More a pragmatist, dont think happiness enters into it.
Is Stockton on Tees a ****hole?
- Thread starter fillyboy
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,437
- Reaction score
- 790
- Country
So you don't see hypocrisy.Yeah and your probably one of lazy ones as well
Only you and Harry are the hard workers? Or did you mean Harry is lazy because he had a handout?
Does that include Brexit? If so, why do you keep knocking it?
Wouldn't that only encourage more Arabs to move here?
Sponsored Links
Profit-hungry private housebuilders are not interested in social housing, he'd be píssing up the wrong tree.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,582
- Reaction score
- 2,352
- Country
IT, law, business, engineering etc. £25-30k.
Those who go through agencies about 15% less.
It would be unlawful to have an intern perform work and not pay them.
Er I think we know that, so what's the answer to increasing housing that will support 750000 new arrivals annually.
Let's not forget building more hospitals, shops, etc etc to support these new arrivals.
He's used to it after following the Hammers all those years.
A lot of free labour for charities who exploit the loophole available to them.
Blup
Probably look at post war efforts and large industries that housed workers (NCB) etc.
Only this time build the houses with a greater life expectancy.
Having said that, all those prefabs and poured no-fines concrete houses, are still standing today.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,283
- Reaction score
- 2,753
- Country
I don't have a great deal.
But, if I won a large amount on the lottery, for example, I would.
I've never been one for expensive cars and eateries or showing off wealth by buying extremely expensive clothes, watches and jewellery.
But I'd be quite happy giving large sums to local homeless charities and food banks.
What could I do with that much money?
It makes sense to share it around with people less fortunate than me.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,283
- Reaction score
- 2,753
- Country
They were only designed with a lifespan of a decade or so!
They've done really well to last this long.
Portacabins built as temporary housing for bombed out Londoners are still standing - i think the've become listed properties and can't be altered in any way without planning permission, as you would with a Tudor Hall or a fine mansion.
Old geezer was told he could go live in a modern house and refused to leave his 'temporary' accomodation.
One of the many problems with this country: attitude.
We've recently seen it with the RAAC debacle.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with building something fit-for-purpose but cheap, cheerful, and imperfect, that'll do for a pressing need.
What is the problem is that, as a country, there is no accounting for planned or necessary obsolescence, or replacement.
Rolling programme of investment and replacement, not leave the whole "estate" (by which I mean the schools, the hospitals, the social housing etc) to crumble, then throw one's hands up and cry "we can't afford the £100 billion to replace our schools!"
Kicking the can down the road; it's what our politicians do (mostly, anyway).
Sponsored Links
