More 'Government' control/social engineering

The Daily Telegraph reports here and the BBC here on Grant Schapps' idea to ease the housing shortage, a plan that has already had a trial in the London borough of Redbridge. Weirdly, there is no information about this scheme available on the Redbridge council website and on telephoning their press office on 020 8708 3755 I was informed that as it is a pilot scheme they had not produced any information. When querying why a pdf of a press release about the scheme had been found but was, again, not mentioned on their website, I was informed it had been deleted although no reason was given when queried. Reverting to Redbridge council's press office, when pointing out that it seem odd that the DCLG was promoting the scheme on their website, Grant Schapps was plastered over the pages of some newspapers, promoting the scheme, that it seemed odd Redbridge was omitting to mention a scheme being trialled with public money, the press officer to whom I spoke remained silent.


The press release mentioned above can be found by typing freespace redbridge into Google and a link to the pdf will be found. More information on 'Freespace' can be found in a report commissioned by Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) as part of its Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) – funded FirstStop Advice programme. The Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) website also refers to an analysis carried out by the Centre for Housing and Planning Research, at the University of Cambridge.


That the 'Freespace' idea can even be considered as worthy of merit is not one with which Shapps would agree because it is yet another idea to 'order' peoples lives through 'friendly persuasion' and another method to solve a problem that 'government' has - one of their own making. It has to be said that one, if not prime, reason for our housing shortage is due to our country being open to Europe, together with his wives and children to walk in and in the process virtually demand to be housed because of their human rights.


It also has to be said that where the 'government' offers to help it is well known that 'help' is the last thing that will be on offer. The 'Freespace' pilot scheme raises other questions such as if 'improvements' are needed to a property which has been 'leased' to the local authority, does the owner have the right to agree to said 'improvements' which the local authority deem necessary? The scheme allows local authorities to carry out maintenance, but who has the right to select those will provide that maintenance, will the most cost-effective quotation be chosen - in fact will estimates for the work be requested? Grant Schapps is quoted as saying "The Government is determined to pull out all the stops to help those who aspire to buy their first home. This includes social housing tenants and we will continue to look at ways to support everyone who wants to get on the property ladder". And the exact definition of 'social housing' is? Will those tenants of the 'Freespace' scheme be considered as 'social housing tenants? Will they be allowed to purchase at a discounted price and if so, will the local authority make up the shortfall twixt that price and the 'market price'? Anna Raccoon has what some may term a slightly cynical view of this scheme.


As with most government schemes, especially any involving Grant Schapps, this is another example of a half-arsed idea which does not appear to have been 'thought through' - but hey, the Lib/Lab/Con are all socialists now.




Afterthought: Some Sheltered Housing complexes are being changed to allow for 'Extra Care' - which provides the facilities and care that is provided by/in Care Homes - so it is reasonable to assume this is being done to alleviate the shortage of Care Homes. If this supposition is correct then we have another half-arsed scheme because unless more Sheltered Housing is built logically there will be a shortfall there.

'Meeja' studies

"The media's selection and description of particular events - far more than their editorials - help to create or promote national issues, to shape the minds of the Congress and public, and to influence the President's agenda and timing."
Theodore C. Sorensen, John F. Kennedy Speechwriter

Really? That the media do shape the minds of the public is true, but that they shape the minds of, in our case, the legislature and Prime Minister is pure hogwash. An example of how this statement is true can best be illustrated in the words of John Rendon, founder of the Rendon Group, a Washington PR firm, who in 1996 told the Us Air Force Academy:

"....when victorious troops rolled into Kuwait City at the end of the first war in the Persian Gulf, they were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags. The scene, flashed around the world on television screens, sent the message that U.S. Marines were being welcomed in Kuwait as liberating heroes. “Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?” He paused for effect. “Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then."

And politicians do not manipulate the news? Yeah, right. What is presented to us today as 'news' is not 'fair and balanced'; it is most definitely 'one-sided', almost what could be termed 'advocacy- journalism'. The media have become part of - and the tool for - what may be termed 'perception management', the latest 'art form' currently being practised by our politicians. As an example I offer the 'Localism' aspect of the Coalition's process for the devolution of power to the people. From the Department of Communities and Local Government website it is possible to access the 'Plain English Guide' to this Localism thingy. Whilst the media did report the right to local referendums, I do not recall them providing as much space to the fact that local authorities can disrgard the result of a referendum if they so wish. As I wrote yesterday, if the public do not receive all the information required for them to make an informed decision, then there must be some form of censorship being practised.

If censorship 'per se' is not being practised, then mind-control most certainly is - and two examples. First Autonomous Mind posts on the misrepresentation of facts and lies being presented as truth. I would query AM's statement that the Express should ensure it's journalists understanding of the EU and the control it has accumulated over this country by pointing out that the content of journalistic efforts generally reflect the 'line' media proprietors wish 'pushed' - but I digress. Second, Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on the fact that Cameron has spent £2million of taxpayer's money on the formulation of his 'Happiness Index' questionnaire. The purported questions are 'mind conditioning' in that they are designed to focus the public's minds on matters of no real consequence, rather than on matters the public do have views - and in some cases, very strong views.

Besides being subjected, physically, to the will of our 'elected dictators', it must now be apparent so are we mentally. The control of our freedom and thought, coupled with the way history taught in our schools is being 'rewritten', means that in our journey down the Orwellian Big Brother path, it can't be long before we are provided with the all-seeing, all-hearing tv sets - or have we already?