Sir Keir Starmer #2

1
Bridgeofsighs said:
That's likely the father as they came to the UK in 2002. When was the pic taken? The father is likely to be in his 50s or maybe 60s. There's a lot we don't know. Maybe it's being kept out of the news so the trial won't be prejudiced or maybe it's to protect certain people or both?

View attachment 3274993 q
---


Or blocked their extradition to Rwanda to face genocide charges?
---


It was already Community Noted on X. Doesn't mean there isn't a scandal here linked to Starmer. We'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
2015 going by the article?
www.southportvisiter.co.uk

Alphonse gets to where he wants to be - after 19 hard years

Karate dan grade is greatest achievement of his life
www.southportvisiter.co.uk
 
Dame Christine Bleakley said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a grain of truth in it as a human rights lawyer's bread and butter is defending the most vile people to walk the earth and finding some procedure that wasn't completed correctly so killers can get off. So Keir will have mixed with lots of scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

Scum of the earth? That's no way to talk about Rachel Reeves and David Lammy. Oh, no wait. You didn't mean them. My mistake😂
 
Saw this
IMG_0750.jpeg
 
Gym&Tonic said:
I don’t begrudge them, but I do wonder why they seem to lack any insight? Especially those of them who are absolutely minted but are whinging about having their winter fuel taken away when they don’t need it? Fact is the rest of us will never know the kind of security that the Boomers have, I’ve already resigned myself to the fact I’ll probably never own my own home and be working into my 80’s. Probably dying on the job. The boomers have screwed the rest of us over but don’t seem to give a tit. They’re very me, me, me.
Click to expand...

My partner is a Boomer (admittedly youngest of the Boomers as he was born in the last year of the Boomer generation) and I'd like to point a few things out.

He is also likely to be working well into old age. The main security that boomers have is their house, and people like to think that means they're set for life because it's either paid off or that property bought for 20/30k is now worth millions.

Obviously his house is worth more now, and his mortgage is paid off. That doesn't mean he can retire earlier than anyone else, or that he would profit massively as he put a lot of work and over the years the work he's done and had done on the house mean that if he sold it he'd actually probably break even, and what money he banked from the sale would then have to be used to rent or purchase another property and cover living expenses.

Obviously there is security in knowing that he has a roof over his head no matter what. But he still has to make enough money to cover bills - If he took out his pension now that's £500 a month. So no, not all boomers are in the situation you describe.

He also runs his own business, he's a gas engineer, and the profit margins on the most basic services there are none existent, I've sat and waited for literally 3 hours for him to get off the phone in winter from people ringing up one after the other asking him to come out because their condense pipe is frozen, and they don't realise they can fix it by pouring hot water over the condense pipe outside. There are multiple younger engineers that would go out and charge for this, and make over a grand a week off them alone. So it kind of boils my piss to see his entire generation portrayed in this way.

Despite bejng an evil tory voter, if he was magically able to change things like the housing market, he would be happy for his house to be worth less if it meant bringing down prices for younger people to afford houses. Why on earth wouldnt he though do you think most boomers are loving the fact that their kids generation can afford their own houses? His own kids can't afford houses. He's son is 25 and lives with him. His other two, one early 20, one 30, still live with their mum. His 34 year old step daughter just left home at 34.

I think there are more boomers in this situations like this than there are in the situation you've described.




monga said:
2015 going by the article?
www.southportvisiter.co.uk

Alphonse gets to where he wants to be - after 19 hard years

Karate dan grade is greatest achievement of his life
www.southportvisiter.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
terfette said:
My partner is a Boomer (admittedly youngest of the Boomers as he was born in the last year of the Boomer generation) and I'd like to point a few things out.

He is also likely to be working well into old age. The main security that boomers have is their house, and people like to think that means they're set for life because it's either paid off or that property bought for 20/30k is now worth millions.

Obviously his house is worth more now, and his mortgage is paid off. That doesn't mean he can retire earlier than anyone else, or that he would profit massively as he put a lot of work and over the years the work he's done and had done on the house mean that if he sold it he'd actually probably break even, and what money he banked from the sale would then have to be used to rent or purchase another property and cover living expenses.

Obviously there is security in knowing that he has a roof over his head no matter what. But he still has to make enough money to cover bills - If he took out his pension now that's £500 a month. So no, not all boomers are in the situation you describe.

He also runs his own business, he's a gas engineer, and the profit margins on the most basic services there are none existent, I've sat and waited for literally 3 hours for him to get off the phone in winter from people ringing up one after the other asking him to come out because their condense pipe is frozen, and they don't realise they can fix it by pouring hot water over the condense pipe outside. There are multiple younger engineers that would go out and charge for this, and make over a grand a week off them alone. So it kind of boils my piss to see his entire generation portrayed in this way.

Despite bejng an evil tory voter, if he was magically able to change things like the housing market, he would be happy for his house to be worth less if it meant bringing down prices for younger people to afford houses. Why on earth wouldnt he though do you think most boomers are loving the fact that their kids generation can afford their own houses? His own kids can't afford houses. He's son is 25 and lives with him. His other two, one early 20, one 30, still live with their mum. His 34 year old step daughter just left home at 34.

I think there are more boomers in this situations like this than there are in the situation you've described.
Click to expand...
Indeed - people talk about a house trebling (or whatever) in value is wonderful! But all other houses have also increased exponentially - so you can't just sell your house, take your cash, buy a cheap property and then live it up on the remainder. There ain't no remainder.
 
Bridgeofsighs said:
So did he change his name to escape his past? Even genociders are entitled to legal representation. That's not the issue here. Did Starmer block his extradition and why?
Click to expand...
We won’t know till after January but the article confirms Starmer did represent some of the accused, his father could be a a relative of these older men or connected in another way? If there is a genocidal link .
 
TheMiceInTheShed said:
Fair enough - but then you are pricing a local person out of a home in their own area, and pushing prices up there for everyone else, who isn't on London wages, or with a London house sale under their belt.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair point but you can't prevent someone from moving out of London if they want to.
 
It’s like pulling teeth trying to get them to move out of their precious London/SouthEast bubbles though. The incentives being offered by the Home Office to get people to move to the north west, Scotland or Yorkshire are eye wateringly generous. Why people are so attached I have no idea, most of London outside the rich bits and tourist bits is a tit hole.
 
Theodore said:
It’s like pulling teeth trying to get them to move out of their precious London/SouthEast bubbles though. The incentives being offered by the Home Office to get people to move to the north west, Scotland or Yorkshire are eye wateringly generous. Why people are so attached I have no idea, most of London outside the rich bits and tourist bits is a tit hole.
Click to expand...
Good.

We don't ant them up here. They're bad enough as absentee landlords.
 
Gym&Tonic said:
I don’t begrudge them, but I do wonder why they seem to lack any insight? Especially those of them who are absolutely minted but are whinging about having their winter fuel taken away when they don’t need it? Fact is the rest of us will never know the kind of security that the Boomers have, I’ve already resigned myself to the fact I’ll probably never own my own home and be working into my 80’s. Probably dying on the job. The boomers have screwed the rest of us over but don’t seem to give a tit. They’re very me, me, me.
Click to expand...
You're making a lot of sweeping statements. If you really believe all boomers shop in M&S and Waitrose I've got a bridge to sell you.

Plenty of them don't own their own home either. The idea that Labour sell people of pensioners being well off really gets my goat, was it 1 in 6 pensioners is a millionaire? 🤣 They'll be the ones who live down south and they'll be asset rich because its the value of their houses, its not money in their bank account.

How have the boomers screwed everyone over? They were paying rent or mortgage and when interest rates were 10%-17% throught the 70s and 80s. It's only since 2003 they've come down. There were no holidays abroad or much benefit system to help them when they needed it. If the home had one car they were doing well, now most members of the family have a car. (In the 90s some of my dad's family came back from South Africa and couldn't believe how many teenagers had cars, they didn’t over there).

My mum worked on the land during the 1970s and 1980s doing those jobs the left now claim only male foreigners who 'work hard' can do. She's a waspi woman who gets less of a pension than other women who didn't work too.

The truth is every generation have their difficulties but if any generation is me, me, me, it's the younger ones who want everything now. They're the ones born and bought up in Blair's time as PM when it became cool to not take accountability and blame everyone else for problems. Oops now I'm making sweeping statements.
 
Last edited:
TBH the only pensioners now who are reasonably well off are those homeowners who did well from London/ South East property increases (and even then, that money can only be realised if they sell up and relocate) and/or the ones who had final salary pensions - which is mainly those who worked for big companies or in local govt/ NHS. I would suspect that the numbers who don't have final salary pensions is a lot higher than those who do - and there will be many who only get state pension - and that group are probably also not homeowners.

Affordability of housing is clearly a major issue. When I was growing up in the 1970s, I lived in HA housing. There were a few streets of HA/ council properties in our small town but most people owned their own homes. Whereas my relatives lived on council estates in London and no one owned, everyone rented
Then Right to Buy came in, housing stock reduced, there were less council properties available but also everyone wanted to own their own homes. But what needed to happen and didn't, was that councils used the money to replenish housing stock - instead the number of properties reduced, at the same time as house prices (and therefore rental prices) started to rise.
When Labour came to power in 1997, house prices had already increased a lot but were still affordable. I bought a 3 bed house that year for £75k (the people I bought it from paid £45k 4 years earlier). But instead of investing in social housing, Labour just let prices rise and rise; speculating on property and flipping houses or renting them out became the done thing. And nearly 30 years on we find ourselves in the current situation.
 
Lalla said:
TBH the only pensioners now who are reasonably well off are those homeowners who did well from London/ South East property increases (and even then, that money can only be realised if they sell up and relocate) and/or the ones who had final salary pensions - which is mainly those who worked for big companies or in local govt/ NHS. I would suspect that the numbers who don't have final salary pensions is a lot higher than those who do - and there will be many who only get state pension - and that group are probably also not homeowners.

Affordability of housing is clearly a major issue. When I was growing up in the 1970s, I lived in HA housing. There were a few streets of HA/ council properties in our small town but most people owned their own homes. Whereas my relatives lived on council estates in London and no one owned, everyone rented
Then Right to Buy came in, housing stock reduced, there were less council properties available but also everyone wanted to own their own homes. But what needed to happen and didn't, was that councils used the money to replenish housing stock - instead the number of properties reduced, at the same time as house prices (and therefore rental prices) started to rise.
When Labour came to power in 1997, house prices had already increased a lot but were still affordable. I bought a 3 bed house that year for £75k (the people I bought it from paid £45k 4 years earlier). But instead of investing in social housing, Labour just let prices rise and rise; speculating on property and flipping houses or renting them out became the done thing. And nearly 30 years on we find ourselves in the current situation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the previous Labour administration, that had no issues with people becoming 'filthy rich'. I certainly recall Peter Mandleson uttering those very words.

Tony Blair certainly became 'filthy rich' from his Government. Accumulating a vast property empire in the process.

As I've posted previously, average property prices nearly tripled under Labour of 1997-2010.

In May 1997 (when Labour came to power), average property prices were £58,403.

When they left office in May 2010, average property prices were £168,719.

An increase of £110,306, over 13 years.

Under the Tories, average prices were £168,719 in May 2010, rising to £265,012 in June 2024.

An increase of £96,293, over 14 years.

(For those non-evidence providers, who demand 'evidence' from everyone else) https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/property-statistics/nationwide-average-house-price/

No Government over the last 40 years has been good for affordable home ownership.- both Conservative and Labour.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top