Hobbiniho Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 nice to see another thread gone off topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think JAS is right. Pretty much all men have got enough testosterone or whatever that, perhaps when mixed with drink or drugs, could, in the wrong circumstances lead to them committing rape. This is not any brighter I'm afraid.Ok, how about eating children; You have teeth and a desire to eat meat perhaps. What is to stop you from scoffing our kids if you've gone over the limit on drink or drugs. Your state of mind is not an excuse. Maybe having been encouraged to believe that someone was available only to have consent withdrawn at the last moment. Ok that is not rape in the same way as dragging an innocent victim into the bushes Please explain how one is any different from the other.Surely without consent, rape is rape and a rapist a rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Since every man could be a rapist, why don't we do that to us all? You can't guarantee that you will never rape someone - so why should we risk it? Infact, we could all be murderers too. Every single human is suspect. Who is paying the tickturds rent ? has he any savings Well, often a lack of money leads an individual to commit a crime, however I don't know entirely how applicable that is to the offences we are talking about. If you are so concerned for the man maybe you will offer him a bed at your home then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Back on topic I was interested to read in the council's own annual report on the housing service that almost 60% of lettings in Lerwick in 2007/8 went to homeless applicants while less that 10% of the lettings outside Lerwick went to the homeless. I accept that the figures are somewhat distorted by the number of properties within the town that are perhaps more suited to homeless applicants but this figure must be very disheartening to ordinary people on the waiting list for Lerwick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 ^^ So are homeless people not "ordinary" then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 ^^ So are homeless people not "ordinary" then? Of course they are. Should have said "people on the ordinary waiting list for Lerwick". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertieiddabanks Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 just found this on the shelter website: There are growing signs of affordable housing shortages in the Shetland area. * In Shetland there were 2,372 council and housing association homes in 2007. * Right to Buy resulted in the loss of 547 affordable homes between 1998 and 2007. * There were 73 households living in temporary accommodation in March 2008. * There were 133 homeless households in 2007-2008. * The number of people on the main housing list was 1,241 in 2007. * Average house prices in Shetland soared by 30 per cent between 2003 and 2006: from £68,430 to £88,991. Shetland needs more affordable homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derick Posted November 26, 2008 Report Share Posted November 26, 2008 Prompted by Hans Marter's article entitled "SNP housing cash “better than nothingâ€", - and in particular by the lazy spin that "the SNP cut the generous funding package brought in by the Labour/LibDem coalition." I refer you to Figure 3 in 'Evaluation of Housing Association Grant for Rent in Scotland, 1989-2002" which shows the number of new housing association houses for which funding was approved each year over the period.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/04/06142014/20206 Output from the housing association grant programme was steady at slightly over 5,000 houses per year during the Tory years from 1992/93 to 1995/96 and dropped sharply to around 3,600 to 3,800 units between 1996/97 and 1998/99, er - under the Lib/Lab coalition. 2 The promotion of housing associations by the Tories was in large part a fig leaf to cover the ending of council house building in the early 1980s (because of the "Right to buy" made it financially unviable for councils to build). See chart 4 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/11/20103537/4 The RTB was introduced in 1980 - and made it no longer worth councils building as they would have had to sell off new houses below the cost of construction due to the discount. The numbers of affordable houses was already falling throughout the 1970s though. Severely restricting, or ending the 'right to buy' policy is absolutely fundamental to increasing the amount of new affordable housing built. Re the aforementioned reduction of the 'generous funding package' - the reduction of housing association percentage grant levels has been a long term goal of the senior civil servants formerly at the Quango Communities Scotland, and now in the civil service. My view is that they have taken advantage of the change of government on Scotland to press this agenda. The rationale for reducing subsidy percentages to housing associations is clearly set out in chart 15, chapter 5 of Firm Foundations. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/10/30153156/11 The argument is that housing associations in England - where land and construction costs are higher - needs a substantially lower levels of subsidy than Scottish social housing. Building costs are higher, but the English associations build with less grant. My view is that this is an erroneous argument as the scale of operation of the English associations is very different from that in Scotland. I think ministers are not being well advised. 'Yes, Minister'. to a T. PS - the 'homeless' are not all scum. Most of them are divorced women with bairns, or single people that can't afford a mortgage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 With the economic climate going the way it is,there are going to be thousands of people who will become homeless through no fault of their own other than " Greedy Banks" making millions out of them and then turning their backs on them and taking away financial support for good busineses that have been the backbone of their Massive Profits...These people are not scum...they are victims of s system that is twisted and a Government that is equally so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 These people are not scum...they are victims of s system that is twisted and a Government that is equally so... HEAR HEAR! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarotangel Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 With the economic climate going the way it is,there are going to be thousands of people who will become homeless through no fault of their own other than " Greedy Banks" making millions out of them and then turning their backs on them and taking away financial support for good busineses that have been the backbone of their Massive Profits...These people are not scum...they are victims of s system that is twisted and a Government that is equally so... While I do agree with a lot of what you said I think some blame with the housing market has to lie at the consumers door. I used to work as an Office Manager at an Estate Agents in Linlithgow and it seemed to me when it came to houses some folk lost all the common sense they had. Common example: They could just about to afford stay in Linlithgow and that's what they had their heart set on. Mention somewhere that was close but more affordable (and still a nice place to live)- not interested had to be Linlithgow which was fair enough, but they didn't give one thought about what would happen if the economic situation we have now came to light. I'm not sure if it was the same up here but folk weren't thinking long term about the ups and downs of the housing market. The housing market is such that it is never going to keep going up and up it will always go up and down (hopefully not as extreme as this the whole time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlady Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yesterday the housing department informed the neighbours of the cruden houses of their intent to demolish and rebuild. They have 14 days to object. The problem is ... They're nearly built again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertieiddabanks Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I can't help but notice the work has begun on the st olaf hall. I don't remember seeing the revised planning permission( with 4 parking spots for 20 office spaces) being passed in the paper, did i miss it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I wasn't aware of it being passed either. There are a pile of documents on the planning here. I believe it is going to be used by Baker Tilly. Their existing office on the street does not have any parking at all so I suppose 4 dedicated places is an improvement for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertieiddabanks Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 ^^^ yes, but 4 parking places for 20 office staff in an already overcrowded area... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.