|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 11:25:33 GMT
So that would be a no then, you agree that FS did post that thread title that doesn't match the DM article And he does it again! 😁 The irony of you telling me what I posted while whining that FS posted a title thread that didn’t match what he meant just isn’t registering between your ears , is it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 15, 2024 11:27:02 GMT
So that would be a no then, you agree that FS did post that thread title that doesn't match the DM article The thread title matches up perfectly with the DM headline, maybe not word perfect, but most of us can relate to my thread title and the DM headline, and most of us are struggling to understand why you can't make the connection?
This is a serious question, are you losing your marbles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 11:35:58 GMT
So that would be a no then, you agree that FS did post that thread title that doesn't match the DM article The thread title matches up perfectly with the DM headline, maybe not word perfect, but most of us can relate to my thread title and the DM headline, and most of us are struggling to understand why you can't make the connection?
This is a serious question, are you losing your marbles?
It HAS to be word perfect for YOU but Stevie can interpret YOUR posts as what he sees fit . |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 11:43:45 GMT
Simple question if I may.
Do you think the Daily Mail's headline (and if you want this thread title) fairly represent the actual underlying story?
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 11:47:57 GMT
Our council tried to force us to sell our £200,000 home to make room for asylum seekers: Elderly couple's horror after strongly-worded letter lands on their doorstep
I question the article claim they paid 200.000 for a house that was marked to be demolished . 200.000 ' 300.000 for 2 bed room house in Northamptonshire. In General a house in such Condition fetch around 40.000 -70,000 mark Probably because it wasn’t earmarked for demolition and if you go on rightmove there are no properties for sale in Rushden at that price. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 15, 2024 11:47:59 GMT
Simple question if I may. Do you think the Daily Mail's headline (and if you want this thread title) fairly represent the actual underlying story? FFS are you 2 still bitching about what a HEADLINEstated in the DM?...Move on FFS.. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 11:49:05 GMT
Incompetent council alludes to forcing old couple to sell home to house single male immigrants from the third world “ would be a better title .
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 15, 2024 11:58:09 GMT
Simple question if I may. Do you think the Daily Mail's headline (and if you want this thread title) fairly represent the actual underlying story? There is no disputing the 'letter', so regardless of how the DM handled their Headline of the article is not my problem, I read the letter which was the crux of the Headline, and the letter clearly stated the house was earmarked for Asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 12:00:00 GMT
It was a straight forward question. Could you give a straight forward answer
Simple question if I may.
Do you think the Daily Mail's headline (and if you want this thread title) fairly represent the actual underlying story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 12:03:57 GMT
I question the article claim they paid 200.000 for a house that was marked to be demolished . 200.000 ' 300.000 for 2 bed room house in Northamptonshire. In General a house in such Condition fetch around 40.000 -70,000 mark Probably because it wasn’t earmarked for demolition and if you go on rightmove there are no properties for sale in Rushden at that price. Of course it was earmarked for demolition What do you think the reason for councils block purchases was for ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 12:06:24 GMT
Probably because it wasn’t earmarked for demolition and if you go on rightmove there are no properties for sale in Rushden at that price. Of course it was earmarked for demolition What do you think the reason for councils block purchases was for ? So you didn’t read the article .. ”Three days later they received an apology, saying their staff had mistakenly ear-marked the house for possible compulsory purchase, but the Saunders were still baffled by the policy itself.” |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 12:07:02 GMT
Simple question if I may. Do you think the Daily Mail's headline (and if you want this thread title) fairly represent the actual underlying story? The old couple say they felt the council was trying to force them from the property,forcing and bullying are not unrelated and you still don’t get the DM headline is a side issue it was the intention of the council that was being questioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 12:07:20 GMT
Probably because it wasn’t earmarked for demolition and if you go on rightmove there are no properties for sale in Rushden at that price. Of course it was earmarked for demolition What do you think the reason for councils block purchases was for ? I checked the Average house prices for sale in Northamptonshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 12:11:03 GMT
Of course it was earmarked for demolition What do you think the reason for councils block purchases was for ? So you didn’t read the article .. ”Three days later they received an apology, saying their staff had mistakenly ear-marked the house for possible compulsory purchase, but the Saunders were still baffled by the policy itself.” The mistake was because they thought they house was empty. Tell me why there was Compulsory purchase orders the area if not for demolition? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 12:13:48 GMT
So you didn’t read the article .. ”Three days later they received an apology, saying their staff had mistakenly ear-marked the house for possible compulsory purchase, but the Saunders were still baffled by the policy itself.” The mistake was because they thought they house was empty. Tell me why there was Compulsory purchase orders the area if not for demolition? The area wasn’t earmarked for demolition. Why are you posting this bollocks instead of reading the article or maybe even reading the quote in my post . |
|
