Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Harley Street landlords ban abortion clinics

245

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed.

    Yeah, its their land, so they can do what they want with it, and nobody else has a right to complain.

    I think they should ban military servicemen from being treated there next, then ban blacks and jews from renting there, then maybe build a nuclear power station over the whole lot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I still the scariest thing about this, and the apparent belief of those supporting it, is that abortion is not serious medicine, not deserving of a place with the other leading medical practioners, and is just lifestyle medicine. It reeks of an attitude towards medical proceedures for women that affects the majority of the wealthiest in the medical profession.


    Why do you assume that is the reason why I would support the landlord's actions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I think they should ban military servicemen from being treated there next, then ban blacks and jews from renting there, then maybe build a nuclear power station over the whole lot.

    Slightly different wouldn't you say?

    There is no discrimination here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess whether landlords should be allowed to ban certain people from renting based solely on personal belefs is a matter of opinion. I happen to believe they shouldn't. MoK thinks different, fair enough.

    I wish at least the landlords would come clean and admit the real reasons behind this move though. That statment of theirs is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They already do Aladdin, sadly as they aren't Catholic views you don't seem to have noticed.

    What about banning dogs, from example? People recieving Housing Benefit? Students?

    This really isn't any different from any of those. Although I don't agree with the views on abortion, I also don't believe that landlords should be forced to rent to anyone, just as I won't let anyone into my house. I presume that you leave your door unlocked and would allow access to anyoone who wanted it? Principle is the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^
    and there's a good summary of what is wrong with capitalist property relations
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    ^
    and there's a good summary of what is wrong with capitalist property relations

    Are you telling me that you let anyone onto your property Blagsta?

    Anyone?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They already do Aladdin, sadly as they aren't Catholic views you don't seem to have noticed.
    And you believe that do you?

    What about banning dogs, from example? People recieving Housing Benefit? Students?

    This really isn't any different from any of those. Although I don't agree with the views on abortion, I also don't believe that landlords should be forced to rent to anyone, just as I won't let anyone into my house. I presume that you leave your door unlocked and would allow access to anyoone who wanted it? Principle is the same.
    No is not. I'm not providing a service. Landlords are.

    Given that having a property to live or work in is a fundamental and critical goal to everyone's most basic wellbeing, those who are in the business of owing a number of properties and letting them to others should have a social responsibility.

    Howard de Walden owns vast amounts of land and property across areas of certain London. There is something quite wrong with that in itself in my book. The least they can do if they have such large numbers of property to let, property which is scarce, expensive and vital to everyone, is put the personal beliefs of the head honcho aside and not ban people because of them.

    Imagine the outrage if a landlord announced that he didn't approve of religious beliefs and that people of all religious denominations would no longer be allowed to stay at his properties. I suspect it would probably be illegal for him to do so. If only we could all enjoy the same levels of protection and tolerance...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'm not providing a service. Landlords are.

    They are choosing to let their property.

    Are you suggesting that landlords should have an "open door" policy enforced on them?
    Given that having a property to live or work in is a fundamental and critical goal to everyone's most basic wellbeing, those who are in the business of owing a number of properties and letting them to others should have a social responsibility.

    And who defines what that resposibilty is? You, them, me, the Govt?
    Imagine the outrage if a landlord announced that he didn't approve of religious beliefs and that people of all religious denominations would no longer be allowed to stay at his properties.

    Imagine that.

    Imagine if the landlord didn't let Catholics practice their religious beliefs...

    Think on that point.
    If only we could all enjoy the same levels of protection and tolerance...

    Including the landlord?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    ^
    and there's a good summary of what is wrong with capitalist property relations

    Exactly.

    Letting someone into your house is different: your house is your personal, private space. Areas of expensive land used for public purposes and owned to make a profit are different.

    And it wouldn't have to be discrimination: like I said they could equally build a nuclear power station or a brothel there if there wasn't some external limitation. Its just a matter of where you draw the line. I don't think that they should be forced to provide abortion clinics so I agree with you to some extent, but I also think people have a right to protest and show their disapproval at their decision because it has a public impact and in my opinion its out of order.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the last five or so years the accepted definition of tolerance has changed...

    It used to be that to tolerate someone you had to openly disagree with what they said or did. Now to be tolerant, disention is unacceptable, the irony both amuses and distresses me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Letting someone into your house is different: your house is your personal, private space. Areas of expensive land used for public purposes and owned to make a profit are different.

    Doesn't the landlord own the premises? Doesn't that make it his personnal space? If he choses tol let it then fair play to him but that doesn't mean he should lose all control over it. Almost alll rental properties have some kind of restriction as to what trade can or cannot take place from there, why should Harley Street be any different?

    Harley Street is not used for public purposes. They are private medical clinics, the public ones are on NHS premises. And isn't almost all rental land/property owned to make a profit? Makes that last point pretty irrelevant.

    I don't see why the owners of Harley street shouldn't restrict the clinics they have there. If they'd said they wanted to become a purely orthopedic centre then no one would be complaining, but because they've picked things that people have conflicting opinions on they are getting a hammering.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you telling me that you let anyone onto your property Blagsta?

    Anyone?

    No. However where I live has a very different use value to the property in question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    In the last five or so years the accepted definition of tolerance has changed...

    It used to be that to tolerate someone you had to openly disagree with what they said or did. Now to be tolerant, disention is unacceptable, the irony both amuses and distresses me.

    What on earth are you on about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't the landlord own the premises? Doesn't that make it his personnal space?


    No. Does he live there?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What on earth are you on about?
    Tolerance, I thought that would have been obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, I thought you were on about "disention" (whatever that is). :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are not mutally exclusive.

    Or were not...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're not making much sense tbh.

    Are you saying that dissension is not allowed anymore in the name of tolerance? If so, give please give an example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    In the last five or so years the accepted definition of tolerance has changed...

    It used to be that to tolerate someone you had to openly disagree with what they said or did. Now to be tolerant, disention is unacceptable, the irony both amuses and distresses me.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, can someone give an example of how dissent is unacceptable in the name of tolerance?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are choosing to let their property.
    How magnanimous of them! They should be granted sainthood status at once!

    Are you suggesting that landlords should have an "open door" policy enforced on them?
    I am suggesting that they should not be allowed to prejudice and discriminate based on personal beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with the business of letting property.


    And who defines what that resposibilty is? You, them, me, the Govt?
    The government should, if it had any spine and any similarity, however small, with the principles of left wing politics and socially responsible government.


    Imagine that.

    Imagine if the landlord didn't let Catholics practice their religious beliefs...

    Think on that point.
    And here we go again... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Who is stopping the landlord from worshipping and being a Catholic, exactly?


    Including the landlord?
    She already is isn't it? The landlord can rent property anywhere safe in the knowledge that she won't be denied it on the basis of being of a certain religious denomination.

    However she's free to kick people out or deny property to potential tenants with impunity based solely on personal beliefs.

    As I said, if only we all enjoyed such rights...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arguably the single most ridiculous thing I have heard in recent times is the argument that you must be tolerant to those who want to be intolerant.

    That the advocates of such premise appear to be oblivious to the absurdity and irony of it is highly amusing and exasperating at the same time.

    Regarding landowning at large, there is something very, very wrong with one family owning large areas of land covering thousands of properties in densely populated city where millions can't afford to buy their own home.

    If there was any social justice and common sense in this world all such land would be subject to compulsory purchase by the government and then sold as cheaply as possible to potential buyers.

    But if we must allow feudal-style families owning vast amounts of land and property, the least we should expect of them is to be fair and not to ban people from renting because of the (perfectly legal) activity the do for a living clashes with personal beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *used to live in a Howard De Walden building, used to be an area rife with prostitution in the 1880s* ;) they practically own most of Marylebone.
    There are presently no abortion clinics on Harley Street. This will now remain the case it seems. There are lots of abortion clinics on other streets in London. Big deal.

    There are private gynae offices where they carry out TOPs on Harley St. Cost an arm and a leg too.

    Tbh, all that's going to happen is that the women who can afford to go to a Harley St gynae anyway will start having their abortions at the Great Portland St hospital where most rich/famous women go. Or, the gynaecologist can hire out one of MSI/BPAS theatres for 15 minutes, charge about £700 for the pleasure, and pocket most of it, that's what one of our surgeons does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It raises questions about the use of private space though. With more and more space being privatised, we're going to see more and more restrictions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Regarding landowning at large, there is something very, very wrong with one family owning large areas of land covering thousands of properties in densely populated city where millions can't afford to buy their own home.

    If there was any social justice and common sense in this world all such land would be subject to compulsory purchase by the government and then sold as cheaply as possible to potential buyers.

    But if we must allow feudal-style families owning vast amounts of land and property, the least we should expect of them is to be fair and not to ban people from renting because of the (perfectly legal) activity the do for a living clashes with personal beliefs.

    The same "Government" that belongs to the legal landowner that you appear to be berating ? :confused::confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I am suggesting that they should not be allowed to prejudice and discriminate based on personal beliefs that have absolutely nothing to do with the business of letting property.

    Whoa hang on there. Why is the intended use of a building not relevant to the business of letting it?
    The government should, if it had any spine and any similarity, however small, with the principles of left wing politics and socially responsible government.

    So you'd be happy with a right wing Tory Govt defining the level of social responsibility?
    Who is stopping the landlord from worshipping and being a Catholic, exactly?

    No-one is stopping her. You would like to by telling her how she must carry out her business - ensuring that it conflicts with her beliefs.
    However she's free to kick people out or deny property to potential tenants with impunity based solely on personal beliefs.

    Because it's hers. She isn't acting with any religious discrimination here, nor racial, nor homophobia, nor sexism and yet you want to dictate to her what she can and cannot do with her property even though it doesn not infrginge the rights of anyone else. You do so because you do not agree with her relgious views. So who is being intolerant here?
    As I said, if only we all enjoyed such rights...

    Actually I am pleased that we don't.

    You have shown on these threads a lack of tolerance for other people's religious and political views. I understand why that is and I don't agree with their views either. Difference here is that you seem to advocate legislation to make everyone think like you do. That is as bad, if not worse, than the people you dispise.
    Arguably the single most ridiculous thing I have heard in recent times is the argument that you must be tolerant to those who want to be intolerant

    Not so. The most ridiculous thing is the suggestion that legislation will stop people from having these views.

    Of course you should be tolerant of the intolerant, otherwise by definition you are intolerant yourself. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't argue aginst their views, but you should never, ever, legislate against them.
    Regarding landowning at large, there is something very, very wrong with one family owning large areas of land covering thousands of properties in densely populated city where millions can't afford to buy their own home.

    Different argument, but not on I disagree with.
    If there was any social justice and common sense in this world all such land would be subject to compulsory purchase by the government and then sold as cheaply as possible to potential buyers.

    As cheaply as possible, is giving it away. And who would determine how we divide up the land, who would be the recipients? More to the point how would they determine it?
    But if we must allow feudal-style families owning vast amounts of land and property, the least we should expect of them is to be fair and not to ban people from renting because of the (perfectly legal) activity the do for a living clashes with personal beliefs.

    Would you be happy to rent out some of your land to the BNP, so that they can run a political office/PR centre?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MOK: When do you think that it is correct to bring legislation in fruition? I think you’ve gone too far the other way to Aladdin. Legislation needs to be in place to control the extent to which people can act on their intolerances; otherwise there’d be anarchy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Arguably the single most ridiculous thing I have heard in recent times is the argument that you must be tolerant to those who want to be intolerant.

    That the advocates of such premise appear to be oblivious to the absurdity and irony of it is highly amusing and exasperating at the same time.

    I understand your sentiment Aladdin, but I don’t see being intolerant of bigots as a negative quality; to the contrary I think it’s entirely laudable in some circumstance. I'm proud of being intolerant of such folk - embrace your intolerance! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whoa hang on there. Why is the intended use of a building not relevant to the business of letting it?
    So long as nothing illegal is carried out and that the adequate licences are in place I don't see why it should be relevant.

    The Harley Street properties in question are already practicing medicine. It's only since the arrival of a new chairman with certain deeply-held personal religious beliefs that some areas of medicine have been deemed 'innapropriate'- something that was never a problem in the past.

    Clearly this is an unfair action taken to please the chairman of the company rather than a conflict of interest with the running of the business itself.


    So you'd be happy with a right wing Tory Govt defining the level of social responsibility?
    I somehow think we would not agree much on what should constitute social responsibility and who should be bound by it... :D


    No-one is stopping her. You would like to by telling her how she must carry out her business - ensuring that it conflicts with her beliefs.
    That's because I believe business practices and religious beliefs are separate issues that must be kept so.


    Because it's hers. She isn't acting with any religious discrimination here, nor racial, nor homophobia, nor sexism and yet you want to dictate to her what she can and cannot do with her property even though it doesn not infrginge the rights of anyone else. You do so because you do not agree with her relgious views. So who is being intolerant here?
    Clearly her. She's the one banning some people from renting her properties because she believes certain activities are sinful.


    Actually I am pleased that we don't.

    You have shown on these threads a lack of tolerance for other people's religious and political views.
    Leaving aside the political bit, I am only showing lack of tolearnce towards those who are intolerant themselves.
    I understand why that is and I don't agree with their views either. Difference here is that you seem to advocate legislation to make everyone think like you do. That is as bad, if not worse, than the people you dispise.
    Not quite. I'm advocating legislation to prevent some people from being intolerant and unfairly prejudicing others based solely on some kind of personal beliefs.

    If you really cared about tolerance and respect for others, you would support the case for ending prejudice and intolerance in the name of religious beliefs.


    Not so. The most ridiculous thing is the suggestion that legislation will stop people from having these views.
    But I never said I want to prevent people from having certain views. All I want is people not to prejudice and discriminate against others under the excuse that they hold certain beliefs that tell them to do so.
    Of course you should be tolerant of the intolerant, otherwise by definition you are intolerant yourself. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't argue aginst their views, but you should never, ever, legislate against them.
    And yet they are allowed to discriminate against others with impunity.


    As cheaply as possible, is giving it away. And who would determine how we divide up the land, who would be the recipients? More to the point how would they determine it?
    Well an easy solution that comes to mind is to sell every property individually as a freehold. No more landlords, no more leaseholds, cheaper housing all around. And as some people will have to rent rather than buy, keep a number of properties for rent and set up a government agency or let local councils to run such properties and to charge affordable rent.

    Would you be happy to rent out some of your land to the BNP, so that they can run a political office/PR centre?
    I don't agree with owning land and property for the purpose of letting it to others so that's unlikely to ever be a problem for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.