Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 17:27:14 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

so if you have a long term job at LHR moving house seems the most
appropriate solution
What are these long term jobs of which you speak? And moving house
to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't a walk in
the park.

If as seems to be the case a lot of people have to rent privately if
working in the London area, then a move is not out of the question as
most leases are for six months at a time. And it's a move to make
travel to work easier rather than have multiple changes on PT.

It's still uprooting the whole family.

but you make that choice when you take the job

suffer the commute or move

if you're not prepared to do either, don't take the job

Speaks a man with considerable compassion and an overoptimistic view of
the DWP's reaction to such a situation.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't
a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to their
original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices, they
will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow Connect/
Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you move, you
can make a like for like move at your price point and still be in a area
with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is 300K
more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

below that price you get a shed - though if you are old enough you *can*
find some nice secure accommodation. It's why I've done it - because I
can't afford 795K to live on the other side of the road. Half a dozen of my
neighbours still go to work each day - but they aren't usable as family
homes.

tim

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:27:14 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

so if you have a long term job at LHR moving house seems the most
appropriate solution
What are these long term jobs of which you speak? And moving house to
be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't a walk in the
park.

If as seems to be the case a lot of people have to rent privately if
working in the London area, then a move is not out of the question as
most leases are for six months at a time. And it's a move to make travel
to work easier rather than have multiple changes on PT.

It's still uprooting the whole family.

but you make that choice when you take the job

suffer the commute or move

if you're not prepared to do either, don't take the job

Speaks a man with considerable compassion

Just being realistic. Life's tough.

and an overoptimistic view of the DWP's reaction to such a situation.

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in Barking
really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just have a list of
"local" jobs

tim

Heathrow CC
 

On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow, isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no commitments.
Its easy to bounce around if you can fit your worldy goods in a large box
and don't have any attachments.

about compromise though and I don't pretend, unlike some people on the

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job. Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

Heathrow CC
 

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no
commitments.

no they are not

lots of people move house to enable them to take a better job

and many of then own their own house

and many of them have families to move as well

Its easy to bounce around if you can fit your worldy goods in a large box
and don't have any attachments.

about compromise though and I don't pretend, unlike some people on the

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job.

If those are the choices, then why did they take the job in the first place?

Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

well of course

that doesn't mean that people don't so it

tim

Heathrow CC
 

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:28:34 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:47:38 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:56:27AM +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:43:48 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't
a walk in the park.
It's something that vast numbers of people did in the past, and that a
lot of people still do. I've done it myself.
Not quite so easy if you have a spouse who also works and kids who go to
school.
Are they supposed to just up sticks because you've had enough of your
commute?

I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable. A family is all

Yes - they're normally in their 20s and short term renting with no
commitments.

no they are not

lots of people move house to enable them to take a better job

Yes, lots of young unattached people. When someone is settled with a family
then moving any great distance is something you only do if you really need
if the gain really outweighs the pain. Obviously if you're only moving a few
miles then its not a big deal.

and many of them have families to move as well

Some do, most don't unless they're selfish ****s and #1 always comes first.

The compromise is you lump the commute or find a nearer job.

If those are the choices, then why did they take the job in the first place?

Perhaps when they first took it the commute wasn't so bad but now the traffic
or trains are impossible. Or they needed the money so badly they took anything
to pay the mortgage/tent.

Moving house
when you have a family with kids in school is very much a last resort.

well of course

that doesn't mean that people don't so it

Of course not, just the majority don't.

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 12:12:41 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to
their original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices,
they will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

Newbury Park is apparently the cheapest place to live in London
(rental). I don't know what's "wrong" with it for it to be about half
the price of Hounslow.

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow
Connect/ Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you
move, you can make a like for like move at your price point and still
be in a area with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is
300K more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

And you not in West London. Remember - this is abut staff travel to
Heathrow, and the car versus public transport. Many of those driving
will be coming from outside the M25 where houses are cheaper and PT
impractical.

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

Barking looks pretty cheap. In West London, Hatton Cross is
uncomfortably close to Heathrow! Alperton is only a tad over £300k.

below that price you get a shed - though if you are old enough you
*can* find some nice secure accommodation. It's why I've done it -
because I can't afford 795K to live on the other side of the road. Half
a dozen of my neighbours still go to work each day - but they aren't
usable as family homes.

tim


--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 12:15:30 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in Barking
really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just have a
list of "local" jobs

They don't list jobs much themselves (that was the bricks and mortar
model a generation ago), they police the process whereby people search a
bunch of third party jobsites to look for jobs and then report back once
a fortnight[1]. And get cross if people aren't diligent enough.

Apparently they expect people to commute up to three hours a day (aka
"90 minute rule", if there's an opportunity of employment which will get
them off the register.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/14/made

[1] Still colloquially called "signing on", but it's more of an
opportunity for them to find a reason the sign the jobseeker off!
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 08:05:39 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

Something isn't right there. Oakwood is mainly upmarket middle class houses
semi and detached houses whereas southgate is a mix or properties with quite
a number of council properties, yet southgate prices are higher? Hmm. And
506K for finsbury park? The place is a hole. At a glance I'd say Edgware
looks like a bargain at 421K.

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:12:41 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:00:30 on Thu, 3 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

And moving house to be near a job, especially one like Heathrow,
isn't a walk in the park.

If you already live in a different part of London it is.

Moving further than a sensible commute for the children to get to
their original school is difficult.

so they move school

thousands of children do it every year

it's not impossible

See my reply to David.

Hounslow is not a prime London property location

For a reason. And hence why would people want to move there?

Because if they are in London and can only afford "Hounslow" prices,
they will already be living in an undesirable area of London

Not true. Price reflects convenience as well as posh-ness.

ok

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

Newbury Park is apparently the cheapest place to live in London (rental).
I don't know what's "wrong" with it for it to be about half the price of
Hounslow.

it's looks about 50K in 300K cheaper (at the bottom of the market) to me.

You can't compare using average prices for an area, they will be skewed by
the type of house available. You have to compare 2 bed terrace with 2 bed
terrace (or whatever).

And in any case if the location is inconvenient it won't be possible to
commute to LHR from it, will it

Oakwood is also allegedly one of the cheapest (on the Piccadilly of
course).

No properties available under 350K

Hounslow had 4 or 5 under 300.


But if you can afford more there are are desirable areas that are
commutable as well

By bus, remember (unless you are looking at only the Heathrow Connect/
Piccadilly Line corridor).

I am making the point that if you already live in London and you move,
you can make a like for like move at your price point and still be in a
area with the same amount of desirableness (or un-desirableness).

You don't have to find an extra 300K because the starting point is 300K
more than where you have come from

People relying on public transport are usually a bit below that price
bracket. Renting, probably (with mobility in public housing severely
restricted).

It's obvious you don't live in London

And you not in West London.

I've lived there in the past. I know what the traffic is like

Remember - this is abut staff travel to Heathrow, and the car versus
public transport. Many of those driving will be coming from outside the
M25 where houses are cheaper and PT impractical.

I've done that as well, and it's an equally awful commute by car

people commute by PT because commuting by car across the city is
impractical

But I'm sure that you knew that

And 300K IS the starting point for housing in London

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

I doubt very much they those are "average" prices. Some of them are barely
above the price of the lowest property available in the area.

Barking looks pretty cheap.

but is equally undesirable

In West London, Hatton Cross is uncomfortably close to Heathrow! Alperton
is only a tad over £300k.

There's very little housing available at Hatton Cross. And you wouldn't
want to live there :-)

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:15:30 on Fri, 4 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in Barking
really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just have a list
of "local" jobs

They don't list jobs much themselves (that was the bricks and mortar model
a generation ago),

Yes I know :-)

but I didn't know whether they let you pick your own jobs from the online
list or whether they pick some for you

they police the process whereby people search a bunch of third party
jobsites to look for jobs and then report back once a fortnight[1]. And
get cross if people aren't diligent enough.

based upon quantity

AIUI, one could easily decide not to look too far in a certain direction if
there was enough stuff in the other, easier to drive to, direction

tim

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 19:59:42 on Sun, 6 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:

Average house prices surveyed he

https://media.timeout.com/images/103113857/image.jpg

I doubt very much they those are "average" prices. Some of them are
barely above the price of the lowest property available in the area.

I suggest you take that up with Timeout's writers.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 20:03:18 on Sun, 6 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:15:30 on Fri, 4 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:

I've never had to do this, but does the Unemployment office in
Barking really send people off to jobs in Heathrow? Don't they just
have a list of "local" jobs

They don't list jobs much themselves (that was the bricks and mortar
model a generation ago),

Yes I know :-)

but I didn't know whether they let you pick your own jobs from the
online list or whether they pick some for you

They expect jobseekers to scour a number of third party lists.

they police the process whereby people search a bunch of third party
jobsites to look for jobs and then report back once a fortnight[1].
And get cross if people aren't diligent enough.

based upon quantity

Broadly speaking, yes.

AIUI, one could easily decide not to look too far in a certain
direction if there was enough stuff in the other, easier to drive to,
direction

If you have a car!

But in the absence of sufficient "local" hits, we are left with the 90
minute rule.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 12:12:41PM +0100, tim... wrote:

find me a desirable part of London where you can buy a house for 300K

Thornton Heath. Hope that helps.

Of course, I now expect an argument because "desirable" is one of those
delightfully undefined things.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

There is no one true indentation style,
But if there were K&R would be Its Prophets.
Peace be upon Their Holy Beards.

Heathrow CC
 

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

Or are you going to suggest that all the people doing this are selfish
monsters who don't care about their spouses and children?

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Today's previously unreported paraphilia is tomorrow's Internet sensation

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 11:55:53
on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to a
different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster
befalling the family (not that divorce doesn't involve that much of the
time).

Or are you going to suggest that all the people doing this are selfish
monsters who don't care about their spouses and children?

People moving the family simply for the convenience of the breadwinner
is thankfully very rare. Weekly commuting is a compromise in many cases.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:55:53 on
Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to a
different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away" falls
into

tim

Heathrow CC
 

On 08/10/2019 11:51, tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:55:53
on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a
new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams
this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to
a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

When I was 17 my father was pretty much compelled to move from London to
Solihull, just outside Birmingham. It was a case of "move or find
another job" and as at the time work wasn't exactly easy to find, he
moved. My mother, brother and I had little choice but to move with him.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K. That has always seemed to me to be a nice area;
not Blackheath or Woodford Wells, but more than acceptable.

Heathrow CC
 

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

tim

Heathrow CC
 

"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/five-croydon-gangs-trapping-youngsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked (without a knife)."

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/croydon-gangs-stabbing-youth-violence-16524563


and really not liking Thornton Heath

https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/thornton-heath.html


--
Mark

Heathrow CC
 

"Mark Bestley" wrote in message
...
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

In the slummy parts of Croydon

Which I didn't think included Thornton Heath (not that I've been there
often - about 3 times in my life)

tim

Heathrow CC
 

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:57:09 +0100
Mark Bestley wrote:
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

Cue posts of horror from liberal ****s....

Heathrow CC
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:57:09 +0100
Mark Bestley wrote:
"tim..." writes:

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

I'm astonished to learn houses in Thornton Heath are available for
as little as £300K.

me too

Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and
thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos
such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed
the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was
shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and
a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and
saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

the problem with that attitude is that there *is* collateral damage.

tim

Heathrow CC
 

wrote:


Where do you think the gangs are based

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y
oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

Cue posts of horror from liberal ****s....

Trouble is a lot don’t die straight away or even at all but survive with
injuries that cost the NHS thousands to deal with and in some cases they
will need health attention for life , that is a deliberate aim with some
attacks
where the victim is deliberately injured such as damaging the intestines by
sticking a knife up the anus which means they will need a stoma.

And while you may hope that the incidents will stay within certain segments
of the community like their “music� spread outwards to copy cat little
chavs wanting to look hard while driving their silly Seat Leons with
gangsta music blaring out many white Kids are now thinking it fairly normal
to carry a weapon.


GH

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to
a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's possible
to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or have a longer
daily commute, or even a weekly commute.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 14:37:50 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 08/10/2019 11:51, tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have
a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster
which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

When I was 17 my father was pretty much compelled to move from London
to Solihull, just outside Birmingham. It was a case of "move or find
another job" and as at the time work wasn't exactly easy to find, he
moved. My mother, brother and I had little choice but to move with him.

Sounds like he had a reasonably assured job in Solihull (was it the same
employer?)

A big problem with moving to a new job, specially if there aren't
expenses paid, is that it typically costs a year's worth of disposable
income, and very few jobs in the private sector have a guarantee of
security. Some public sector employers are better, but they've taken to
offering fixed contracts to get around the same issue.

Not that it's entirely their fault - eg arranging maternity cover for a
year is a bit of a hostage to fortune (for the employer) unless the
replacement is given a fixed term contract.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct 2019,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:55:53
on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams, have a
new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public exams
this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go to a
different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away" falls
into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's possible
to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or have a longer
daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

the person who has taken this job with the *unacceptable* commute must have
do so for some reason

and when they did that they must have weighed up the options of moving house
or commuting.

And if they decide on the commute, then presumably thought that wasn't going
to be unacceptable to them.

tim







--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 17:07:34 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53 on Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams,
have a new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
exams this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to a different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possible to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longer daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

the person who has taken this job with the *unacceptable* commute must
have do so for some reason

and when they did that they must have weighed up the options of moving
house or commuting.

And if they decide on the commute, then presumably thought that wasn't
going to be unacceptable to them.

--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:07:34 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:51:36 on Tue, 8 Oct
2019,Â* tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
11:55:53Â* onÂ* Mon, 7 Oct 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:32:28AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:47:38
on Fri, 4 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I repeat, it's something that lots of people have done, and lots of
people do do, so is clearly not completely unreasonable.
First you have to finds a school with places, and the good ones are
likely to be full. Even if you are turning up for the first year of
Secondary because the allocations will have been done 9mths earlier.

The children will lose their friends, places on sports teams,
have aÂ* new
set of teachers, strange classmates, quite likely a different
syllabus
with some subjects not available, and in the run-up to public
examsÂ* this
can be very seriously disrupting.

And yet people do it. No matter how many reasons you can think of for
not doing it, people do it anyway, thus proving that for at least
some
families it's a sensible thing to do.

The most common reason for moving (and children being forced to go
to aÂ* different school, or have a very long commute) is divorce.

I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles away"
falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possibleÂ* to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longerÂ* daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts

I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service
jobs. You get posted from one end of the country to another or abroad,
commuting is out of the question. I moved school several times, three
junior schools and two secondaries, in three different countries.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Heathrow CC
 

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:12:47 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:57:09 +0100
The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and
a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and
saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

the problem with that attitude is that there *is* collateral damage.

There'd be collateral damage anyway, probably more so if they lived as violent
sociopaths and psychopaths don't change their spots - they just keep causing
trouble their entire lives unless they're banged up for good or wind up dead.
The latter is fine by me.

Heathrow CC
 

On 10 Oct 2019 17:20:39 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:


Where do you think the gangs are based


https://www.mylondon.news/news/south...ngs-trapping-y

oungsters-15932262
Shockingly one 18-year-old man said: "You never go to Thornton Heath naked
(without a knife)."

I think they mean:
"Unsurprisingly one 18 year old thick as mince gang member said:"

Most parts of London have their gangs. I know Enfield pretty well and thats
supposedly quite rough but to be brutally honest the blacks and other
miscellanious non-asian ethnics generally keep to their own mini ghettos
such
as Edmonton and happily stab each other there and don't bother many other
people. The only time they crawled out from under their rocks and trashed
the
town centre was in the riots a few years back after that gangster was shot.
Then presumably after becoming scared of being more than 1 mile from mummy
they all cleared off again.

The more violent sociopathic brats stab each to death the better IMO (and a
hell of a lot of others too), takes the scum out of the gene pool and saves
on prison costs as they'd end up there anyway.

Cue posts of horror from liberal ****s....

Trouble is a lot don’t die straight away or even at all but survive with
injuries that cost the NHS thousands to deal with and in some cases they
will need health attention for life , that is a deliberate aim with some
attacks

The NHS costs are probably far less than the costs of keeping them in prison
for 20 years. If they're disabled in a wheelchair the damage they can do is
limited.

And while you may hope that the incidents will stay within certain segments
of the community like their “music� spread outwards to copy cat little
chavs wanting to look hard while driving their silly Seat Leons with
gangsta music blaring out many white Kids are now thinking it fairly normal
to carry a weapon.

Sure, that happens. But despite all that and the BBC and other having spent the
best part of 20 years selling kids the gansta lifestyle (don't believe me? They
employed Tim Westwood for years), violent incidents are way higher in the black
community going by percentage of population than any other and they have no one
to blame apart from themselves. Both asians, chinese and jews have faced a
boatload of discrimination in the past yet they've all thrived - go into any
hospital, solicitors or other white collar professions and you'll see many
asians in top positions. The only blacks working there will be mopping the
floor at 6pm.

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 17:52:05 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles
away" falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possible* to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longer* daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family
from their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service
jobs. You get posted from one end of the country to another or abroad,
commuting is out of the question. I moved school several times, three
junior schools and two secondaries, in three different countries.

I do know people who have been through that experience. It's not that
common though. And obviously isn't involuntary, which the scenarios
discussed so far have been.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:52:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service

Whilst in the forces it'll be a case of move house or get thrown in the nick
for disobeying orders, I very much doubt thats the case in the civil service.
Since its almost impossible to get fired from the latter I suspect if refused
to move they'd simply accomodate your wishes.

Heathrow CC
 

On 11/10/2019 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:52:05 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles
away"Â* falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possibleÂ* to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longerÂ* daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts
Â*I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family
fromÂ* their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil
service jobs.Â* You get posted from one end of the country to another
or abroad, commuting is out of the question. I moved school several
times, three junior schools and two secondaries, in three different
countries.

I do know people who have been through that experience. It's not that
common though. And obviously isn't involuntary, which the scenarios
discussed so far have been.

What is not involuntary about it? If you are in the army you can't turn
down a posting.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Heathrow CC
 

On 11/10/2019 20:49, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:52:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service

Whilst in the forces it'll be a case of move house or get thrown in the nick
for disobeying orders, I very much doubt thats the case in the civil service.
Since its almost impossible to get fired from the latter I suspect if refused
to move they'd simply accomodate your wishes.


Something else you know nothing about then. It is just as easy to get
fired from the civil service as any other job.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 21:03:14 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 11/10/2019 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:52:05 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
I expect the second most common reason is some financial disaster

which "losing your job and having to get a new one, some miles
away"* falls into

It's the *having* to move which is the disaster. Sometimes it's
possible* to get a job locally, or rely on a joint breadwinner, or
have a longer* daily commute, or even a weekly commute.

Oh stop moving the goalposts
*I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion
are really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the
family from* their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil
service jobs.* You get posted from one end of the country to another
or abroad, commuting is out of the question. I moved school several
times, three junior schools and two secondaries, in three different countries.
I do know people who have been through that experience. It's not
that common though. And obviously isn't involuntary, which the
scenarios discussed so far have been.

What is not involuntary about it? If you are in the army you can't turn
down a posting.

It is possible (for US servicemen) to express preferences when it comes
to being posted. In practice that tends to be a positive preference for
exotic foreign postings, and a negative preference for some domestic
postings.

But anyone joining the forces does so voluntarily, and in the
expectation of both job security and the possibility of being posted.
That doesn't always include "with family" though. I bet there aren't a
lot of married quarters for the US forces in (or is it out, now) Kurdish
territory.

And given that it's a commonplace occurrence, there are numerous coping
and support mechanisms in place, which simply aren't for civilians being
uprooted from one end of the UK to the other. You aren't, for example,
likely to find that the secondary school provided for base families
rejects you for being full or out-of-catchment. Nor will new students be
treated by default as unwelcome 'incomers'.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

In message , at 21:04:48 on Fri, 11 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 11/10/2019 20:49, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:52:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service
Whilst in the forces it'll be a case of move house or get thrown in
the nick
for disobeying orders, I very much doubt thats the case in the civil service.
Since its almost impossible to get fired from the latter I suspect if refused
to move they'd simply accomodate your wishes.

Something else you know nothing about then. It is just as easy to get
fired from the civil service as any other job.

Probably easier in many cases, due to the extra rules about "conduct in
public office".

[And while there may be some high profile investigations in the news
today, they simply wouldn't arise in the private sector if the CEO
decided to take a lady friend with him on a trip somewhere. In some
circles it's actually encouraged because it means the CEO won't be
tempted to give technology lessons to girls from the local red light
district instead.]
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow CC
 

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:04:48 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 20:49, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:52:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service

Whilst in the forces it'll be a case of move house or get thrown in the nick
for disobeying orders, I very much doubt thats the case in the civil service.

Since its almost impossible to get fired from the latter I suspect if refused

to move they'd simply accomodate your wishes.


Something else you know nothing about then. It is just as easy to get
fired from the civil service as any other job.

Yeah, right. Why is HMRC stuffed full of clowns who don't know one end of
am invoice or spreadsheet from another then?

Heathrow CC
 

On 12/10/2019 13:04, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:04:48 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 20:49, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:52:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2019 17:39, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that that circumstances under discussion are
really quite rare. And have to be pretty dire to uproot the family from
their schools, friends, etc.

You don't know anybody in the services then, or even some civil service

Whilst in the forces it'll be a case of move house or get thrown in the nick
for disobeying orders, I very much doubt thats the case in the civil service.

Since its almost impossible to get fired from the latter I suspect if refused

to move they'd simply accomodate your wishes.


Something else you know nothing about then. It is just as easy to get
fired from the civil service as any other job.

Yeah, right. Why is HMRC stuffed full of clowns who don't know one end of
am invoice or spreadsheet from another then?


Got caught did you, IR35?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.