not be enough to mean anything.

I just wish the Press would just remove the voting and just go back to us having to guess who is using what alias at any given time. This was quite interesting when the Monks Cross 2 debate was in full swing when certain people with vested interesting in the development being refused attempted to drum up support by posting with several aliases.

When people shout on here 'get them booted out', who do we replace them with? As Tim Wonnacott say's you could not get a piece of Bronco between any of them. Whomever runs the council will always seek to promote the vested interests of there own supporters, unless of course it is the LibDems and don't think they even know who is likely to support them next time round.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Going great guns - the first nine (9) comments scores now are as follows.. +27, +17, +21, +21, +10, +10, +11, +9 & +7 A true honest reflection of public opinion - just what the Council and Labour lot do not want to see !!! Get them out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So you think 9 comments from right wing fascist trolls on here is a true reflection of public opinion. I think not. How do we know the + scores aren't the LibDem/Tories who wrote the comments doing it themselves?[/p][/quote]At 7.20pm before the idiot hacker perverted the scores, the highest score for the first comment was +34. That meant that over 34 people had voted it a thumbs up, not 9. Add to that any negative scores that would have cancelled out a +ve score, and you have 34 more +ve than negative scores. Interesting that bjb posted his/her nasty bitter and twisted comment at 8.25pm, and then the scores were hacked..... think we know who the culprit is. MESSAGE TO PRESS: Keep an eye on bjb, and if they are suspected of the hacking, suspend/cancel their account. Thanks. Lets face it he/she is the troll here ![/p][/quote]So it is quite in order for some to make references to left wing Marxists, but not right wing fascists! If the press do investigate accounts I have no worries at all as I always post under my own alias and do not play games with the scores, unlike some on here that use multiple aliases. If the scores were to be analysed, and all the multiple aliases were removed there actually would not be enough to mean anything. I just wish the Press would just remove the voting and just go back to us having to guess who is using what alias at any given time. This was quite interesting when the Monks Cross 2 debate was in full swing when certain people with vested interesting in the development being refused attempted to drum up support by posting with several aliases. When people shout on here 'get them booted out', who do we replace them with? As Tim Wonnacott say's you could not get a piece of Bronco between any of them. Whomever runs the council will always seek to promote the vested interests of there own supporters, unless of course it is the LibDems and don't think they even know who is likely to support them next time round. bjb
  • Score: 52

11:16am Sat 8 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Local Authorities usually and sensibly have a budget contingency, for the legal costs of a small number of successful Planning Appeals like this. Most Planning refusals do not go to appeal, and not all those that do are successful. So despite the apparent "manna from heaven" for the Labour-bashing brigade, this is all very much par for the course.
Local Authorities usually and sensibly have a budget contingency, for the legal costs of a small number of successful Planning Appeals like this. Most Planning refusals do not go to appeal, and not all those that do are successful. So despite the apparent "manna from heaven" for the Labour-bashing brigade, this is all very much par for the course. pedalling paul
  • Score: 39

11:51am Sat 8 Feb 14

courier46 says...

To bjb,i think you have to vote for who you think listens to and does the right thing for the people.A lot of comments on here are not Labour bashing it`s directed against the morons in charge and there personal pet projects (sorry to use that phrase but it really does seem that way).
It is hard to know who to vote for, just the ones who destroy our city the least I suppose,that is why these morons need to be out in 2015.
To bjb,i think you have to vote for who you think listens to and does the right thing for the people.A lot of comments on here are not Labour bashing it`s directed against the morons in charge and there personal pet projects (sorry to use that phrase but it really does seem that way). It is hard to know who to vote for, just the ones who destroy our city the least I suppose,that is why these morons need to be out in 2015. courier46
  • Score: -48

1:49pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Local Authorities usually and sensibly have a budget contingency, for the legal costs of a small number of successful Planning Appeals like this. Most Planning refusals do not go to appeal, and not all those that do are successful. So despite the apparent "manna from heaven" for the Labour-bashing brigade, this is all very much par for the course.
Rubbish.

You don't challenge or appeal against sound judgements and decisions, not when there is a high risk of losing and having costs awarded against you.

The council get it wrong too many times, and that costs US money !

There is a saying, that 'you learn from your mistakes' - not City of York Council !

This is not par for the course at all, neither is it 'Labour bashing'. It is valid criticism of the Council, but, if officers and members behind this decision are Labour (or marxists) then they deserve to be bashed !
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Local Authorities usually and sensibly have a budget contingency, for the legal costs of a small number of successful Planning Appeals like this. Most Planning refusals do not go to appeal, and not all those that do are successful. So despite the apparent "manna from heaven" for the Labour-bashing brigade, this is all very much par for the course.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. You don't challenge or appeal against sound judgements and decisions, not when there is a high risk of losing and having costs awarded against you. The council get it wrong too many times, and that costs US money ! There is a saying, that 'you learn from your mistakes' - not City of York Council ! This is not par for the course at all, neither is it 'Labour bashing'. It is valid criticism of the Council, but, if officers and members behind this decision are Labour (or marxists) then they deserve to be bashed ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -81

3:12pm Sat 8 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

Vote them out and keep them out....Bring on the elections!
Vote them out and keep them out....Bring on the elections! eeoodares
  • Score: -32

4:53pm Sat 8 Feb 14

smudge2 says...

I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti
c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press. smudge2
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Sat 8 Feb 14

courier46 says...

smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti

c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Who were the home truths about?
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Who were the home truths about? courier46
  • Score: 9

5:13pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
You have every right to comment - it's called 'Freedom Of Speech'.

Some at York Council don't understand or support this concept, and seek to 'gag' dissenters.

York is not a communist state, despite the wishes and agenda of some for it to be run like one !
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]You have every right to comment - it's called 'Freedom Of Speech'. Some at York Council don't understand or support this concept, and seek to 'gag' dissenters. York is not a communist state, despite the wishes and agenda of some for it to be run like one ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -13

5:15pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Message for the score hacker - HACK OFF !
Message for the score hacker - HACK OFF ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -19

6:07pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti

c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Don't chuck your teddy out, keep on commenting. Don't take that message personally it's a stock message that everyone gets - where it says "upset a lot of readers" it's actually just the one who reported your comment.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Don't chuck your teddy out, keep on commenting. Don't take that message personally it's a stock message that everyone gets - where it says "upset a lot of readers" it's actually just the one who reported your comment. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 17

6:14pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti

c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 15

6:58pm Sat 8 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti


c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.
Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news.
So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ?
Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along.
You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.[/p][/quote]Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news. So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ? Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along. You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -28

7:20pm Sat 8 Feb 14

jimbell says...

“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
― Émile Zola .......... come on hacker get tapping ha ha ha ha ha
“If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.” ― Émile Zola .......... come on hacker get tapping ha ha ha ha ha jimbell
  • Score: -1

7:41pm Sat 8 Feb 14

who2believe says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows..

+25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6

Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking.

This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.
It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices.
BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows.. +25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6 Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking. This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.[/p][/quote]It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices. BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all. who2believe
  • Score: -1

7:50pm Sat 8 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

who2believe wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows..

+25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6

Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking.

This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.
It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices.
BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.
You can't vote more than once anyway, can you.
Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it.
Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest.
But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need.
[quote][p][bold]who2believe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows.. +25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6 Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking. This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.[/p][/quote]It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices. BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.[/p][/quote]You can't vote more than once anyway, can you. Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it. Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest. But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 6

8:09pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

tonyfromitaly wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti



c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.
Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news.
So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ?
Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along.
You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden.
Goady goady bait bait.
What are you, 12?
Is this a playground?
Get a hold of yourself.


Have you even been following? You can't have been reading what I ever had to say or you wouldn't be spewing all that irrelevant nonsense.

To be honest, I'm not even rsed. Big whoop. 200 homes. Not entirely sure what ML has to do with it either.
[quote][p][bold]tonyfromitaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.[/p][/quote]Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news. So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ? Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along. You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden.[/p][/quote]Goady goady bait bait. What are you, 12? Is this a playground? Get a hold of yourself. Have you even been following? You can't have been reading what I ever had to say or you wouldn't be spewing all that irrelevant nonsense. To be honest, I'm not even rsed. Big whoop. 200 homes. Not entirely sure what ML has to do with it either. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 16

9:20pm Sat 8 Feb 14

who2believe says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
who2believe wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows..

+25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6

Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking.

This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.
It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices.
BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.
You can't vote more than once anyway, can you.
Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it.
Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest.
But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need.
But you can vote as many times as you like CB, every device you own will let you vote as a guest once and if you don't mind loseing all your saved passwords and cookies you can clear your cache and history and vote again as a guest. That's why I say logged-in votes should count for 10 votes. You can't re-vote when it's done in your name/avatar.
I agree with the rest of your comment and given you an up vote.:-)
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who2believe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows.. +25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6 Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking. This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.[/p][/quote]It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices. BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.[/p][/quote]You can't vote more than once anyway, can you. Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it. Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest. But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need.[/p][/quote]But you can vote as many times as you like CB, every device you own will let you vote as a guest once and if you don't mind loseing all your saved passwords and cookies you can clear your cache and history and vote again as a guest. That's why I say logged-in votes should count for 10 votes. You can't re-vote when it's done in your name/avatar. I agree with the rest of your comment and given you an up vote.:-) who2believe
  • Score: 3

9:27pm Sat 8 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

who2believe wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
who2believe wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows..

+25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6

Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking.

This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.
It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices.
BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.
You can't vote more than once anyway, can you.
Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it.
Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest.
But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need.
But you can vote as many times as you like CB, every device you own will let you vote as a guest once and if you don't mind loseing all your saved passwords and cookies you can clear your cache and history and vote again as a guest. That's why I say logged-in votes should count for 10 votes. You can't re-vote when it's done in your name/avatar.
I agree with the rest of your comment and given you an up vote.:-)
Thank you - I have been educated! :)
[quote][p][bold]who2believe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who2believe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: The scores are increasing quickly - the first nine (9) comments are now as follows.. +25, +16, +19, +20, +9, +8, +8, +8 & +6 Hopefully, a few more will be added before any hacking. This proves how unpopular the Council really are over this issue.[/p][/quote]It looks like the comments scores are multiple votes to me. Perhaps the Press should score logged-in votes at 10 and guest votes at 1. That might skew it back to fairness. Most people have access to three devices nowadays so all of us could cheat and vote as a guest three time. Or use one computer and keep clearing the cache but that's time consuming. Also CoYC should ban any voting on Council owned or supported devices. BTW: I have never voted more that once on any post myself because I want to know what others think. It seems someone doesn't want that at all.[/p][/quote]You can't vote more than once anyway, can you. Story is good news, but to be honest, we just need to build more houses and then this whole affordable thing would be irrelevant. The market would sort it. Crowing is a bit pathetic, Buzz, Jonathan and Buda seem moderate to me. They are not the ones ranting about Marxists, stooges and all the rest. But yes, a good news story - affordable housing is flawed in my opinion. More housing is all you need.[/p][/quote]But you can vote as many times as you like CB, every device you own will let you vote as a guest once and if you don't mind loseing all your saved passwords and cookies you can clear your cache and history and vote again as a guest. That's why I say logged-in votes should count for 10 votes. You can't re-vote when it's done in your name/avatar. I agree with the rest of your comment and given you an up vote.:-)[/p][/quote]Thank you - I have been educated! :) CaroleBaines
  • Score: 3

10:07pm Sat 8 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
tonyfromitaly wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti




c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.
Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.
Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news.
So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ?
Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along.
You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden.
Goady goady bait bait.
What are you, 12?
Is this a playground?
Get a hold of yourself.


Have you even been following? You can't have been reading what I ever had to say or you wouldn't be spewing all that irrelevant nonsense.

To be honest, I'm not even rsed. Big whoop. 200 homes. Not entirely sure what ML has to do with it either.
There there feel better now you had another good rattle.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tonyfromitaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: I can't comment any more as I had a warning email from the evening press for telling a few home truths which they said had upset a lot of readers.!!!..Patheti c....If you want to cancel my log in please do so evening press.[/p][/quote]Keep commenting. It's just a stock message, don't take it personally.[/p][/quote]Ah there you are Buzz, you "have" been keeping up with the good news. So care to comment on the excellent news that York is now on course to get 200 homes built. ? Go on be magnanimous and congratulate the builders on daring to take on the might of Big Jim and his cabal. You know you want to ? Ah but that would mean caving in and admitting that the Architect of this parish was right all along. You cant do that can you, so that's back in the tomato tin waiting for another opportunity to rattle and show us all again how knowledgeable you are on every subject under the sun. Silence from you Buda and Jonthan is golden.[/p][/quote]Goady goady bait bait. What are you, 12? Is this a playground? Get a hold of yourself. Have you even been following? You can't have been reading what I ever had to say or you wouldn't be spewing all that irrelevant nonsense. To be honest, I'm not even rsed. Big whoop. 200 homes. Not entirely sure what ML has to do with it either.[/p][/quote]There there feel better now you had another good rattle. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -79

4:23am Sun 9 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

roskoboskovic wrote:
why do we need more homes in york.the speculators and investors will only buy them up and charge exhorbitant rents to students and the like.i have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we need more houses.our kids can t afford them,either buying or renting and there is no work in york.our infrastructure is full up our roads are gridlocked and developers are intent on building on flood plains.
Perhaps a 'charge' can be put on the development. such as "no more than 15% of the houses on the development can be privately rented"....
[quote][p][bold]roskoboskovic[/bold] wrote: why do we need more homes in york.the speculators and investors will only buy them up and charge exhorbitant rents to students and the like.i have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we need more houses.our kids can t afford them,either buying or renting and there is no work in york.our infrastructure is full up our roads are gridlocked and developers are intent on building on flood plains.[/p][/quote]Perhaps a 'charge' can be put on the development. such as "no more than 15% of the houses on the development can be privately rented".... Magicman!
  • Score: 6

9:37am Sun 9 Feb 14

york_chap says...

It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing.

'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing.

It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.
It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing. 'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing. It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them. york_chap
  • Score: 4

10:21am Sun 9 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

york_chap wrote:
It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing.

'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing.

It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.
Well said, I have close relatives who have found themselves in that very situation. Struggling to pay a mortgage and live a life with a nightmare family placed opposite. Pressure was brought to bear and the family were replaced with another of similar morals and values. Its wrong and its not fair.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing. 'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing. It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.[/p][/quote]Well said, I have close relatives who have found themselves in that very situation. Struggling to pay a mortgage and live a life with a nightmare family placed opposite. Pressure was brought to bear and the family were replaced with another of similar morals and values. Its wrong and its not fair. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -127

12:54pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

CYC's housing policy has been holed below the waterline, by this landmark decision.

Like the Labour controlling group and the marxist cabal running things behind the scenes, it's a sinking ship (regime).

It has been such a blow to James Alexander that he has only done one tweet in the last 48hrs, which is unheard of. He's lost for words and has LOST his affordable housing (policy).

It was only a matter of time before the whole housing mess the council has created came back to haunt them, and they are reaping what they have sown - a complete collapse !

Next for the chop - the Draft Local Plan - this decision has serious implications and they know it. Basically, they are stuffed.

Bye bye James :)
CYC's housing policy has been holed below the waterline, by this landmark decision. Like the Labour controlling group and the marxist cabal running things behind the scenes, it's a sinking ship (regime). It has been such a blow to James Alexander that he has only done one tweet in the last 48hrs, which is unheard of. He's lost for words and has LOST his affordable housing (policy). It was only a matter of time before the whole housing mess the council has created came back to haunt them, and they are reaping what they have sown - a complete collapse ! Next for the chop - the Draft Local Plan - this decision has serious implications and they know it. Basically, they are stuffed. Bye bye James :) Rocking Horse
  • Score: -170

1:56pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Loads of tweets (on Twitter) slating CYC for wasting £8,700 by losing a 'no win' challenge.

Alexander has been silenced - opnly one tweet in last 48 hours, and Simpson-Laing endlessly tweeting about TV programmes and olympics - shows that they have taken a hammering over this, and rightly so.

Its pay back for their arrogance and ignorance !

They will be voted out in 2015 !
Loads of tweets (on Twitter) slating CYC for wasting £8,700 by losing a 'no win' challenge. Alexander has been silenced - opnly one tweet in last 48 hours, and Simpson-Laing endlessly tweeting about TV programmes and olympics - shows that they have taken a hammering over this, and rightly so. Its pay back for their arrogance and ignorance ! They will be voted out in 2015 ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -178

4:30pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Redcap198 says...

It's jus such a shame we have to wait until 2015 to vote these idiots out, look at their record, Kings Square, now looks like a cheaply laid patio, Lendal Bridge farce, driving visitors away by the carload, just two of many ill conceived actions by this lot. Roll on 2015 and the sensible people of York can show them what a mess they have made of their time in power.
It's jus such a shame we have to wait until 2015 to vote these idiots out, look at their record, Kings Square, now looks like a cheaply laid patio, Lendal Bridge farce, driving visitors away by the carload, just two of many ill conceived actions by this lot. Roll on 2015 and the sensible people of York can show them what a mess they have made of their time in power. Redcap198
  • Score: -15

5:48pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Caecilius says...

tonyfromitaly wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck!
You are quite right its going to get busy. They may have to experiment with the water lane traffic lights again and possibly Lendal Bridge.
Never mind they will have somewhere like £200000.00 per year in extra council tax to throw around. I wonder what rubbish pet projects that will get squandered on instead of keeping jobs and services.
Fiddling with the Water Lane traffic lights again won't help. It would only achieve what it did last time: simply redistribute the congestion onto the other roads feeding the junction, without doing anything to solve the fundamental problem. This time, of course, the congestion will also be cranked up another notch as an extra couple of hundred drivers potentially want to bring their cars back and forth through Clifton Green every day.
[quote][p][bold]tonyfromitaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: good news for people needing homes... however, if you're going to be living there and plan on driving into York anytime between 3pm-6pm, then good luck![/p][/quote]You are quite right its going to get busy. They may have to experiment with the water lane traffic lights again and possibly Lendal Bridge. Never mind they will have somewhere like £200000.00 per year in extra council tax to throw around. I wonder what rubbish pet projects that will get squandered on instead of keeping jobs and services.[/p][/quote]Fiddling with the Water Lane traffic lights again won't help. It would only achieve what it did last time: simply redistribute the congestion onto the other roads feeding the junction, without doing anything to solve the fundamental problem. This time, of course, the congestion will also be cranked up another notch as an extra couple of hundred drivers potentially want to bring their cars back and forth through Clifton Green every day. Caecilius
  • Score: 27

6:02pm Sun 9 Feb 14

bloodaxe says...

Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".
Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists". bloodaxe
  • Score: 25

8:24pm Sun 9 Feb 14

courier46 says...

tonyfromitaly wrote:
york_chap wrote:
It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing.

'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing.

It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.
Well said, I have close relatives who have found themselves in that very situation. Struggling to pay a mortgage and live a life with a nightmare family placed opposite. Pressure was brought to bear and the family were replaced with another of similar morals and values. Its wrong and its not fair.
This is the problem with the council putting bad families in with hard working decent people ,but the real problem is the hassle and amout of time they take to get them out,it takes years!
[quote][p][bold]tonyfromitaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing. 'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing. It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.[/p][/quote]Well said, I have close relatives who have found themselves in that very situation. Struggling to pay a mortgage and live a life with a nightmare family placed opposite. Pressure was brought to bear and the family were replaced with another of similar morals and values. Its wrong and its not fair.[/p][/quote]This is the problem with the council putting bad families in with hard working decent people ,but the real problem is the hassle and amout of time they take to get them out,it takes years! courier46
  • Score: 6

12:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".
Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing.

You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships.

We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others.

Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".[/p][/quote]Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing. You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships. We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others. Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator. Rocking Horse
  • Score: -140

7:47am Mon 10 Feb 14

perplexed says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
bloodaxe wrote:
Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".
Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing.

You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships.

We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others.

Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator.
I have little knowledge of housing policy but some of the comment is sounding increasingly delusional and rather sad.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".[/p][/quote]Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing. You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships. We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others. Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator.[/p][/quote]I have little knowledge of housing policy but some of the comment is sounding increasingly delusional and rather sad. perplexed
  • Score: 26

8:58am Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

perplexed wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
bloodaxe wrote: Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".
Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing. You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships. We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others. Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator.
I have little knowledge of housing policy but some of the comment is sounding increasingly delusional and rather sad.
Sadly, having little knowledge, prevents you from making an informed judgement, and offer no counter arguments.

Resorting to label me as delusional, is a cheap shot.

Try to explain how that is so, by dissecting my argument, explananing how these organisations are not run by known marxists, and that the cell in York are not linked with them !
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Hands up all those who castigated the Libdems when they were in power. I seem to remember that the language used was much the same. As for this council being "marxist", I suppose that means that those using the term are "fascists".[/p][/quote]Housing policy under Lib-Dems was Labour driven by officers egged on by Merrett & Simpson-Laing. They were warned about the consequences, and the mess we have now is their doing. You don't have to be a fascist to spot a marxist, and both these extremist factions end up with the same result; death to democracy under totalitarian dictatorships. We have a cell of this cult operating in York, who are masquerading under a thin veil of legitimacy. They are using the growth to end poverty agenda, but, the sinister part is the promotion of social innovation, using this for their 'Media City York' bid, and the associated control of the local TV licence holder, all linked with Science City York, JRF, and others. Their links with charities such as NESTA, Common Purpose and the Young Foundation who are all linked to marxists are another indicator.[/p][/quote]I have little knowledge of housing policy but some of the comment is sounding increasingly delusional and rather sad.[/p][/quote]Sadly, having little knowledge, prevents you from making an informed judgement, and offer no counter arguments. Resorting to label me as delusional, is a cheap shot. Try to explain how that is so, by dissecting my argument, explananing how these organisations are not run by known marxists, and that the cell in York are not linked with them ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -35

9:00am Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Dear Perplexed

Res ipsa loquitur !

Look that one up, and educate yourself !
Dear Perplexed Res ipsa loquitur ! Look that one up, and educate yourself ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -33

9:40am Mon 10 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

Another example of Res ipsa loquitur . The lack of comments from Buda, Jonthan and Buzz.
Another example of Res ipsa loquitur . The lack of comments from Buda, Jonthan and Buzz. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -30

10:49am Mon 10 Feb 14

tonyfromitaly says...

"Clearly the person doing this has a vested interest in the Labour Party"
Well I think we worked that one out. The question is WHO ? Round up the usual suspects.
"Clearly the person doing this has a vested interest in the Labour Party" Well I think we worked that one out. The question is WHO ? Round up the usual suspects. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -28

10:54am Mon 10 Feb 14

YorkSeptic says...

If they wanted they could quite easily find out - they just need to search their logs for > 10 POST requests to the same comment URL in a small time period, say 1 minute. I suspect the IP address belongs to some clueless zealot in the council IT dept.
If they wanted they could quite easily find out - they just need to search their logs for > 10 POST requests to the same comment URL in a small time period, say 1 minute. I suspect the IP address belongs to some clueless zealot in the council IT dept. YorkSeptic
  • Score: -30

11:19am Mon 10 Feb 14

YorkSeptic says...

oooh, the admins deleted my post. Perhaps rather than trying to bury the facts they could disable the voting feature until they can implement it in a way that doesn't allow easy manipulation.
oooh, the admins deleted my post. Perhaps rather than trying to bury the facts they could disable the voting feature until they can implement it in a way that doesn't allow easy manipulation. YorkSeptic
  • Score: -27

11:56am Mon 10 Feb 14

perplexed says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Dear Perplexed

Res ipsa loquitur !

Look that one up, and educate yourself !
Me humi proruas. Mi calces os. Aut infames nomen animos. Fac quidquid habes in animo, Sed, age, mel, nune parce calceis
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Dear Perplexed Res ipsa loquitur ! Look that one up, and educate yourself ![/p][/quote]Me humi proruas. Mi calces os. Aut infames nomen animos. Fac quidquid habes in animo, Sed, age, mel, nune parce calceis perplexed
  • Score: -18

12:50pm Mon 10 Feb 14

meme says...

Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal
This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc
this is a vitally important matter for York
I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all
I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future.
the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse.
How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose?
Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions?
To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it?
Council land should be sold for affordable houses then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers.
This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market
Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some!
Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses [lets actually call them what they are which is rented council houses please] then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some! meme
  • Score: -3

1:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

There used be quite a lot of 'affordable' housing in this country, until the Hatchet Woman and the rest of the Tory gangsters forced the local councils give them away.. Of course the latest manifestation of the same are going to favour big business, they will not have enough backing to buy the next election if the don't.
There used be quite a lot of 'affordable' housing in this country, until the Hatchet Woman and the rest of the Tory gangsters forced the local councils give them away.. Of course the latest manifestation of the same are going to favour big business, they will not have enough backing to buy the next election if the don't. mjgyork
  • Score: 9

1:19pm Mon 10 Feb 14

bjb says...

meme wrote:
Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal
This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc
this is a vitally important matter for York
I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all
I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future.
the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse.
How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose?
Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions?
To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it?
Council land should be sold for affordable houses then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers.
This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market
Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some!
Now this is the sort of constructive comment I can relate to. Well done Meme for bring some sanity to the debate. Too many comments were reminiscent of those used in the bad old days of the Monks Cross 2 debate, when insults were being thrown about by people using multiple aliases and reverting to Latin quotations. There was a lot of unnecessary hate a spiteful remarks emanating from the anti camp.

Remember folks if a new political party wins in the next election, they will have to make politically unpopular decisions just the same as the current ones.

If you are an opposition councillor posting on here under an alias, it is reasonable to assume you are going to spit fire and brimstone at the ruling party whatever the issue and claim you know best, but keep personal attacks and insults out of the dabate.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses [lets actually call them what they are which is rented council houses please] then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some![/p][/quote]Now this is the sort of constructive comment I can relate to. Well done Meme for bring some sanity to the debate. Too many comments were reminiscent of those used in the bad old days of the Monks Cross 2 debate, when insults were being thrown about by people using multiple aliases and reverting to Latin quotations. There was a lot of unnecessary hate a spiteful remarks emanating from the anti camp. Remember folks if a new political party wins in the next election, they will have to make politically unpopular decisions just the same as the current ones. If you are an opposition councillor posting on here under an alias, it is reasonable to assume you are going to spit fire and brimstone at the ruling party whatever the issue and claim you know best, but keep personal attacks and insults out of the dabate. bjb
  • Score: 23

1:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

YorkPatrol says...

I know this is a bit old school and very simplistic but why can’t they build housing estates for the rich and separate housing estates for the poor (affordable housing or whatever you want to call it) rather than mixing all classes together? It has always worked in the past and keeps the various classes separated and “in with their own”. It was been mentioned in a previous comment and I agree - who in their right mind would buy a £250k+ house when potentially you could end up with an alcoholic jail bird with 6 riotous kids next door? Historically you have always had “rough” and “posh” areas in cities and it works very well – Self contained and easily to police. Mixing it all up is just a recipe for disaster. Bring back council esates!
I know this is a bit old school and very simplistic but why can’t they build housing estates for the rich and separate housing estates for the poor (affordable housing or whatever you want to call it) rather than mixing all classes together? It has always worked in the past and keeps the various classes separated and “in with their own”. It was been mentioned in a previous comment and I agree - who in their right mind would buy a £250k+ house when potentially you could end up with an alcoholic jail bird with 6 riotous kids next door? Historically you have always had “rough” and “posh” areas in cities and it works very well – Self contained and easily to police. Mixing it all up is just a recipe for disaster. Bring back council esates! YorkPatrol
  • Score: 22

2:20pm Mon 10 Feb 14

sounds weird but says...

"The authority played down the potential implications for other city sites, but developers said a precedent had been set. "

Indeed too little too late now, shouldnt of allowed this to happen in the first place!
"The authority played down the potential implications for other city sites, but developers said a precedent had been set. " Indeed too little too late now, shouldnt of allowed this to happen in the first place! sounds weird but
  • Score: -9

2:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

courier46 says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
I know this is a bit old school and very simplistic but why can’t they build housing estates for the rich and separate housing estates for the poor (affordable housing or whatever you want to call it) rather than mixing all classes together? It has always worked in the past and keeps the various classes separated and “in with their own”. It was been mentioned in a previous comment and I agree - who in their right mind would buy a £250k+ house when potentially you could end up with an alcoholic jail bird with 6 riotous kids next door? Historically you have always had “rough” and “posh” areas in cities and it works very well – Self contained and easily to police. Mixing it all up is just a recipe for disaster. Bring back council esates!
The council don't care about the citizens but I agree with you,the problem is the people who have no respect for anyone know how long it takes to evict them, most times running into years.We need a system that gives a tennent 2or 3 chances and then out but I presume the EU would pander to there human rights.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: I know this is a bit old school and very simplistic but why can’t they build housing estates for the rich and separate housing estates for the poor (affordable housing or whatever you want to call it) rather than mixing all classes together? It has always worked in the past and keeps the various classes separated and “in with their own”. It was been mentioned in a previous comment and I agree - who in their right mind would buy a £250k+ house when potentially you could end up with an alcoholic jail bird with 6 riotous kids next door? Historically you have always had “rough” and “posh” areas in cities and it works very well – Self contained and easily to police. Mixing it all up is just a recipe for disaster. Bring back council esates![/p][/quote]The council don't care about the citizens but I agree with you,the problem is the people who have no respect for anyone know how long it takes to evict them, most times running into years.We need a system that gives a tennent 2or 3 chances and then out but I presume the EU would pander to there human rights. courier46
  • Score: -4

3:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

YorkSeptic wrote:
If they wanted they could quite easily find out - they just need to search their logs for > 10 POST requests to the same comment URL in a small time period, say 1 minute. I suspect the IP address belongs to some clueless zealot in the council IT dept.
The question is, why don't the PRESS do this and suspend the account/s ?

It makes it look like the Press are favouring the council, when ethicly, they should be impartial.

Come on Press, do the right thing - enough is enough - disable the score hacker !
[quote][p][bold]YorkSeptic[/bold] wrote: If they wanted they could quite easily find out - they just need to search their logs for > 10 POST requests to the same comment URL in a small time period, say 1 minute. I suspect the IP address belongs to some clueless zealot in the council IT dept.[/p][/quote]The question is, why don't the PRESS do this and suspend the account/s ? It makes it look like the Press are favouring the council, when ethicly, they should be impartial. Come on Press, do the right thing - enough is enough - disable the score hacker ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -17

3:48pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

meme wrote:
Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some!
Wrong !

The whole issue is one of politics and dogma.

The hard left factions (yes, there are marxists within the council and other organisations in York, that is a fact) are responsible for driving the insanely stupid, blinkered, destructive agenda.

It is acceptable to them for the housing crisis to get worse, not better, because it gives them more 'capital' and 'leverage. It's exactly the same with the poverty issue, where they redefine it, purely as a political weapon.

I'm sorry meme, but you are politically naive. Get the blinkers off. Marxism hates capitalism. That is their agenda. Starve capitalism, and feed the soocial innovation third sector. It's Fabian marxism, new marxism, call it what you like. It's very real, and it's here in York !

Look at who the culprits follow on twitter. You will find some or all of these:-

NESTA
The Young Foundation
FutureGov
Common Purpose
JRF (yes the JRF !)
Geoff Mulgan
Dominic Campbell
Fabian Society
The Illuminati

Read up on them. look at their 'change' agenda. They seek to re-engineer society, and they will use technology, internet and media to subvert democracy.

Watch this youtube piece on Brian Gerrish, and you will soon see what is going on under your nioses in York...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-3DmnovmB
IA
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses [lets actually call them what they are which is rented council houses please] then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some![/p][/quote]Wrong ! The whole issue is one of politics and dogma. The hard left factions (yes, there are marxists within the council and other organisations in York, that is a fact) are responsible for driving the insanely stupid, blinkered, destructive agenda. It is acceptable to them for the housing crisis to get worse, not better, because it gives them more 'capital' and 'leverage. It's exactly the same with the poverty issue, where they redefine it, purely as a political weapon. I'm sorry meme, but you are politically naive. Get the blinkers off. Marxism hates capitalism. That is their agenda. Starve capitalism, and feed the soocial innovation third sector. It's Fabian marxism, new marxism, call it what you like. It's very real, and it's here in York ! Look at who the culprits follow on twitter. You will find some or all of these:- NESTA The Young Foundation FutureGov Common Purpose JRF (yes the JRF !) Geoff Mulgan Dominic Campbell Fabian Society The Illuminati Read up on them. look at their 'change' agenda. They seek to re-engineer society, and they will use technology, internet and media to subvert democracy. Watch this youtube piece on Brian Gerrish, and you will soon see what is going on under your nioses in York... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=-3DmnovmB IA Rocking Horse
  • Score: -15

3:58pm Mon 10 Feb 14

bjb says...

Bring on the men in white coats carrying a straightjacket.
Bring on the men in white coats carrying a straightjacket. bjb
  • Score: -8

3:59pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bjb wrote:
meme wrote: Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some!
Now this is the sort of constructive comment I can relate to. Well done Meme for bring some sanity to the debate. Too many comments were reminiscent of those used in the bad old days of the Monks Cross 2 debate, when insults were being thrown about by people using multiple aliases and reverting to Latin quotations. There was a lot of unnecessary hate a spiteful remarks emanating from the anti camp. Remember folks if a new political party wins in the next election, they will have to make politically unpopular decisions just the same as the current ones. If you are an opposition councillor posting on here under an alias, it is reasonable to assume you are going to spit fire and brimstone at the ruling party whatever the issue and claim you know best, but keep personal attacks and insults out of the dabate.
Before you start, I'm not a member of any political party.

I support the following:

Free market capitalism & the UK's economic model.
Freedom of Speech.
An independant press/media.
Democracy.
Fairness.

I deplore:

Communism/Marxism/So
cialism
and all that it entails.

It's not about personal attacks, it's about the politics/agenda of the person/group; and their behaviour. These people are elitist, and are 'leading beyond authority' by subverting democracy. They need to be exposed, and need to stopped,
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Its sad that many of these comments seem to get very personal This is not a matter as to whether someone is right/left wing etc this is a vitally important matter for York I think everyone accepts there is a need for housing types to suit all I think most accept we need more housing or we will have crisis in the future. the issue is how do we do this. The affordable policy as presently worded stifles development so to try to help a small sector the majority suffer. if the new policies come in it will get even worse. How can a policy that hinders the majority be fit for purpose? Why did the council sell as many of their sites as possible for maximum money and avoid affordable contributions? To get as much money as possible of course..A laudable target but hardly in keeping with their own policies is it? Council land should be sold for affordable houses [lets actually call them what they are which is rented council houses please] then the Council can put its money where its mouth is and leave private enterprise to deliver private homes for genuine buyers. This will mean more homes built and hopefully help those who want to move up the ladder do so and free up cheaper homes at the bottom end of the market Here's an innovative idea as well. Why don't the council buy homes and turn them into affordables or is that common sense?? They own Priory st what a perfect place to put some![/p][/quote]Now this is the sort of constructive comment I can relate to. Well done Meme for bring some sanity to the debate. Too many comments were reminiscent of those used in the bad old days of the Monks Cross 2 debate, when insults were being thrown about by people using multiple aliases and reverting to Latin quotations. There was a lot of unnecessary hate a spiteful remarks emanating from the anti camp. Remember folks if a new political party wins in the next election, they will have to make politically unpopular decisions just the same as the current ones. If you are an opposition councillor posting on here under an alias, it is reasonable to assume you are going to spit fire and brimstone at the ruling party whatever the issue and claim you know best, but keep personal attacks and insults out of the dabate.[/p][/quote]Before you start, I'm not a member of any political party. I support the following: Free market capitalism & the UK's economic model. Freedom of Speech. An independant press/media. Democracy. Fairness. I deplore: Communism/Marxism/So cialism and all that it entails. It's not about personal attacks, it's about the politics/agenda of the person/group; and their behaviour. These people are elitist, and are 'leading beyond authority' by subverting democracy. They need to be exposed, and need to stopped, Rocking Horse
  • Score: -17

4:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bjb wrote:
Bring on the men in white coats carrying a straightjacket.
Is that all you can say ?

Ignorant , trite, cliched nothingness !

No counter-argument. No evidence. Nada ! Nowt !

A heads in the sand merchant, or worse still a deceiver and defender of the marxists !
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: Bring on the men in white coats carrying a straightjacket.[/p][/quote]Is that all you can say ? Ignorant , trite, cliched nothingness ! No counter-argument. No evidence. Nada ! Nowt ! A heads in the sand merchant, or worse still a deceiver and defender of the marxists ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -14

4:09pm Mon 10 Feb 14

bjb says...

Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker!
Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker! bjb
  • Score: -11

4:16pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Sign 'O' The Times says...

york_chap wrote:
It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing.

'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing.

It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.
I live in a housing association property, but I am not an ex-con, I am not part of a problem family, I have never been evicted from any home, council or not, and I do not live on benefits. I know the people you mention do exist, but please don't assume we are all the same. The flat next to me is privately owned (not privately rented) and they are a nightmare. I have had to report them several times for noise disturbance, so owning your own home does not mean you are the perfect neighbour either.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: It's time they stopped referring to these houses as 'affordable homes' and called them what they really are; which is generally social rented housing. 'Affordable homes' gives the cosy impression of homes for private sale at reduced prices, helping hard working local residents get on the ladder/move up it. In reality; the 'affordable homes' are owned by housing associations who rent them out at a fraction of market rent to ex-cons, problem families and people who've been evicted from council housing. It's not right that private buyers who work all hours to pay the mortgage on a nice, £200,000 new home, can then find themselves living next door to a nightmare family, booted off a local council estate who are paying £90 per week for a 3 bedroom house, all covered by benefits. I'm pleased for the eventual purchasers of the homes at the grain store site that they won't have to put up with these kinds of people living amongst them.[/p][/quote]I live in a housing association property, but I am not an ex-con, I am not part of a problem family, I have never been evicted from any home, council or not, and I do not live on benefits. I know the people you mention do exist, but please don't assume we are all the same. The flat next to me is privately owned (not privately rented) and they are a nightmare. I have had to report them several times for noise disturbance, so owning your own home does not mean you are the perfect neighbour either. Sign 'O' The Times
  • Score: -14

4:22pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

mjgyork wrote:
There used be quite a lot of 'affordable' housing in this country, until the Hatchet Woman and the rest of the Tory gangsters forced the local councils give them away.. Of course the latest manifestation of the same are going to favour big business, they will not have enough backing to buy the next election if the don't.
1979 - 1997 : Thatcher/Major built 928,610 social/council houses (ave 50,624/yr)

1997 - 2010 : Blair/Brown built 328,170 social/council houses (ave 25,244/yr)

Don't blame Maggie and the RTB. If the tenants who bought their council houses hadn't been given the discounts and enabled to buy, they would be still renting the same houses, and we would still have the same shortage problem.

Labour have caused the biggest problem by building less than social/council housing than the tories, and in addition over-regulating the housebuilding sector. The latter was a cynical ideological attempt at forcing the industry towards oligopoly, which is a marxist economists like Michal Kalecki favoured (a syntheses which integrated marxist class analysis and oligopoly theory). As the sector suffers structural breakdown, which it has through the decline in SME's, this gives the left the opportunity of exploiting compulsory purchase (use it or lose it) and nationalisation. We almost have this with Barratt, who in the last seven years have built 98,000 dwellings at a net loss of £86.4m.

Time to wake up to the reality of Miliband and the Third sector movement - New Marxism !
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: There used be quite a lot of 'affordable' housing in this country, until the Hatchet Woman and the rest of the Tory gangsters forced the local councils give them away.. Of course the latest manifestation of the same are going to favour big business, they will not have enough backing to buy the next election if the don't.[/p][/quote]1979 - 1997 : Thatcher/Major built 928,610 social/council houses (ave 50,624/yr) 1997 - 2010 : Blair/Brown built 328,170 social/council houses (ave 25,244/yr) Don't blame Maggie and the RTB. If the tenants who bought their council houses hadn't been given the discounts and enabled to buy, they would be still renting the same houses, and we would still have the same shortage problem. Labour have caused the biggest problem by building less than social/council housing than the tories, and in addition over-regulating the housebuilding sector. The latter was a cynical ideological attempt at forcing the industry towards oligopoly, which is a marxist economists like Michal Kalecki favoured (a syntheses which integrated marxist class analysis and oligopoly theory). As the sector suffers structural breakdown, which it has through the decline in SME's, this gives the left the opportunity of exploiting compulsory purchase (use it or lose it) and nationalisation. We almost have this with Barratt, who in the last seven years have built 98,000 dwellings at a net loss of £86.4m. Time to wake up to the reality of Miliband and the Third sector movement - New Marxism ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -35

4:27pm Mon 10 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

bjb wrote:
Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker!
Correct! The reason that they are called Rocking horse is because they share an IQ level with one, And the chances of them saying anything sensible is about as rare as the excrement of one.
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker![/p][/quote]Correct! The reason that they are called Rocking horse is because they share an IQ level with one, And the chances of them saying anything sensible is about as rare as the excrement of one. mjgyork
  • Score: 25

4:29pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bjb wrote:
Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker!
I regret your ignorance and stupidity.

You bring nothing to the debate, I'm afraid.

I deal in facts, based on research and evidence.

You on the other hand, do not !
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker![/p][/quote]I regret your ignorance and stupidity. You bring nothing to the debate, I'm afraid. I deal in facts, based on research and evidence. You on the other hand, do not ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -32

4:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

mjgyork wrote:
bjb wrote: Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker!
Correct! The reason that they are called Rocking horse is because they share an IQ level with one, And the chances of them saying anything sensible is about as rare as the excrement of one.
Another comedian.

Read anything stimulating recently ?
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: Nah! You have well and truly lost it matey. Spouting drivel as though we really care about your rants and raves. I reckon the Horse is off his rocker![/p][/quote]Correct! The reason that they are called Rocking horse is because they share an IQ level with one, And the chances of them saying anything sensible is about as rare as the excrement of one.[/p][/quote]Another comedian. Read anything stimulating recently ? Rocking Horse
  • Score: -34

4:39pm Mon 10 Feb 14

bjb says...

“There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.”

Maya Angelou
“There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.” Maya Angelou bjb
  • Score: 24

4:42pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Sorry, correction of typo error above:-

1979 - 1997 : Thatcher/Major built 928,610 social/council houses (ave 54,624/yr)

1997 - 2010 : Blair/Brown built 328,170 social/council houses (ave 25,244/yr)
Sorry, correction of typo error above:- 1979 - 1997 : Thatcher/Major built 928,610 social/council houses (ave 54,624/yr) 1997 - 2010 : Blair/Brown built 328,170 social/council houses (ave 25,244/yr) Rocking Horse
  • Score: -24

4:45pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

bjb wrote:
“There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.” Maya Angelou
The truth is....

You can't handle the truth !

Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men)
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: “There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.” Maya Angelou[/p][/quote]The truth is.... You can't handle the truth ! Jack Nicholson (A Few Good Men) Rocking Horse
  • Score: -29

4:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

bjb says...

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

Max Born
“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world” Max Born bjb
  • Score: -14

5:00pm Mon 10 Feb 14

meme says...

cool it boys
everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how extreeme You many not agree with it but that's life and insulting one another is not debate.
Both of you are right Rocking horse is correct; there is a political agenda here as there are in most Council issues and unfortunately we seem to have a very left wing leaning bunch of officers and councillors who are driving a social agenda that is probably driven by the right intentions but is actually causing more problems than it solves and is making Yorks house price crisis worse. Regrettably they refuse to listen to those who have to build these homes and have dug a hole so deep they cannot climb out of it without a serious loss of face and what politician admits to that!
cool it boys everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how extreeme You many not agree with it but that's life and insulting one another is not debate. Both of you are right Rocking horse is correct; there is a political agenda here as there are in most Council issues and unfortunately we seem to have a very left wing leaning bunch of officers and councillors who are driving a social agenda that is probably driven by the right intentions but is actually causing more problems than it solves and is making Yorks house price crisis worse. Regrettably they refuse to listen to those who have to build these homes and have dug a hole so deep they cannot climb out of it without a serious loss of face and what politician admits to that! meme
  • Score: 7

6:12pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

meme wrote:
cool it boys everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how extreeme You many not agree with it but that's life and insulting one another is not debate. Both of you are right Rocking horse is correct; there is a political agenda here as there are in most Council issues and unfortunately we seem to have a very left wing leaning bunch of officers and councillors who are driving a social agenda that is probably driven by the right intentions but is actually causing more problems than it solves and is making Yorks house price crisis worse. Regrettably they refuse to listen to those who have to build these homes and have dug a hole so deep they cannot climb out of it without a serious loss of face and what politician admits to that!
That's more like it, meme !

I agree with you mostly on this, but, not that their intentions are right. They are all about ideology, because if they did want more the right thing eg, more houses, they would not pursue punitive discriminatory and destructive policies which are counter-productive.

They already have a serious loss of face with this appeal, and cannot dig themselves any deeper into the mire. The Local Plan will not save them, and if anything this appeal challenge failure will highlight more shortcomings.

The unspent S106 monies issue (see today's Press) is another sign of the deceit of this shoddy lot, and puts even more egg on their faces. They are under increasing suspicion about many things, and rightly so.

As for bjb and mjgyork, they won't listen to you or me, such is their clear loyalty to the despicable 'regime'
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: cool it boys everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how extreeme You many not agree with it but that's life and insulting one another is not debate. Both of you are right Rocking horse is correct; there is a political agenda here as there are in most Council issues and unfortunately we seem to have a very left wing leaning bunch of officers and councillors who are driving a social agenda that is probably driven by the right intentions but is actually causing more problems than it solves and is making Yorks house price crisis worse. Regrettably they refuse to listen to those who have to build these homes and have dug a hole so deep they cannot climb out of it without a serious loss of face and what politician admits to that![/p][/quote]That's more like it, meme ! I agree with you mostly on this, but, not that their intentions are right. They are all about ideology, because if they did want more the right thing eg, more houses, they would not pursue punitive discriminatory and destructive policies which are counter-productive. They already have a serious loss of face with this appeal, and cannot dig themselves any deeper into the mire. The Local Plan will not save them, and if anything this appeal challenge failure will highlight more shortcomings. The unspent S106 monies issue (see today's Press) is another sign of the deceit of this shoddy lot, and puts even more egg on their faces. They are under increasing suspicion about many things, and rightly so. As for bjb and mjgyork, they won't listen to you or me, such is their clear loyalty to the despicable 'regime' Rocking Horse
  • Score: -11

6:39pm Mon 10 Feb 14

nowthen says...

bjb wrote:
“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

Max Born
We know ; we've got Messrs Alexander , Merrett , Simpson Laing , Crisp , Semlyen et al as living proof .
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: “The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world” Max Born[/p][/quote]We know ; we've got Messrs Alexander , Merrett , Simpson Laing , Crisp , Semlyen et al as living proof . nowthen
  • Score: -24

7:49pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

tonyfromitaly wrote:
Another example of Res ipsa loquitur . The lack of comments from Buda, Jonthan and Buzz.
More childish baiting.
I rarely comment on planning/housing type stories, if ever. Do try to keep up, bambino.

If you really read these pages you'd know what I'm saying.
But because I've taken issue with an unrelated Opinion of this Parish you've assumed (as is usual with the "many and varied and not at all associated" accounts here) that I either "hate the man" or I'm "a council stooge" or whatever you want to invent.

You should grow up and listen to meme.
Well said that man.
[quote][p][bold]tonyfromitaly[/bold] wrote: Another example of Res ipsa loquitur . The lack of comments from Buda, Jonthan and Buzz.[/p][/quote]More childish baiting. I rarely comment on planning/housing type stories, if ever. Do try to keep up, bambino. If you really read these pages you'd know what I'm saying. But because I've taken issue with an unrelated Opinion of this Parish you've assumed (as is usual with the "many and varied and not at all associated" accounts here) that I either "hate the man" or I'm "a council stooge" or whatever you want to invent. You should grow up and listen to meme. Well said that man. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 22

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree