Three year emergency brake would prevent rents rising above CPI, wage growth or 2% – whichever is lowest Zack Polanski will today [2 Oct] unveil the Green Party’s plan for an emergency brake on private rents to put an end to the ‘fear and uncertainty’ plaguing renters and tackle the runaway rents which have outstripped […]
Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.
Obviously they’re empty.
Let’s just say that some are habitable. Therefore they’re relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?
You don’t know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don’t know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)
You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?
You, of course don’t know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they’re habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.
Answer this one and we’ll zip up to the first time I asked again.
People die, houses go through probate, it can take years.
More deflection.
Perhaps learn something about the subject you refuse to engage in.
Here’s the subject you’re refusing to engage in:
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes. Could you answer that please? Do you consider a house that’s abandoned as unoccupied? Stop cherry picking please.
Is this going to be like the abandoned house thing again? Where it takes you 20hrs to answer whether they’re occupied? That was such a dull thread.
Ok, my argument was that when we poors fight only the wealthy win. I understand it fine, do you? You don’t seem to.
But anyways here was your comment which cherry picked the article:
Those 700k aren’t just sat there empty.
>>There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, or under renovation
That isn’t the full sentence is it? You left off some relevant information didn’t you? That’s called cherry picking isn’t it?
Oh look, I told you what I wanted you to do:
No partial quotes please:
>>There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation, **are occupied solely during the week or at the weekend, have been bought as an investment or have simply been abandoned.**
I’ll ask you again: why are you resorting to cherry picking? I thought you wanted to jog on?
https://feddit.uk/comment/27885522
Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.
Let’s just say that some are habitable. Therefore they’re relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?
You don’t know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don’t know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)
You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?
You, of course don’t know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they’re habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.
Answer this one and we’ll zip up to the first time I asked again.
According to your source 97% of house are occupied. Your whole argument that empty houses are a massive problem is false.
The answer to housing shortage isn’t going going to be found in current housing stock.
Build more.
Ah, you’re back to deflecting again. How boring.
This is the comment thread we are currently in:
That is the argument we’re currently unpicking. You can deflect all you want.
People die, houses go through probate, it can take years.
Perhaps learn something about the subject you refuse to engage in.
More deflection.
Here’s the subject you’re refusing to engage in:
Is this going to be like the abandoned house thing again? Where it takes you 20hrs to answer whether they’re occupied? That was such a dull thread.
Removed by mod
It is deflection, and I’ve demonstrated to you why.
Now once again: why did you cherry pick the original article?
You know you came to me right? You can stop at any time.
Removed by mod
Ok, my argument was that when we poors fight only the wealthy win. I understand it fine, do you? You don’t seem to.
But anyways here was your comment which cherry picked the article:
That isn’t the full sentence is it? You left off some relevant information didn’t you? That’s called cherry picking isn’t it?
Oh look, I told you what I wanted you to do:
I’ll ask you again: why are you resorting to cherry picking? I thought you wanted to jog on?