|
mfcrocker posted:Yes because being trans is something that only happens in your room it's not like trans people have to worry about violence or anything, just rocking up to some rando's house not knowing if they're likely to try and cave your head in is a fantastic idea and I say go for it wanting to be sure you're not going to be beaten to death in your own bed is just so loving entitled
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
More landlord tales of woe. On Saturday our landlord sent us a new tenancy agreement in which the rent is going up £100 per month per room, accompanied by a letter which amounted to "Yeah the rent's going up, but it's still in line with the local area so button it. Also, I need this signed and returned to me by the 20th." Thing is he isn't wrong, and the reason he's raising the rent is to pay for several "improvements" imposed on him by the council (such as bars across the windows to stop people falling out and my wonderful fire door with a huge gap at the bottom, which is bound stop me dying from smoke inhalation for sure!). The lovely part is he not only expected us to agree to a huge rent increase in a matter of days, he wants us to start this new tenancy a month before our previous one has actually expired. We've emailed him to say, first and foremost, we have no intention on signing anything that starts before our previous tenancy is up. Even then we're unsure of the legalities; the 1988 Housing Act stipulates at least six months notice must before given before any rent increases are imposed, but it's not clear if this applies to changes to an existing contract or to a new one. The Citizen's Advice Bureau couldn't tell me for sure, they recommended I attend a drop in session with the local legal advice service the next day. I turn up to be told they're full and to come back next week. It's a moot point anyway, since we'd be facing eviction should we dig our heels in to negotiate a better deal. I'm willing to risk it, but other flatmates aren't, so the only thing to do is for those of us who aren't willing to pay the increase to move out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Green Wing posted:The housing market is bollocks, it shouldn't be this hard to find a place to live, and having to now spend hundreds of pounds to go and few rooms/flats is bollocks. Am I doing something wrong? if you're moving long distance don't treat it like you would if you were finding a new flat local to where you are now. get a room in a cheap hostel for a week or so and blitz it. take the first decent place you find as a short term option. don't be fussy about living in a box room temporarily - you can put your stuff in a storage locker. then when you're actually in the right part of the country already start looking for something long term. if Brighton's proving too expensive and/or difficult look outside of town and commute. mfcrocker posted:Yes because being trans is something that only happens in your room
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
escapegoat posted:Even then we're unsure of the legalities; the 1988 Housing Act stipulates at least six months notice must before given before any rent increases are imposed, but it's not clear if this applies to changes to an existing contract or to a new one. The Citizen's Advice Bureau couldn't tell me for sure, Give Shelter a call - despite popular belief that they just focus on homelessness, they're all over bad landlords and seem to know the law pretty well. They were really helpful to my sister with a complex issue she had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Cerv posted:common expression just means 'your private life' I wasn't aware that trans status was considered part of your private life (note: this isn't to say it's of public interest either). If your potential housemates don't give a poo poo, fuckin' a, but it's definitely worth bringing up in case you're likely to get your head kicked in for being you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Give Shelter a call - despite popular belief that they just focus on homelessness, they're all over bad landlords and seem to know the law pretty well. They were really helpful to my sister with a complex issue she had. Yeah Shelter are a great organization for this kind of thing. Chances are good if they can't help you, they can definitely put you in contact with someone who can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
they can't raise the rent during the current tenancy agreement if there is only a month left but they can raise it for a renewal the buggers. if negotiations fail it could take them a couple of months to get you evicted (should you wish to go that route...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
vaguely posted:and involves pamphlets apparently??? Everyone has to worry about violence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Masters place confirmed! People kinda glossed over this, but congrats mate. Sounds like you earned it. More than I did at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:I wasn't aware that trans status was considered part of your private life (note: this isn't to say it's of public interest either). If your potential housemates don't give a poo poo, fuckin' a, but it's definitely worth bringing up in case you're likely to get your head kicked in for being you. By all means bring it up, but I'd personally wait till further down the conversation. After you've got some idea if you'd want to share with them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Cerv posted:I don't know if you're even disagreeing with me. It's not public info defiantly, so if you won't say it's private info what's the third option? I'd say it was a form of self identity
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
It's over, we're staying. Hail the baby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
As an english person I don't really care either way. It seems annoying to me that we are going to have keep going through this process over and over again though. Just get it over with. Maybe we can talk about some thing else now for a bit though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Jippa posted:As an english person I don't really care either way. It seems annoying to me that we are going to have keep going through this process over and over again though. Just get it over with. Cameron is giving a massive speech soon, which going on what various MP's have been saying through the night is going to signal a federalisation of the whole UK. Its going to be a nightmare to work out the detail for it though. Makes sense for Cameron as it should also destroy a large part of UKIP's appeal as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
ukle posted:Cameron is giving a massive speech soon, which going on what various MP's have been saying through the night is going to signal a federalisation of the whole UK. Its going to be a nightmare to work out the detail for it though. I said this in the other thread, but this entire concept is surreal to me. I refuse to believe that we've backed England into federation. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
I feel like the partner who's stormed out after a row, and are now meekly trying to slip back in the front door the next morning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm more of a fan of putting basic third-party insurance on fuel, like they do in South Africa. A small increase in fuel prices goes to the Road Accident Fund, which is a state third-party insurer established by statute. That way, if you're hit by an uninsured driver (either as a pedestrian, another driver, or your property is damaged) you're not completely screwed, and you don't need to pay extra for special anti-uninsured driver insurance. It also seems to work out cheaper than the cost of tracking down and penalizing uninsured drivers, but I'm not sure how much the additional fuel price increase would be in the UK. We already do this via the Motor Insurers Bureau, which a percentage of car insurance payments goes towards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:We already do this via the Motor Insurers Bureau, which a percentage of car insurance payments goes towards. Which is a shitload more equitable than putting it on the fuel, because the amount of fuel a vehicle burns has almost no relation to it's risk to third parties. Of course the MIB are even bigger bastards than the sum of their parts when it comes to actually claiming from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I said this in the other thread, but this entire concept is surreal to me. I refuse to believe that we've backed England into federation. I'll believe it when I see it. More likely there'll be a few gestures, a lot of vague promises of what's to come after the general election (VOTE TORY) and some general screwing over of Scotland to appease the backbenchers and the braying English masses with their FURY OVER SCOTTISH HANDOUTS
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I said this in the other thread, but this entire concept is surreal to me. I refuse to believe that we've backed England into federation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I'll believe it when I see it. More likely there'll be a few gestures, a lot of vague promises of what's to come after the general election (VOTE TORY) and some general screwing over of Scotland to appease the backbenchers and the braying English masses with their FURY OVER SCOTTISH HANDOUTS *ignores entire statement just given by Cameron about the federalisation of the UK and the plans for Devo max to be in place by November.*
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:*ignores entire statement just given by Cameron about the federalisation of the UK and the plans for Devo max to be in place by November.* They're full of poo poo, it isn't devo max and it's not guaranteed. The question is how far the lies go, will Shetland go independent and take all the oil?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:*ignores entire statement just given by Cameron about the federalisation of the UK and the plans for Devo max to be in place by November.* Slight correction, the plans fall far short of devo-max. Agreed on the rest though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:They're full of poo poo, it isn't devo max and it's not guaranteed. The question is how far the lies go, will Shetland go independent and take all the oil? The laws will be published in January.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
I expect the devolution powers to be far-reaching, because I think senior Tories have realised that anything they can hand off to a FPTP English parliament is theirs forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I made this observation several times in the Scotland thread, but 'full fiscal self-determination' (i.e., devo max) with minimal transfers would be a Tory paradise
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
So basically the outcome of the indyref is that London and the South-East get vastly more money, Scotland's resources remain more or less as they are now, and Wales/Northern England/Cornwall get hellfucked forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:So basically the outcome of the indyref is that London and the South-East get vastly more money,
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Not so much that as it is they'll burn the English NHS & welfare to the ground, along with income tax if they can get it. Would be hilarious if they did and it led to a mass exodus of poor englishpeople moving to scotland and wales e: whoops, not the gbs indyref thread Torka fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
yup. I do not understand the insistence in the Scotland thread that the Tories won't wholeheartedly embrace federalization, now that New Labour and Lib Dem alike are flatfootedly embracing an awkward double devo of devolved revenue and then further devolved administrative powers below it. The traditional base of support for transfers is collapsing under regional distinctions trumping class and career distinctions - if one opposes transfers from People Like Us to People Not Like Us, now's the best time to strike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:*ignores entire statement just given by Cameron about the federalisation of the UK and the plans for Devo max to be in place by November.* I didn't see it, all I can find is vague waffle about nebulous changes and powers, shutting Scotland out of votes, and talk of 'in the next Parliament'. Got a source where he lays all this stuff out? I mean this is a government that cut funding to local councils and then went after them for daring to try and maintain some revenue by raising council tax or changing bin collections. But no, I'm sure full devolution of the north is surely on its way now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I didn't see it, all I can find is vague waffle about nebulous changes and powers, shutting Scotland out of votes, and talk of 'in the next Parliament'. Got a source where he lays all this stuff out? Its very early days, its going to take years maybe even decades for all this to be sorted out. Short term is changes to give Scotland full Income tax control, and a few other powers. Beyond that due to the election looming everything else will probably have to wait till after that. If they do it properly it would mean trying to work out what form the federalization takes place e.g. stick to the countries (completely unfeasable due to Englands size and diversity), regional areas, etc. Then what rules to pass to the areas, its all complicated and a lot of MP's are going to try and stop it as it risks them being out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
It's just amazing how, after weeks of the Scottish people battling over the power to represent themselves, after terrible pleas from English politicians about how much they love Scotland, as soon as we get a conclusive answers all anybody can talk about on the news is what this means for England. All this topped of by Nigel Farage revealing that, when it comes down to it, he only really cares about England. I hate this goddamn country
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:All this topped of by Nigel Farage revealing that, when it comes down to it, he only really cares about England. I hate this goddamn country
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
ukle posted:Its very early days, its going to take years maybe even decades for all this to be sorted out. Short term is changes to give Scotland full Income tax control, and a few other powers. Well that's what I'm saying, I'll believe it when I see it. There's been plenty of vague promises trotted out over this, and Cameron himself barely has any physical substance, never mind the things he says. And he's said a lot of politically expedient things, over the years. I don't doubt there'll be changes happening, just not in the interests of areas outside the southeast. Right now there's a placating narrative going down, people voted as desired and now they need to hear that yes, you will be rewarded... and yes, areas in England too will get some free power too, because why not... it's only fair... Just be patient... Does anyone sincerely take anything these people say at face value?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Does anyone sincerely take anything these people say at face value? Whatever's devolved to the Scottish parliament will be devolved to the English parliament. Whatever's devolved to the English parliament will be Tory territory for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I didn't see it, all I can find is vague waffle about nebulous changes and powers, shutting Scotland out of votes, and talk of 'in the next Parliament'. Got a source where he lays all this stuff out? they 'went after' bin collections by trying to pay councils to conduct bin collections from general revenue like the US, the struggle for conservatives is how to fund local services for only themselves whilst retaining an appearance of egalitarianism. This is how - local jurisdictions with a larger number of the upper middle class get subsidies and services important to them fine-tuned out of general revenue, and so have their priorities met without becoming sympathetic to the prospect of higher local revenue. Poorer local jurisdictions have to set similar rates, whilst being patted on the head and told that they - like richer jurisdictions - compete on an "equal" basis for revenue to fund local schools and local healthcare. Which is "fair", because
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
^^^ In the end that's basically the same thing though, no? Local authorities were given funding cuts and told to make savings, but then their specific choices about triage and revenue raising were directly and publicly undermined, by Pickles no less (the person meant to be promoting local autonomy and decision-making). Did councils which decided to cut bin collections end up getting free additional funding as a result?Answers Me posted:It's just amazing how, after weeks of the Scottish people battling over the power to represent themselves, after terrible pleas from English politicians about how much they love Scotland, as soon as we get a conclusive answers all anybody can talk about on the news is what this means for England. Scotland gets jack poo poo. Independence is over, in return they've been promised... what exactly? 'Powers' over taxation etc., but nothing concrete, no agreement on what the give and take will be. If anything the No vote can be spun as a vote for whatever changes Westminster decides to make, and with that mandate they can effectively choose whatever terms suit them. Scotland gets 'powers', in return Scotland loses funding and influence in line with what English politicians have wanted for a long time. I mean really, what reason is there to assume Scotland will come out ahead of England on this? Their cards have been played and they just have to wait hopefully to see what Westminster decides. That's why all the talk is about what it means for England - the door's been blown open and their are bountiful opportunities to divvy everything up however Westminster desires. And it's an opportunity to finally remake England in ways that would typically face resistance. It's a magical world of possibilities for the people making these decisions! baka kaba fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Scotland gets jack poo poo. Independence is over, in return they've been promised... what exactly? 'Powers' over taxation etc., but nothing concrete, no agreement on what the give and take will be. If anything the No vote can be spun as a vote for whatever changes Westminster decides to make, and with that mandate they can effectively choose whatever terms suit them. Scotland gets 'powers', in return Scotland loses funding and influence in line with what English politicians have wanted for a long time. the bolded would've been true either way I would say Scotland is likely to get what it wants, most prominently being the OIIIIIIL, since the oil would nicely cancel off the existing public expenditure transfers
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
ronya posted:the bolded would've been true either way Yeah but my point is they've tacitly entered into a de facto open-ended agreement, where some vague powers have been promised in return for... potentially anything. It's basically supermarket sweep for Westminster now. There's no reason for them to relinquish more than they take back, and it will always be spun as 'we gave you what you wanted!' I mean you can argue Scotland would have been worse off under independence too, but I don't see any reason to assume their position within the union will be anything but a net minus after this. Cameron just doesn't need to make a good or even fair offer - if anything it's in his interests to gently caress Scotland over and broaden his support in his voting base. I'd like my cynicism to be completely misplaced, but I ain't hopeful!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:57
|
|