70soghuBMoj(ld!L!~~_7.JPG "merehazle"){kind=avatar}
@upthecreekyetagain wrote:
@artful_dodgings wrote:
You really don't give up do you ? Whether you interject with an adverb, you are simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.
You inferred that the Housing Ass, Letting Agency, Landlord, Partner (of ), call them what you will, was somehow scurrilous and objectionable, because they were [quote] 'And incidentally the houses aren't owned by a housing association but by a very profitable business owned by one of the richest tycoons in the North-East and rented out to that venerable organisation G4S'[un-quote] You even went out of way by your own admission, to search them out. [quote] 'A simple piece of information for those who weren't aware - including myself until I looked into the subject'.[un-quote] They are both operating inside the law. They are kosher, straight, and legal. The fact that you refer to them in a derogatory fashion, is absolutely superfluous to the main OP, and nothing at all to do with the fact that immigrants were being hounded.
Furthermore your sarcastic comment to Merehazel is a bit rich coming from you, particularly the last part of your diatribe where you invite debate. You are intransigent and immovable, it's either your way or no way, a one-way street, where you are always right, and everyone else is wrong.
Oh by the way, my front door is red. I am not however, a Labour supporter.
No - I don't give up 🙂 _ Why should i?
You seem to consider it a bad trait to investigate a 'story' further rather than take it on face value - I don't - I always try to get further information about a situation rather than accept a single source.
Many sources do imply that Jomast and G4S do operate 'outside the law' if you consider breach of contract and total failure to carry out a job in the way in which they were contracted to do. Not just in this particular case either - remember the fiasco of security at the Olympics, prisoner escapes, allegations of assault and abuse at detention centres.
G4S and Jomast were not contracted to simply find and provide housing for the Home Office but to also ensure steps were taken to enhance neighbourhood relations and to assist their tenants to integrate.
This is the company that claimed it had not had complaints about the door colours until this week and then had to admit it was raised with them four years ago on Radio 4 as well as in Parliament.
The question I'd like answering is why is a company with the track record of G4S considered suitable to handle the politically, racially and emotively sensitive problem of immigrant housing using public money?
As regards to being intransigent then maybe you have a point, as with all posters on an open forum - I can't remember you changing your standpoint on any subject you feel strongly about.
Your point with regards to Merehazel has lost any meaning when you read their last post.
I missed this artful. Thank you. As you say he don't give up 
Sometimes, (only sometimes) i'm like that if someone takes a crafty pop at me. Yes, I know rest. I'll leave the thread now. I have made my point. And it's easy to shut up. Byeeeeee....
@upthecreekyetagain wrote:What point is that you've made?
As usual you've added absolutley nothing to the thread.
What a ''ridiculous'' comment. (try thinking first). I have two threads, and I'm saying what I want on them. As usual you have added too much. I will add to a thread when I wish. Not when you wish. I also cannot be here almost all the time like you. No, don't bother that's ALL your getting.
@upthecreekyetagain wrote:
@artful_dodgings wrote:
You really don't give up do you ? Whether you interject with an adverb, you are simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.
You inferred that the Housing Ass, Letting Agency, Landlord, Partner (of ), call them what you will, was somehow scurrilous and objectionable, because they were [quote] 'And incidentally the houses aren't owned by a housing association but by a very profitable business owned by one of the richest tycoons in the North-East and rented out to that venerable organisation G4S'[un-quote] You even went out of way by your own admission, to search them out. [quote] 'A simple piece of information for those who weren't aware - including myself until I looked into the subject'.[un-quote] They are both operating inside the law. They are kosher, straight, and legal. The fact that you refer to them in a derogatory fashion, is absolutely superfluous to the main OP, and nothing at all to do with the fact that immigrants were being hounded.
Furthermore your sarcastic comment to Merehazel is a bit rich coming from you, particularly the last part of your diatribe where you invite debate. You are intransigent and immovable, it's either your way or no way, a one-way street, where you are always right, and everyone else is wrong.
Oh by the way, my front door is red. I am not however, a Labour supporter.
No - I don't give up 🙂 _ Why should i?
You seem to consider it a bad trait to investigate a 'story' further rather than take it on face value - I don't - I always try to get further information about a situation rather than accept a single source.
Many sources do imply that Jomast and G4S do operate 'outside the law' if you consider breach of contract and total failure to carry out a job in the way in which they were contracted to do. Not just in this particular case either - remember the fiasco of security at the Olympics, prisoner escapes, allegations of assault and abuse at detention centres.
G4S and Jomast were not contracted to simply find and provide housing for the Home Office but to also ensure steps were taken to enhance neighbourhood relations and to assist their tenants to integrate.
This is the company that claimed it had not had complaints about the door colours until this week and then had to admit it was raised with them four years ago on Radio 4 as well as in Parliament.
The question I'd like answering is why is a company with the track record of G4S considered suitable to handle the politically, racially and emotively sensitive problem of immigrant housing using public money?
As regards to being intransigent then maybe you have a point, as with all posters on an open forum - I can't remember you changing your standpoint on any subject you feel strongly about.
Your point with regards to Merehazel has lost any meaning when you read their last post.
Oh damn and blast that kudosososos ..... was meant for Artful. Well that would be twisted logic.
What colour front door SHOULD a lot more people have.........metal coloured !!
Featured Posts
