|
|
With these pictures, cross referenced with others, I am attempting to demonstrate that tenants and governments do not create sink estates. Unpleasant areas of low cost accommodation, usually owned by municpal authorities or non profit organisations in receipt of heavy government subsidies, are made so by social workers and housing officials responsible for managing and improving the areas.
I may fail. I may be wrong, but please give this consideration. This conclusion, is one I reached while being attacked and abused by tenants, and during the rule of Conservative government, both local and national, which I do not support. In respect of this, my plea is that the money is spent properly, encouraging and enabling tenants to make their communities better for themselves, and not used to reduce taxation.
Flats 1 & 3 Pares Land Walk Rochdale 31 January 2005 about 1350.
Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12
|
Compare this empty yet protection free lower flat, 3 Pares Land Walk, with
the same flat in Spring 2002 and 2003.
Something suddenly made these flats safe, the last brick through my window was 15 December 2004, yet six weeks later they are safe enough to leave the lower flat empty with no window protection.
How could it? Bricks have been thrown in both flats, occupied and empty.
|
Page 3 of 12
|
Page 4 of 12
|
Page 5 of 12
|
Now, six weeks after the last brick, the lower flat is safe. Not even a steel door.
How? How did Rochdale Council Housing Officials know a steel door was no longer needed? Are they telepathic, or like Mr Exford and the others who's orders they accept, merely borderline psychopathic?
Have the thugs that harassed me and broke into my home three times in one day in 2002, "got religion" or something? The housing officials have told them to stay away.
|
Page 6 of 12
|
Having stopped the violence in 2005, housing officials obviously failed to stop the violence in 2002. Put simply, Mr Paul Helm and his colleagues caused the violence in 2002.
For example, on 10 April 2002, a young man smashed my right spectacle and rubbed the shattered glass into my right eye socket. A serious incident, from which I can never recover was the work of a thug I can name, a housing official Mr Paul Helm.
|
Page 7 of 12
|
Mr Helm was only obeying orders from other housing officials, in this case, Broomleigh Housing Association, but when any of them tell you they need tax payer money to remedy a slum estate, they are lying. They create the problems, and approve of serious violence.
I expect they think it helps them retain their employment, economic rubbish, but people believe it.
|
Page 8 of 12
|
I do not like bricks being thrown through my windows, but it showed Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council was being unkind to me. Every other landlord would have offered me a transfer to another property, at least a mile or so away.
Having noticed that advantage, the thug directly responsible for the violence in the first place, Mr Paul Helm acting on orders from Mr Keith Exford decided to stop it.
Now the steel door I needed, and Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council needs tor all its empty premises, is replaced with a quality wooden door.
|
Page 9 of 12
|
On the left is my second door, to which Rochdale Council objected.
Housing Officials told me it would not improve my security by concealing the much weaker white door they had fitted.
The final argument from Rochdale Council Housing Department enunciated Mr John Schofield, was the colour of my door would attract theives.
He then uses the same colour for the entrance to the adjacent flat.
|
Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12
|
Page 12 of 12
|
Pictures of the white door taken 3 February 2005 about 0200.
This white door is according Rochdale Council Housing Officials the best protection for me that money can buy.
|
|
Their primary argument is that the Fire Service, Rochdale Council claims, want weak doors so that in the event of arson, they can effect a quicker entry.
By saying this, Mr Paul Helm Mr John Schofield and Rochdale Council solicitor Mr Peter Newbold were lying and perjuring themselves. The solicitors should not have allowed their clients to make false statements in Court.
My argument, as a left of centre Atheist, is for honesty, removing evil with good. For a better society, we need those in control to tell the truth, and not allow them to secure public funds, by creating problems. Easier said than done, I know, but honesty is something that can be done.
|
|
|
|
