Labour rebel hits out at bin spy burden (From Daily Echo)

It is useless giving out leaflets about correct recycling in the student dominated areas, it looks as if some residents cannot understand anything spoken or written.
Do not waste any more time or money on a section of society who pay no council tax but benefit from all council services.
Take way all the blue bins from houeholds who consistantly refuse to recycle correctly.
As a former resident of Carlton Road I see the nuisance first hand walking to work, and sympathise with the council and their ongoing problem.

Better in a bin than strewn all over the place....how about we go back to have just the one bin and the council create some jobs in sorting?

Typical response from these two intellectually challenged throwbacks. Refuse staff (they do not have to be men but as I say, throwbacks) do a hard job and deserve good representation which they get from their union. Cllrs are their employers not their union reps.

OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

It's taken them this long? Geniuses.

Let's have this one backed up with some facts please.

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

It's taken them this long? Geniuses.

Let's have this one backed up with some facts please.

Not just found they found it 4 mths ago but carried on researching.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
0.5 half a person- box room or a nursrey

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

Then there is the HMO regulations act 2004, which sets a minimum of 6.5 sq.mts. as a bedroom when there is a community living room or 10 sq mts. when there is not.
Some L.A.s also have their own licensing standards, which set minimum bedroom sizes.
Arguably, any or all of these would be of relevance to whether what is identified in the tenancy agreement as a bedroom is lawfully so called, and thus whether the bedroom tax should apply. If anyone has a room under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
0.5 half a person- box room or a nursrey

I don't understand your point. It is still sleeping accomodation for anyone under the age of 10 wether you want to call it a box room or whatever.

Did you miss this bit as printed in the same housing act
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

Then there is the HMO regulations act 2004, which sets a minimum of 6.5 sq.mts. as a bedroom when there is a community living room or 10 sq mts. when there is not.
Some L.A.s also have their own licensing standards, which set minimum bedroom sizes.
Arguably, any or all of these would be of relevance to whether what is identified in the tenancy agreement as a bedroom is lawfully so called, and thus whether the bedroom tax should apply. If anyone has a room under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that one as Southy said The Housing Act 1985.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

Then there is the HMO regulations act 2004, which sets a minimum of 6.5 sq.mts. as a bedroom when there is a community living room or 10 sq mts. when there is not.
Some L.A.s also have their own licensing standards, which set minimum bedroom sizes.
Arguably, any or all of these would be of relevance to whether what is identified in the tenancy agreement as a bedroom is lawfully so called, and thus whether the bedroom tax should apply. If anyone has a room under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that one as Southy said The Housing Act 1985.

BEWARE, The State has an obnoxious habit of closing up any loopholes that spring-up in its face, as evidenced in a recent Workfare ruling.

The police are always telling people that if someone knocks your door and you are not happy with who they say they are, call the police. So if some clip board clown council jobs worth comes to give you a telling off, say that you are not happy with who they say they are, and you are going to ring the police. If enough people do that the police will soon get hacked off with it all.
People are sick and tired of national and local government telling them "You must not do that, you must do this. Bum holes to the lot of them.

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

Then there is the HMO regulations act 2004, which sets a minimum of 6.5 sq.mts. as a bedroom when there is a community living room or 10 sq mts. when there is not.
Some L.A.s also have their own licensing standards, which set minimum bedroom sizes.
Arguably, any or all of these would be of relevance to whether what is identified in the tenancy agreement as a bedroom is lawfully so called, and thus whether the bedroom tax should apply. If anyone has a room under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that one as Southy said The Housing Act 1985.

BEWARE, The State has an obnoxious habit of closing up any loopholes that spring-up in its face, as evidenced in a recent Workfare ruling.

Was watching that one coming Sovietobserver, the question now is have the government acted legally on the recent workfare ruling, its going to be interesting when some thing like that comes up in court again.

We already pay to much tax.

southy wrote:

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Sovietobserver wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
OFF BEAT for those that are campainging against the bed room tax, information, the Socialist Party researchers have found a law from 1985 housing act, A bedroom that as less than 70sqft is not class as a bedroom but as a boxroom

more than 110 sq feet (10.2 sq metres approx) = 2 people
90 - 109 sq ft (8.4 - 10.2 sq m approx) = 1.5 people
70 - 89 sq ft (6.5 - 8.4 sq m approx) = 1 person
50 - 69 sq ft (4.6 - 6.5 sq m approx) = 0.5 people.
Less that 50 sq ft = not suitable as sleeping accomodation
Note: children under one year old are not taken into account and children between the ages of one and ten years count as half a person.

Stute law of 1985 (Thatcher Government) any thing less than 70sqft is class as a box room and not a bed room. it over rules local by-laws

That is a direct paste from The Housing Act 1985 from westminster.gov.uk not a local by-law.

Then there is the HMO regulations act 2004, which sets a minimum of 6.5 sq.mts. as a bedroom when there is a community living room or 10 sq mts. when there is not.
Some L.A.s also have their own licensing standards, which set minimum bedroom sizes.
Arguably, any or all of these would be of relevance to whether what is identified in the tenancy agreement as a bedroom is lawfully so called, and thus whether the bedroom tax should apply. If anyone has a room under these requirements then it cannot be classed as a bedroom and you can legally challenge any under-occupancy judgement that says it is a bedroom.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that one as Southy said The Housing Act 1985.

BEWARE, The State has an obnoxious habit of closing up any loopholes that spring-up in its face, as evidenced in a recent Workfare ruling.

Was watching that one coming Sovietobserver, the question now is have the government acted legally on the recent workfare ruling, its going to be interesting when some thing like that comes up in court again.

If the Government is made to obey the High Court's Workfare ruling, it will inflict collective punishment on those who can least afford it, by finding £130 million pounds in new cuts from the welfare budget. Shockingly this is supported by Labour. Yet again the poor will be forced to pay for the mistakes of the powerful.

What a beat up by this councillor and by the Echo for even reporting this as a "story".
Of course some group or people have to review the contents of the bins. If this didn't occur the dysfunctional in our society, witting or unwitting, would destroy the entire concept of recycling within a set procedure and budget.
The harsh reality is that a significant minority of our communities will not for a variety of reasons comply with the requirements. Hence there must be a system to review and correct.
The "garbos" or similar are ideally positioned to perform this tasks. If this is not the case then a team of "detached duty" "garbos".
It is unfortunate that a minority affects the majority - reviews, monitors and correction are the price we have to pay.
Next time Echo - report a real story. I can imagine what the Echo would have reported if the recycling process collapsed because there was no review processes built into the system.