Photos fund fight against plans for 4,500 homes

“In comment:-and perhaps-the public interest-landowners could isolate land from development trends-by including or adding restrictive covenants [ legal restrictions ] with the conveyance-of such land.This basically means the purchasing or transferring solicitor/s have to engross-[ look at in detail ]-such covenants-before they can legally purchase or transfer land.Although only solicitors have access to land deeds-proposed development criteria should be made availiable for public inspection at the local council-in order for the public-to put forward reasons for-or against-such proposals.Hope that helps.”

“@karinfall1955: "@prog-rock-fan. Can't argue with what you say. However, I don't believe you have to be or know 'poor' folk in order to be able to empathise, any more than you need to feel real pain to be able to empathise with someone's suffering. Some of the old school tory types did seem to have more understanding of peoples' woes but I grant you those that you name seem sadly removed from everyday problems."

I agree with everything you say, 100%.”

“@prog-rock-fan. Can't argue with what you say. However, I don't believe you have to be or know 'poor' folk in order to be able to empathise, any more than you need to feel real pain to be able to empathise with someone's suffering. Some of the old school tory types did seem to have more understanding of peoples' woes but I grant you those that you name seem sadly removed from everyday problems.”

“@karinfall1955: "prog-rock-fan. Methinks too much listening to Tales of Topographic Oceans has damaged your judgment."

LOL! Too much listening to Tales from Topographic Oceans would damage ANYONE'S judgment.

@karinfall1955: "There seems a strange dichotomy in your posts."

Always a possibility.

@karinfall1955: "You are always anti-development of green spaces and yet always pro-immigration."

No no — I'm not pro-immigration.

I'm anti-simplistic answers to complex problems.
I'm anti-reactionary xenophobic knee-jerking.
I'm anti-blaming Great Britain's home-grown problems on 'foreigners'.

@karinfall1955: "Do you seriously refuse to acknowledge that vast numbers of people entering this country will require extra housing?"

There's plenty of housing, karinfall — though much of it is not affordable for the middle-class and poor. That's one problem.

Other problems include:

* Lack of access to mortgages with affordable down payments. True villain: a banking system that's flush with cash but actively discourages loaning to middle- and lower-income families.

* Landlords who buy numerous properties to let and are not taxed accordingly. True villain: our regressive, pro-business, anti-individual tax system.

Our system taxes capital gains (the province of the rich, who can let their cash sit in the banking system — which is in turn refusing to loan to small borrowers, preferring instead to pay itself staggering bonuses irrespective of actual performance) at a lower rate than earned income (the province of the middle-class and poor, who spend what they earn — because they have to — thereby stimulating our economy).

VAT, a regressive tax that hits the poor hardest by far, has been increased by 25%, while income tax on our richest citizens is about to be reduced by 5%. That's the doing of the Tories and Lib Dems.

On the other foot, 'New Labour' scrapped the 10pc tax rate for the lowest earners, helping to create a permanent and growing underclass of working poor who can't afford homes on ANY terms — never mind the prohibitive down payments now being demanded by our rapacious banking system.

None of the three major parties will consider a miniscule 0.05% 'Robin Hood' tax on financial transactions — because it might dent the profits of big business by, er, one-twentieth of one percent.

All three parties conspire, wittingly or no, against the poor.

Check out the bevy of new homes being built along the canal system in Aylestone. Their LOWEST purchase price is £150,000 — meaning an average down payment, under our parsimonious banking regime, of £37,500. With the tax system weighted squarely against them, how does a lower- or middle-class family scrape together £37,500 in hard cash for the privilege of assuming another £112,500 in debt?

Ask yourself this: How many poor people does David Cameron know? How about Nick Clegg?- George Osborne?- Gordon Brown?- Tony Blair? How can these models of privilege feel empathy for a class they don't belong to, know next to nothing about, and (I suspect) secretly despise for what they perceive as a 'lack of industry'? When your home address is No. 10 or No. 11, with their lush carpets and museum paintings, how can you comprehend the thwarted middle-class ambition to own a two-bed terrace — thwarted by a system that values inherited bank deposits more than the sweat of your brow?

Blaming these home-grown,100% British-born-and-bred problems on 'foreigners' is absurd and pathetic. It's symptomatic of prejudice, not logic.”

“prog_rock_fan

Immigrants (or rather uncontrolled immigration) results in the need for more houses. It drives demand and sundown segragation means that Blaby and other places outside of the City has to pay the price.”

“@prog-rock-fan. There seems a strange dichotomy in your posts. You are always anti-development of green spaces and yet always pro-immigration. Do you seriously refuse to acknowledge that vast numbers of people entering this country will require extra housing? Given that the birth rate was actually dropping in this country and now it is rising with a need for further midwives etc.

Methinks too much listening to Tales of Topographic Oceans has damaged your judgment.”

“@democrat: "So 3 million immigrantss are let into this (small Country) in less than 10 years and you wonder why there is a need for more houses?"

So, first immigrants were to blame for the Government cutting benefits for poor people... and now they're to blame for houses being built in Barkby.

Please: Find another whipping boy. Not every story is about the horrors of immigration.”

“So 3 million immigrantss are let into this (small Country) in less than 10 years and you wonder why there is a need for more houses?”

“@Eastonian. Quite agree that proposals cannot be fought with pretty pictures or emotive language, BUT, if it wakes us up to the prospect of what we are losing and creates a groundswell of opinion that has to be useful. Unfortunately the only argument that seems to be listened to is traffic and infrastructure. UKIP may be a one issue party but witness the rise of their popularity on the back of the threat of further immigration requiring further homes.”

“Quote (from Eastonian): "Emotive language and evocative pictures need to be put on one side as they have no place in planning decisions".


Quite true, and unfortunately (as displayed by the recent BDC 'New Lubbesthorpe" debate/decision), neither does common sense...”