Discussion:
continuity teaser pm fri 4th
Add Reply
Btms
2017-08-04 13:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
John Ashby
2017-08-04 13:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Is he going to make a move on St Shula?

john
Sally Thompson
2017-08-04 15:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ashby
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Is he going to make a move on St Shula?
john
I assumed it just meant he was moving out of Shula and Alistair's.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Btms
2017-08-04 16:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by John Ashby
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Is he going to make a move on St Shula?
john
I assumed it just meant he was moving out of Shula and Alistair's.
Oh yes...... they are probably winding us up. Saving the Will for another
time.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2017-08-04 17:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-04 18:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
(The company I work for repairs car electronics; I noticed the other day
that one of the jobs was from a Grey Gables garage. In Yorkshire, IIRR.)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
I'm pretty sure it didn't _belong_ to them - I think they were just
(though of very long standing, possibly several generations) tenant
farmers.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never rely on somebody else for your happiness.
- Bette Davis, quoted by Celia Imrie, RT 2014/3/12-18
Btms
2017-08-04 19:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
(The company I work for repairs car electronics; I noticed the other day
that one of the jobs was from a Grey Gables garage. In Yorkshire, IIRR.)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
I'm pretty sure it didn't _belong_ to them - I think they were just
(though of very long standing, possibly several generations) tenant
farmers.
But they wd be secure if there was a life tenancy or similar.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-04 20:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
(The company I work for repairs car electronics; I noticed the other day
that one of the jobs was from a Grey Gables garage. In Yorkshire, IIRR.)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
I'm pretty sure it didn't _belong_ to them - I think they were just
(though of very long standing, possibly several generations) tenant
farmers.
But they wd be secure if there was a life tenancy or similar.
Presumably "secure" there only means protected from unreasonable rent
increases, or something like that; they were ex-supra-auoral when - were
they made bankrupt? I forget.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin
Mike Headon
2017-08-05 10:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
(The company I work for repairs car electronics; I noticed the other day
that one of the jobs was from a Grey Gables garage. In Yorkshire, IIRR.)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
I'm pretty sure it didn't _belong_ to them - I think they were just
(though of very long standing, possibly several generations) tenant
farmers.
But they wd be secure if there was a life tenancy or similar.
Presumably "secure" there only means protected from unreasonable rent
increases, or something like that; they were ex-supra-auoral when - were
they made bankrupt? I forget.
The farm was owned by Bryan's company. He evicted them when they failed
to pay the rent.
--
Mike Headon
R69S R850R
IIIc IIIg FT FTn FT2 EOS450D
e-mail: mike dot headon at enn tee ell world dot com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
krw
2017-08-05 14:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Headon
The farm was owned by Bryan's company. He evicted them when they failed
to pay the rent.
Not quite true. The farm was owned by the estate which Brian on behalf
of BL was managing at the time. Not owned by Brian personally.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Serena Blanchflower
2017-08-05 14:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
(The company I work for repairs car electronics; I noticed the other day
that one of the jobs was from a Grey Gables garage. In Yorkshire, IIRR.)
Post by Vicky
Post by Btms
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Well, Grange Farm was the Grundys' before Caroline and Oliver got it.
It would be nice if they can be secure in it again.
I'm pretty sure it didn't _belong_ to them - I think they were just
(though of very long standing, possibly several generations) tenant
farmers.
But they wd be secure if there was a life tenancy or similar.
Well they were, while they could pay the rent. Having failed to do
that, they didn't find themselves quite as secure as they would like.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Our entire life - consists ultimately in accepting ourselves as we are
(Jean Anouilh)
krw
2017-08-05 21:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Well they were, while they could pay the rent.  Having failed to do
that, they didn't find themselves quite as secure as they would like.
And I wish someone would ask Emmur how the rest of the Grundies will pay
the rent when she and Ed bugger off to some miniscule social housing new
build which will have hardly any space for the kids to play rather than
a whole farm to run round?

Apologies for the language but they question needs asking big time.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-06 07:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by krw
Well they were, while they could pay the rent.  Having failed to do
that, they didn't find themselves quite as secure as they would like.
And I wish someone would ask Emmur how the rest of the Grundies will
pay the rent when she and Ed bugger off to some miniscule social
housing new build which will have hardly any space for the kids to play
rather than a whole farm to run round?
Apologies for the language but they question needs asking big time.
Indeed. Although, in the normal TA way of things, I don't think we've
ever heard any formal statement about what proportion of the rent
EdnEmmur pay currently.

As for the kids playing, good point - although I suspect they'd _either_
play on the farm of which the new development is a part, _or_ - I'm not
sure what the distances involved are, but Ambridge is elastic anyway -
they'd go back to where they are now to play. (Or, as they grow older,
not play outside as much anyway, but stay on their devices: children
don't play outside as much as they did in our grandparents' time, which
is generally considered a Bad Thing, though _apart_ from the exercise
aspect, I think that's just another aspect of technohate.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
krw
2017-08-04 20:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I think they were just (though of very long standing, possibly several
generations) tenant farmers.
I think Joe was the first of the family to be the tenant - from the
Berrow Estate. He ran it down and Eddie returned to help him farm it.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Chris McMillan
2017-08-04 18:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Do you mean Ed n Emmur? Willyerm already has a house, No 1 The Green where
Tom and Johnny live.

Sincerely Chris
Btms
2017-08-04 19:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Do you mean Ed n Emmur? Willyerm already has a house, No 1 The Green where
Tom and Johnny live.
Sincerely Chris
I do, I do, I do but sounds off target now.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris McMillan
2017-08-05 06:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
Do you mean Ed n Emmur? Willyerm already has a house, No 1 The Green where
Tom and Johnny live.
Sincerely Chris
What a pity, no comment tonight.

Sincerely Chris
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-05 07:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <DMdhB.606527$***@fx37.am4>, Chris McMillan
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
[]
Post by Chris McMillan
What a pity, no comment tonight.
Sincerely Chris
+1; I was looking forward to one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A good pun is its own reword.
Marmaduke Jinks
2017-08-06 11:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.

MJ
Btms
2017-08-06 17:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.
MJ
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I was
told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental ones
affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more affordable in
real terms.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-06 19:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
Not just rural areas )-:.
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.
MJ
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I was
told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental ones
affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more affordable in
real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.

Things, if anything, though, seem to be going in the opposite direction:
housing associations seem to be trying to fill the gap caused by the
absence of council houses, but in the last year or so I've heard murmurs
of forcing _them_ to sell some of their homes to the tenants (I don't
have the details, just that some element of force was involved, which
seemed fundamentally wrong to me).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We must, of course, ensure that we display no bias. The bias I worry about
most is the bias against understanding. - Nick Robinson, RT 2017/4/8-14
Penny
2017-08-06 23:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 20:11:28 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
Not just rural areas )-:.
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I was
told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental ones
affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more affordable in
real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.
housing associations seem to be trying to fill the gap caused by the
absence of council houses, but in the last year or so I've heard murmurs
of forcing _them_ to sell some of their homes to the tenants (I don't
have the details, just that some element of force was involved, which
seemed fundamentally wrong to me).
In my part of Wales they do (or did) build houses for local people in the
villages. Outsiders* could not buy them. I think the 'no outsiders' rule is
maintained on resale, at least in some areas.

The village I left in Kent had a new small development about 30 years ago
of shared equity housing. Most of the original residents ended up owning
their houses outright - they now sell for more than I got for my quaint 4
bedroom place 10 years ago.

Then another part of the same orchard was developed as 'local needs'
housing. I remember the survey had identified a need for something like 30
houses, they built 6. Only to be sold to people who had grown up in the
village - and there was some muttering about some of those who did get one.
I don't think any were offered for rent. There are still housing
association (ex-council property) places in the village - mostly 1 bed
bungalows.

*not certain how that was defined but anyone moving from England was
definitely out.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
steveski
2017-08-07 01:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
september.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Btms
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I
was told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental
ones affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more
affordable in real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.
I live in a council flat (alloted to me after my disability) but if I won
the lottery I wouldn't buy it (actually, I'd probably buy it and let it
to a Housing Association for a peppercorn rent) because I don't believe
that the money should go into the Treasury's coffers (guess who thought
that up . . . ).

By all means, sell Council/Social Housing but put the money back into the
Council's coffers to build new stock.
--
Steveski
Btms
2017-08-07 07:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
september.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Btms
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I
was told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental
ones affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more
affordable in real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.
I live in a council flat (alloted to me after my disability) but if I won
the lottery I wouldn't buy it (actually, I'd probably buy it and let it
to a Housing Association for a peppercorn rent) because I don't believe
that the money should go into the Treasury's coffers (guess who thought
that up . . . ).
By all means, sell Council/Social Housing but put the money back into the
Council's coffers to build new stock.
Fairness is a tough call. My FIL bought his Council house when they were
initially released. He could have afforded to purchase a house in the
private sector by then. We were newly married and prices were rocketing at
that time. Husbad left the RAF and was fortunate to obtain a job in the
City which offered a mortgage at low interest. Despite this, what we could
manage, even with us both working was far from comparable with FILs house.
We had spent a year apart so we could save a deposit.

My Father was a Councillor who favoured selling council houses because the
maintenance was a huge drain on the ratepayers. It was, he believed,
better to get rid of them and build new ones for others. What actually
happened was a developer was given/assisted with swathes of land on which
was built very cheap houses. This was ok but many of those who bought them
did not look after them much and today those estates look pretty
depressing.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Marmaduke Jinks
2017-08-10 22:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by steveski
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
september.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Btms
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I
was told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental
ones affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more
affordable in real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.
I live in a council flat (alloted to me after my disability) but if I won
the lottery I wouldn't buy it (actually, I'd probably buy it and let it
to a Housing Association for a peppercorn rent) because I don't believe
that the money should go into the Treasury's coffers (guess who thought
that up . . . ).
By all means, sell Council/Social Housing but put the money back into the
Council's coffers to build new stock.
Fairness is a tough call. My FIL bought his Council house when they were
initially released. He could have afforded to purchase a house in the
private sector by then. We were newly married and prices were rocketing at
that time. Husbad left the RAF and was fortunate to obtain a job in the
City which offered a mortgage at low interest. Despite this, what we could
manage, even with us both working was far from comparable with FILs house.
We had spent a year apart so we could save a deposit.
My Father was a Councillor who favoured selling council houses because the
maintenance was a huge drain on the ratepayers. It was, he believed,
better to get rid of them and build new ones for others. What actually
happened was a developer was given/assisted with swathes of land on which
was built very cheap houses. This was ok but many of those who bought them
did not look after them much and today those estates look pretty
depressing.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
What Thatcher did was to make sure that Council Housing expenditure had to
operate in its own "ring-fence". Maintenance and repair had to be balanced
by the rents received, in what was called, if I recall rightly as, the
Housing Revenue account. That sounds sensible, so other council activities
would not cross subsidise. But then she abolished rent controls, which was
foolish. This led to the massive increase in rents that we certainly see in
London. Something that Mr Khan has said he intends to do something about,
but is currently failing.

MJ
Btms
2017-08-11 08:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
Post by Btms
Post by steveski
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
september.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Btms
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I
was told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental
ones affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more
affordable in real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them,
then some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than -
well, open to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their
original sale price plus RPI.
I live in a council flat (alloted to me after my disability) but if I won
the lottery I wouldn't buy it (actually, I'd probably buy it and let it
to a Housing Association for a peppercorn rent) because I don't believe
that the money should go into the Treasury's coffers (guess who thought
that up . . . ).
By all means, sell Council/Social Housing but put the money back into the
Council's coffers to build new stock.
Fairness is a tough call. My FIL bought his Council house when they were
initially released. He could have afforded to purchase a house in the
private sector by then. We were newly married and prices were rocketing at
that time. Husbad left the RAF and was fortunate to obtain a job in the
City which offered a mortgage at low interest. Despite this, what we could
manage, even with us both working was far from comparable with FILs house.
We had spent a year apart so we could save a deposit.
My Father was a Councillor who favoured selling council houses because the
maintenance was a huge drain on the ratepayers. It was, he believed,
better to get rid of them and build new ones for others. What actually
happened was a developer was given/assisted with swathes of land on which
was built very cheap houses. This was ok but many of those who bought them
did not look after them much and today those estates look pretty
depressing.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
What Thatcher did was to make sure that Council Housing expenditure had to
operate in its own "ring-fence". Maintenance and repair had to be balanced
by the rents received, in what was called, if I recall rightly as, the
Housing Revenue account. That sounds sensible, so other council activities
would not cross subsidise. But then she abolished rent controls, which was
foolish. This led to the massive increase in rents that we certainly see in
London. Something that Mr Khan has said he intends to do something about,
but is currently failing.
MJ
And used ratepayers' money to enable folk like my fil to buy his Council
house at a low price and at low interest rates. At that time we struggled
to buy anything with two very reasonable incomes. I have little sympathy
with those who complain about costs e.g., a claim it cost £40/50 a week to
feed a child! Try cooking from scratch instead of giving them readymade
stuff, full of additives and allegedly too much salt and sugar. Mumble,
mumble.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-11 18:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<2086601000.524129231.690500.poppy-***@news.eternal-september.
org>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
[]
Post by Btms
to buy anything with two very reasonable incomes. I have little sympathy
with those who complain about costs e.g., a claim it cost £40/50 a week to
feed a child! Try cooking from scratch instead of giving them readymade
stuff, full of additives and allegedly too much salt and sugar. Mumble,
mumble.
Yes, if you make everything from scratch you can save a considerable
amount: but, you spend more time doing it. Of course, the usual thinking
is that time is the one thing people in those situations have lots of,
as opposed to money - but (a) that's not necessarily the case (e. g. if
they take two low-paid jobs), (b) why should you condemn them to be
spending their time in drudgery?

If you _enjoy_ food preparation, that's a different matter.

Having said that, I don't think I spend £50 - certainly not much more,
even including energy (which doesn't often seem to be considered in
these arguments) - anyway, feeding myself, an adult, each week, and that
_does_ include convenience foods.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?
Btms
2017-08-11 20:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
to buy anything with two very reasonable incomes. I have little sympathy
with those who complain about costs e.g., a claim it cost £40/50 a week to
feed a child! Try cooking from scratch instead of giving them readymade
stuff, full of additives and allegedly too much salt and sugar. Mumble,
mumble.
Yes, if you make everything from scratch you can save a considerable
amount: but, you spend more time doing it. Of course, the usual thinking
is that time is the one thing people in those situations have lots of,
as opposed to money - but (a) that's not necessarily the case (e. g. if
they take two low-paid jobs), (b) why should you condemn them to be
spending their time in drudgery?
If you _enjoy_ food preparation, that's a different matter.
Having said that, I don't think I spend £50 - certainly not much more,
even including energy (which doesn't often seem to be considered in
these arguments) - anyway, feeding myself, an adult, each week, and that
_does_ include convenience foods.
I think you live alone? I can understand that prepping and cooking for one
is probably not too economic. The economy works differently. Much home
cooked food is little more than assembling ingredients. And if you cook
double there is one for the freezer. Children dont eat much. Example
today I cooked 24 portions of meatballs on home made sauce. Cost £6.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Fenny
2017-08-11 22:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I think you live alone? I can understand that prepping and cooking for one
is probably not too economic. The economy works differently. Much home
cooked food is little more than assembling ingredients. And if you cook
double there is one for the freezer. Children dont eat much. Example
today I cooked 24 portions of meatballs on home made sauce. Cost £6.
It's cheaper to buy and cook in quantity. I remember seeing some prog
on BBC1 a few years ago about how to eat on a low income. "Celebrity"
chefs went to visit various people on low incomes and help them
produce better meals.

In each case, they were told "X has <this> amount to spend on food
each day. Where <this> was about £2.80. The thing is, you can't buy
a individual day's food for £2.80, but you can buy a week's food for
£20. You might end up eating meatballs in homemade sauce several
times a week, but it will be healthy and filling. A pack of porridge
oats / cereal and 4 pints of milk will make breakfast all week for a
couple of quid.

There are charity "challenges" of spending £1 a day on food for 5
days. A friend of mine did it a few years ago and really struggled.
My comment was that it would be easier to shop for 7 days with £7, as
it gives you that bit extra to play with, but doesn't really add much
to the overall cost.

In the case of feeding a family, again, the larger quantities make the
individual portion costs lower. 2 loaves of bread + 2 pack of cooked
meat + jar of peanut butter + bunch of bananas/equivalent fruit +
cheap pack of choccy biccies = lunch for 4 people plus snacks for kids
for a week at a cost less than a couple of shop bought sandwiches. And
eating leftovers for lunch brings the cost down even more. It is
entirely possible to cater for a family of 4 for considerably less
than £100 a week and have a varied and healthy diet.
--
Fenny
steveski
2017-08-12 00:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 23:03:54 +0100, Fenny wrote:


[]
Post by Fenny
It's cheaper to buy and cook in quantity.
Agreed but when you live on your own . . .

My freezer is chocka with stuff that I cook in bulk but after a while the
same old, same old starts to pall.
--
Steveski
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-12 00:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
[]
Post by Fenny
It's cheaper to buy and cook in quantity.
Agreed but when you live on your own . . .
My freezer is chocka with stuff that I cook in bulk but after a while the
same old, same old starts to pall.
Glad I'm not the only one (-: [And who is doing UMRA at 01:xx!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. -Ellen Glasgow,
novelist (1874-1945)
Fenny
2017-08-13 22:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by steveski
[]
Post by Fenny
It's cheaper to buy and cook in quantity.
Agreed but when you live on your own . . .
My freezer is chocka with stuff that I cook in bulk but after a while the
same old, same old starts to pall.
Yes. At one point when I was being organised, I would cook a couple
of different things in the slow cooker at the weekend, which meant
that I at least had 2 sets of things in the freezer to alternate.

And I must remember to go and get something out of the freezer for
tomorrow's tea before I go to bed.
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-08-12 00:11:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
to buy anything with two very reasonable incomes. I have little sympathy
with those who complain about costs e.g., a claim it cost £40/50 a week to
feed a child! Try cooking from scratch instead of giving them readymade
stuff, full of additives and allegedly too much salt and sugar. Mumble,
mumble.
Yes, if you make everything from scratch you can save a considerable
amount: but, you spend more time doing it. Of course, the usual thinking
is that time is the one thing people in those situations have lots of,
as opposed to money - but (a) that's not necessarily the case (e. g. if
they take two low-paid jobs), (b) why should you condemn them to be
spending their time in drudgery?
If you _enjoy_ food preparation, that's a different matter.
Having said that, I don't think I spend £50 - certainly not much more,
even including energy (which doesn't often seem to be considered in
these arguments) - anyway, feeding myself, an adult, each week, and that
_does_ include convenience foods.
I think you live alone? I can understand that prepping and cooking for one
is probably not too economic. The economy works differently. Much home
A very good point. Yes, the economy - both in money and time - does work
differently for larger numbers: it doesn't take four times as long to
prepare/cook four times as much - only about the same, except for some
ingredients (chopping or shredding ones).
Post by Btms
cooked food is little more than assembling ingredients. And if you cook
double there is one for the freezer. Children dont eat much. Example
today I cooked 24 portions of meatballs on home made sauce. Cost £6.
Yes, again, even for one, preparing lots for the freezer economises on
money and time (provided you remember to take out of the freezer soon
enough). I should do more of that. I suppose I like a _little_ variety;
yes, I could prepare/store stock of a variety. I suppose I'm fortunate
in being able to afford not to.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. -Ellen Glasgow,
novelist (1874-1945)
Sally Thompson
2017-08-12 09:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
to buy anything with two very reasonable incomes. I have little sympathy
with those who complain about costs e.g., a claim it cost £40/50 a week to
feed a child! Try cooking from scratch instead of giving them readymade
stuff, full of additives and allegedly too much salt and sugar. Mumble,
mumble.
Yes, if you make everything from scratch you can save a considerable
amount: but, you spend more time doing it. Of course, the usual thinking
is that time is the one thing people in those situations have lots of,
as opposed to money - but (a) that's not necessarily the case (e. g. if
they take two low-paid jobs), (b) why should you condemn them to be
spending their time in drudgery?
If you _enjoy_ food preparation, that's a different matter.
Having said that, I don't think I spend £50 - certainly not much more,
even including energy (which doesn't often seem to be considered in
these arguments) - anyway, feeding myself, an adult, each week, and that
_does_ include convenience foods.
I think you live alone? I can understand that prepping and cooking for one
is probably not too economic. The economy works differently. Much home
cooked food is little more than assembling ingredients. And if you cook
double there is one for the freezer. Children dont eat much. Example
today I cooked 24 portions of meatballs on home made sauce. Cost £6.
When son was small and I was working, I would cook massive casseroles and
pies of the shepherd* etc at the weekend, divide them up and freeze them.
We ate well though I was desperately poor.

* I can't decide where the apostrophe would go in the normal description of
this meal so I have avoided the issue.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Btms
2017-08-12 10:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Snipped
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by Btms
I think you live alone? I can understand that prepping and cooking for one
is probably not too economic. The economy works differently. Much home
cooked food is little more than assembling ingredients. And if you cook
double there is one for the freezer. Children dont eat much. Example
today I cooked 24 portions of meatballs on home made sauce. Cost £6.
When son was small and I was working, I would cook massive casseroles and
pies of the shepherd* etc at the weekend, divide them up and freeze them.
We ate well though I was desperately poor.
* I can't decide where the apostrophe would go in the normal description of
this meal so I have avoided the issue.
Agreed. I still cook/freeze for the grandchildren but after listening to
the womans Hour Interview with Jill Archer, I am not sure if it is quite
the help I believe. I tend to do it more for the dil with three little
ones and just do cottage pie* for the 12 year old and 4 year old in the
other family. I sense this is what is wanted but I now think I should
ask!**

I should add they pay for the ingredients and sometimes it is a way of
using up fresh veg I dont need.


*Cottage pie because I use beef not lamb.

**The latter because when she is with her Mother it will be all pasta and
sauce from what I have been told.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Penny
2017-08-12 11:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Aug 2017 09:27:51 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
When son was small and I was working, I would cook massive casseroles and
pies of the shepherd* etc at the weekend, divide them up and freeze them.
I used to cook bolognese sauce by the gallon and freeze in portions, partly
because I'd increased the recipe to include a whole bottle of wine - I
rarely drink wine when on my own so this saved waste - but mainly to save
brain power and calls upon my time. One afternoon's cooking produced meals
once a week for 3 months. I did try casseroles too but d#2 was never keen.
She also wouldn't eat mushroom or onion but I managed to hide them in the
bolognese.

But it's all very well to say cook in bulk it saves money to someone who
has fallen on hard times and already has a freezer. For someone paying for
the electric by pre-pay meter (the most expensive tariff) who doesn't own a
freezer (and it wouldn't be safe anyway if the electric ran out) or the
pots for bulk cooking, it is less helpful.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2017-08-12 13:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On 12 Aug 2017 09:27:51 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
When son was small and I was working, I would cook massive casseroles and
pies of the shepherd* etc at the weekend, divide them up and freeze them.
I used to cook bolognese sauce by the gallon and freeze in portions, partly
because I'd increased the recipe to include a whole bottle of wine - I
rarely drink wine when on my own so this saved waste - but mainly to save
brain power and calls upon my time. One afternoon's cooking produced meals
once a week for 3 months. I did try casseroles too but d#2 was never keen.
She also wouldn't eat mushroom or onion but I managed to hide them in the
bolognese.
But it's all very well to say cook in bulk it saves money to someone who
has fallen on hard times and already has a freezer. For someone paying for
the electric by pre-pay meter (the most expensive tariff) who doesn't own a
freezer (and it wouldn't be safe anyway if the electric ran out) or the
pots for bulk cooking, it is less helpful.
For all sorts of logistical reasons, I dont think bulk cooking works in a
domestic setting. But cooking doublr is good.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris McMillan
2017-08-12 14:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
On 12 Aug 2017 09:27:51 GMT, Sally Thompson
Post by Sally Thompson
When son was small and I was working, I would cook massive casseroles and
pies of the shepherd* etc at the weekend, divide them up and freeze them.
I used to cook bolognese sauce by the gallon and freeze in portions, partly
because I'd increased the recipe to include a whole bottle of wine - I
rarely drink wine when on my own so this saved waste - but mainly to save
brain power and calls upon my time. One afternoon's cooking produced meals
once a week for 3 months. I did try casseroles too but d#2 was never keen.
She also wouldn't eat mushroom or onion but I managed to hide them in the
bolognese.
But it's all very well to say cook in bulk it saves money to someone who
has fallen on hard times and already has a freezer. For someone paying for
the electric by pre-pay meter (the most expensive tariff) who doesn't own a
freezer (and it wouldn't be safe anyway if the electric ran out) or the
pots for bulk cooking, it is less helpful.
For all sorts of logistical reasons, I dont think bulk cooking works in a
domestic setting. But cooking doublr is good.
Certainly does, BTMS! McT seems to have inherited his mim's inability to
cook for less than four good helpings which often stretches easily to eight
or ten portions. Some weeks a couple of meals put together
Will feed us and some for the freezer and a meal for my mum if she's come
to lunch, giving him a few days no cooking. And much of this is mainly
loadsaveg with a few bites of meat such as thinly sliced beef or chicken,
similar to the size chunks in Chinese cookery.

Sincerely Chris
Penny
2017-08-12 16:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:28:08 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Btms
Post by Penny
But it's all very well to say cook in bulk it saves money to someone who
has fallen on hard times and already has a freezer. For someone paying for
the electric by pre-pay meter (the most expensive tariff) who doesn't own a
freezer (and it wouldn't be safe anyway if the electric ran out) or the
pots for bulk cooking, it is less helpful.
For all sorts of logistical reasons, I dont think bulk cooking works in a
domestic setting. But cooking doublr is good.
I was including double and treble servings in my definition of 'bulk'.
Bolognese was the only thing I've ever cooked in those quantities. Other,
less favoured dishes, were done in lesser quantities. It was a relief to me
not to have to wonder what we were going to eat on Friday and either of the
daughters could prepare and cook the pasta and veg to go with it which was
an added bonus when I came home late.

I still cook in large quantities and freeze portions for later. I don't
want to shop or cook every day. I'm not on a limited budget though and
neither daughter has room for a freezer the size of mine. I think I could
help reduce their respective food spends but suspect any opposition would
come from their husbands who both have their deep seated quirks.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
steveski
2017-08-12 00:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:38:12 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Having said that, I don't think I spend £50 - certainly not much more,
even including energy (which doesn't often seem to be considered in
these arguments) - anyway, feeding myself, an adult, each week, and that
_does_ include convenience foods.
Luxury! When Ah were a lad . . . (cont. p92)
--
Steveski
Marmaduke Jinks
2017-08-10 22:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
Not just rural areas )-:.
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.
MJ
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I was
told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental ones
affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more affordable in
real terms.
I think the only way forward is to build more council houses, AND KEEP
THEM AS THAT - i. e. not sell them. If there _must_ be sales of them, then
some sort of ruling that they can't be _re_sold for more than - well, open
to debate, but for the sake of argument, no more than their original sale
price plus RPI.
housing associations seem to be trying to fill the gap caused by the
absence of council houses, but in the last year or so I've heard murmurs
of forcing _them_ to sell some of their homes to the tenants (I don't have
the details, just that some element of force was involved, which seemed
fundamentally wrong to me).
--
We must, of course, ensure that we display no bias. The bias I worry about
most is the bias against understanding. - Nick Robinson, RT 2017/4/8-14
HAs are now obliged by law to let their tenants "acquire" their property if
they fulfil certain criteria. The money for the replacement of the sold
property comes from the LA!

MJ

MJ
Marmaduke Jinks
2017-08-10 22:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
Post by Btms
"Time to move on" for Oliver? What a tease. Will this mean moving on from
Tuscany, selling Gay Garbles, or the Grundy ancestral home? I am assuming
all Caroline's estate come to Oliver though I sense all this housing stuff
with Fallon and Harrison may end up with news for Willyerm and
Emma......... Any other thoughts befor tonight?
I'm sure rural areas could do with more socially rented, but now called
affordable rent, properties. I'm surprised a development would go through
with out there being a proportion for renting than being for sale.
MJ
This "affordable" word does not mean quite what I think many believe it
means. There was an application for a development in our village and I was
told young families were unlikely to find the cost of the rental ones
affordable. I think the term "social housing" might be more affordable in
real terms.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Affordable in housing means 80% of market rent. The old social rents were
at 60% of the market rent. When the government cut back on grants to
initially fund building of properties they let HAs charge the "new"
affordable rent. And yes affordable means unaffordable to me too.

MJ
Loading...