"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of us
have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I live.
Do
I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London or
should
I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who would
have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large conurbation, for
example.

Cast_Iron wrote...

"MrBitsy" wrote:

Conor wrote:

says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community. People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of us
have to do it.
I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I live.
Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London
or should I just move where I can afford a property?
Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who would
have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large conurbation, for
example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of course (a
bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing
Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote...

"MrBitsy" wrote:

Conor wrote:

says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of
us
have to do it.
I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live.
Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London
or should I just move where I can afford a property?
Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who
would
have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large conurbation, for
example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of course
(a
bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing
Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...


It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

... agricultural workers.

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and
who would have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large
conurbation, for example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of
course (a bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos.
10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.

The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a social anachronism)
decades before 1979.

S'funny, that.

Had the tied cottages remained in their original use, there'd be less need
for hand-wringing over the housing fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't
there?

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

... agricultural workers.

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us
eat and
who would have difficulty doing that job in the middle
of a large conurbation, for example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied
cottage, of course (a bit like armed forces' married
quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.

The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.

S'funny, that.

Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the point that Thatcher
forced it to end. A subtle but distinct difference that is obviously lost on
you.

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.
The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.
S'funny, that.
Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the point that
Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but distinct difference that is
obviously lost on you.

The more so because it was a lie.

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

JNugent wrote:

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.
The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.
S'funny, that.
Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the
point that Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but
distinct difference that is obviously lost on you.

The more so because it was a lie.

So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the "Right to Buy"
legislation then?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of course
(a
bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing
Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

If the world is all rosy and everyone is nice, then fine. As soon as you
start having difficulties with your employer then its a bit crap that they
also own your house. (and just think if it was ENRON and all your savings
and pension were also tied up in the same basket of eggs).

Also :would you really want to change house just because you change job?

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of
course (a bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos.
10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

If the world is all rosy and everyone is nice, then fine. As soon as
you start having difficulties with your employer then its a bit crap
that they also own your house. (and just think if it was ENRON and
all your savings and pension were also tied up in the same basket of
eggs).

Enron owned farms? :-)

Also :would you really want to change house just because you change
job?

Agricultural workers lucky enough to own their own homes must do that now -
as they cannot *possibly* commute to a farm job, apparently.

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest
of us have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live. Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of
London or should I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who
would have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large
conurbation, for example.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?
--
MrBitsy