ＲＥＶＯＬＵＴＩＯＮ ＩＳ ＯＶＥＲＲＡＴＥＤ
Crypto-Centrist Transhumanist Nationalist.
Type-19 Paramilitary Cyborg. Wanted time criminal. Class A-3 citizen of the North American Union. Opposed to the Chinese Hyper Mind-Union, the Ultra-Caliphate, Google Defense Network, and the People's Republic of Cascadia. National Separatist, enemy of the World Federation government and its unificationist allies.
Blogs Topics: Cyberpunk Nationalism. Futurist Shtposting. Timeline Vandalism. Harassing owls over the Internet.
Use whichever typical gender pronouns you like.
Not all content will have sufficient warning tags.
Osama bin Laden uses the word “Palestine” 13 times in his letter explaining his actions while having just a few throw-away paragraphs on women, sex, gambling, etc.
Admittedly if Palestine wasn’t an issue it’s tough to say that Islamic supremacists would say okay that’s fine pack up and go home no need to agitate for our religion any more.
Who needs Palestine? Give the territory to Jordan and Egypt, demobilize the whole identity, and it’s no longer under Israeli rule.
Also, if you want the US OUT of the Middle East, staging a terrorist attack that literally kills thousands of people, thus providing the political will to invade middle eastern countries that did not previously exist for a President that was just barely elected is the opposite of what you should do.
The other surprising thing about Amenta is that apparently there’s a lot of people who want to RP as social conservatives, even though they themselves are (probably) not social conservatives. As an actual IRL social conservative, I wouldn’t have expected this to be a thing that people would do.
Dude, RPing as a social liberal is the easiest thing in the world. I could elaborate on why I found it surprising that people wanted to do the reverse, but you for some reason make your response un-rebloggable, so I think this part of the conversation is kind of done.
“Jeremy Corbyn tried to pass through a law that would required private landlords to make their homes safe and “fit for human habitation” last year – but it was rejected by the Conservatives.
Labour proposed an amendment to the Government’s new Housing and Planning Bill – a raft of new laws aimed at reforming housing law – in January last year, but it was rejected by 312 votes to 219.
According to Parliament’s register of interests, 72 of the MPs who voted against the amendment were themselves landlords who derive an income from a property.”
I’m sure our dear Voxette wouldn’t mind losing the regulations in favor of requiring all landlords to carry insurance against the death or debilitating injury to occupants with a cap at $1 million per occupant, reflecting the cost to the rest of society of people dying in unsafe housing. After all, it would be terribly immoral to give the landlords a subsidy, right?
They will of course also be required to carry sufficient insurance for neighboring buildings. It wouldn’t be very fair if they got away with a huge fire burning down someone else’s property just because they were bankrupt.
Right, and the insurance company needs to prove that it can actually cover these policies, which requires them to inspect the properties and regulate their safety, such as not covering the exterior with fuckin’ inflammable cladding.
You’re going to get regulation one way or another.
But I’m not sure that the property in question would be “unfit” under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Section 10indicates that the standard for “fitness for human habitation” is determined in respect of enumerated matters. Houses are regarded as unfit for human habitation if and only if they are defective in one or more of the enumerated matters:
In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters—
repair,
stability,
freedom from damp,
internal arrangement,
natural lighting,
ventilation,
water supply,
drainage and sanitary conveniences,
facilities for preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;
and the house shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
If the house is not defective inone or more of these enumerated matters, the house cannot be condemned as unfit for human habitation. “Flammability” is not on this list. Nor is “hazard to human life.” It isn’t clear that the enumerated matters include anything that would have condemned this residence: If the residence was constructed with flammable materials, there was no defect of “repair.” If the residence was stable, there was no defect of “stability.”
If “repair” or “stability” under section 10include fire hazards, then there are few principled reasons why the landlords should not also be caught under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is unaffected by inflation, which requires short-term lessors undertake to:
(a) to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),
(b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and
If “repair” or “stability” include flammability, then the housing here should be condemned because it had failed to “repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”.
The language of section 10 is less impressive. There is no declaration that the house is “unfit for human habitation” if the landlord fails to abide by section 11. But no one has any statutory authority to condemn the house in section 10, either. The Landlord and Tenant Act didn’t empower anyone to go around condemning houses or forbidding sales.
All it did was this:
In a contract to which this section applies for the letting of a house for human habitation there is implied, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary—
(a) a condition that the house is fit for human habitation at the commencement of the tenancy, and
(b) an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord fit for human habitation during the tenancy.
If the landlord failed to comply with section 10, he was in breach of a statutory and contractual duty. There might be some action for damages or specific performance. There might be some action for negligence if house caught flame. Do you know what else would be grounds for such a suit? If the landlord failed to keep the property in good repair.
But those actions would lie with the landlords and tenants, who have the contract, not with any public authority. You can’t sue to enforce a contract you’re not privy to. The Landlord and Tenant Act doesn’t grant any statutory authority to prevent any sale or lease from happening. Itdoesn’t even have an inspection regime.
Do you know what does have an inspections regime? The Housing Act 1985. In section 604, the Housing Act includes the very same language that was included in the Landlord and Tenant Act:
The difference was that section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act created an implied covenant between landlords and tenants. Section 604 of the Housing Act set the terms by which local housing authorities could condemn houses as unfit for human habitation, which they were empowered to do by section 606:
This was the public regulation regime to complement the private regulation under the Landlord and Tenant Act. But if you look for sections 604 and 606 in the Housing Act 2004, you won’t find them. If you look for “unfit for human habitation”, you won’t find it anywhere. Why? Because sections 604 and 606 were replaced by a regime that covered fire safety.
Prior to the introduction of the HHSRS housing fitness was governed by
section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act. Section 604 embodied a pass or
fail test of housing fitness based on similar considerations to those set
out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Where a local
authority identified a property as unfit it had a duty to take action; it
was left to the authority to decide upon the most appropriate course of
action.
A number of problems were identified with the Housing Fitness
Standard. Some of the most serious health and safety hazards, including
fire hazards and fall hazards, were not covered by the standard. In
addition, it was seen by some as a blunt instrument that could only pass
or fail a house, and therefore sometimes did not distinguish between
defective dwellings and genuine health and safety hazards.
So there we have our answer: the amendment wouldn’t have covered flammability, wouldn’t have prevented rentals, wouldn’t have been enforceable by statutory authorities, and wouldn’t have empowered an inspection or sanctions regime. It wouldn’t have granted anything but a private right of action, which they should have had anyways.
The United Kingdom already has statutory authorities empowered to inspect houses for safety – the local housing authorities empowered by the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005to inspect and condemn houses where “exposure to uncontrolled fire” (reg. 3(1)(24)) might result in “death from any cause” (reg. 2(1)(a)). Under section 5 of the Housing Act 2004, local housing authorities had a duty to take action.
It seems the fault here lies with the Housing Act regulators, not the unamended Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
“Jeremy Corbyn tried to pass through a law that would required private landlords to make their homes safe and “fit for human habitation” last year – but it was rejected by the Conservatives.
Labour proposed an amendment to the Government’s new Housing and Planning Bill – a raft of new laws aimed at reforming housing law – in January last year, but it was rejected by 312 votes to 219.
According to Parliament’s register of interests, 72 of the MPs who voted against the amendment were themselves landlords who derive an income from a property.”
I’m sure our dear Voxette wouldn’t mind losing the regulations in favor of requiring all landlords to carry insurance against the death or debilitating injury to occupants with a cap at $1 million per occupant, reflecting the cost to the rest of society of people dying in unsafe housing. After all, it would be terribly immoral to give the landlords a subsidy, right?
They will of course also be required to carry sufficient insurance for neighboring buildings. It wouldn’t be very fair if they got away with a huge fire burning down someone else’s property just because they were bankrupt.
Right, and the insurance company needs to prove that it can actually cover these policies, which requires them to inspect the properties and regulate their safety, such as not covering the exterior with fuckin’ inflammable cladding.
You’re going to get regulation one way or another.
“Jeremy Corbyn tried to pass through a law that would required private landlords to make their homes safe and “fit for human habitation” last year – but it was rejected by the Conservatives.
Labour proposed an amendment to the Government’s new Housing and Planning Bill – a raft of new laws aimed at reforming housing law – in January last year, but it was rejected by 312 votes to 219.
According to Parliament’s register of interests, 72 of the MPs who voted against the amendment were themselves landlords who derive an income from a property.”
I’m sure our dear Voxette wouldn’t mind losing the regulations in favor of requiring all landlords to carry insurance against the death or debilitating injury to occupants with a cap at $1 million per occupant, reflecting the cost to the rest of society of people dying in unsafe housing. After all, it would be terribly immoral to give the landlords a subsidy, right?
They will of course also be required to carry sufficient insurance for neighboring buildings. It wouldn’t be very fair if they got away with a huge fire burning down someone else’s property just because they were bankrupt.
admittedly even if Japan took a ton of immigrants there would still be plenty left over, so it’s kind of just being used as a debate trump card, like right of return for Palestinians to Israel.
At this point I’m inclined to agree with proposals to just split the Palestinian territory between neighboring countries other than Israel.
2016: birth of the alt-right 2017: the non-nationalist french president revealed as cryptomonarchist 2018: russia hacks its own elections 2019: japan begins producing smug anime propaganda against article 9 2020: israel renames itself (((israel))) 2021: border wall finished by ancap subcontractors 2022: nazbol dalai lama appointed 2023: globeheads BTFO 2024: gay agenda comes to fruition (details hazy)
why would that be a good thing? israel is a white nationalist state and hasn't failed yet.
Are you just going to overlook the part here where most of the white nationalists really hate the Jews? And the part where the Jews that wanted an Israel were not among the least competent of all Jews?
Anyhow, if it’s small and powerless enough, I don’t really care if there’s some racially-exclusionary city of 50,000 - 100,000. They get to have their little white ethnostate, the rest of us get to have them no longer included in our politics.
Maybe they’re right, and it’ll be full of great city-state statistics like Hong Kong or Singapore, only you know, ethnonationalist. Probably not, though. We’d have to intervene if they tried to bring back slavery or something.
As you may know, street fights with these people are being used as a justification from the Left to attack our rights, and the behavior of a bunch of fight-happy Communists smashing junk is being used for the same by the Right.
I think @mailadreapta is correct that part of the motive on the conservatives’ part was to point out the contradiction in their progressive and liberal opponents’ actions. Up until this election, the progressive juggernaut had pushed so far forward (or ‘forward’) that it had started throwing white gay men under the bus, which, combined with the fact that the left/liberal plan is to import people of an ideology which is actively hostile to LGBT people wherever it rules, and at rates so high that it risks displacing the native population within a handful of generations, without doing what is actually necessary to defang and atomize that ideology, and constantly making excuses for it, created an opening for attack.
In this case it’s no different than left-wingers pretending they give a sht about countries or the army. The “lul fuck u army’s just an imperialism machine” response may be more honest WRT their actual beliefs.
For my part of course, I disapprove, much like I disapprove of terminating that military-service-for-citizenship program which is apparently ending soon.
It puts me in an awkward spot. Last administration, I spent a lot of effort trying to defend the Obama Administration even when it did dumb things for which there was no defense, and honestly after a while I gave up on that kind of party loyalty because pols will betray you every time.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
