Sfdebris.net

Anyone else see Corbin attempting to use the high-rise fire as an excuse to appropriate the private property of the rich?

An extra 2 pounds sterling per tile for fireproof cladding on a tower block? Best let the rich keep their third house.

I've sent one of our engineers into to do work in North Kensington today. Giving him some instructions on avoiding any of the "day of rage" protest in case there's any trouble. Especially the big socialist "Any Means Necessary" meeting.

Corbyn's unbelievable. Telling people to seize other people's private property. What is he thinking?

Thank jebus he didn't actually get in power.

Antiboyscout wrote:Anyone else see Corbin attempting to use the high-rise fire as an excuse to appropriate the private property of the rich?

Source/quote please?

Depending on what exactly it is that you are referring to (presuming its not simply fabricated), I could also ask why the absolute sanctity of the private property of those who are wealthy, should trump the lives of those who are not.

Source

Honestly, it sounds mad, but hearing it twice made me check.

Okay, first of all, the Telegraph is a well-known partisan Right-wing source.

Secondly, did you actually read that article? I did. None of the quotes of Mr. Corbyn they provided (presuming they are not misquoted/fabricated) had him explicitly call for people to forcibly occupy homes- he suggested that the government might requisition properties that were being unused in order to provide housing for people displaced by the disaster.

"In a television interview, he said: "There are a large number of deliberately kept vacant flats and properties all over London - it's called land banking. People with a lot of money buy a house, buy a flat, keep it empty.""

"Asked by ITV interviewer Robert Peston if he would "seize it forever, or just take it for as long as they're needed", he replied: "Occupy, compulsory purchase it, requisition it, there's a lot of things you can do."

The term "occupy" has links to the Left-wing Occupy movement whose members camped in a park near Wall Street, New York City, protesting against corporate greed in 2011."

Pretty tenuous evidence, if you ask me.

The article also stops just short of accusing Corbyn's supporters of planning an armed overthrow of the government, describing Left-wing protesters as "militants" (for things like, in the article's words, "campaigners urge protests to "walk out of school, take the day off, call in sick, strike"." you know, peaceful protest), and accusing them of planning to overthrow the government by causing civil unrest.

Corbyn is going a bit too far for my liking, if the quotes in this article are valid, but the article is an absurd fear-mongering hit piece, deliberately crafted to evoke and incite fears of an armed Marxist revolution in the UK, and blame Corbyn and his supporters for it. Disgusting. As is the fact that they would use a tragedy in this way, and that the British government is apparently colluding with them in doing so:

"One senior Government minister told The Daily Telegraph: "They are on the cusp of encouraging insurrection and hijacking a truly awful event."

it comes amid fears that Corbyn supporters are planning to capitalize on Theresa May's vulnerable position and launch civil unrest in a bid to force her from power.

Thousands of Left-wing militants are expected to descend on Parliament on Wednesday to disrupt the Queen's Speech."

Granted, some of the rhetoric from the Left is rather strident (understandably, since greed caused over a hundred people, including children, to be burned/suffocated to death), and regrettably, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some violence, but to accuse Labour of fomenting it is a despicable, fascistic attempt to brand the main opposition party as terrorists. That the British government and Right-wing media would do this should be chilling to anyone who has any belief in democracy.

And the shear dishonesty and partisanship of the article calls into question the validity of everything else it contains.

Corbyn did not call for expropriation. He was calling out The City on its excess. What precisely is fair about a society where £2 million flats change hands and inflate in value without anyone actually living in them while commoners are forced to pay more, accept less, and live farther away from where they need to be?

Cory Doctorow lived in Britain about as long as he could stand, and I'll put some stock in his assessment of the vile 'culture' of British real estate.