You’ve baffled me now Omah.
You mean you didn’t allow something as part of the post , even though it’s in the linked article, because you deemed it offensive ?
If I included an offensive term in a post then I would be breaking the rules:
https://forum.over50schat.com/t/moderating-guidelines/84156/3
Dealing with bigoted remarks/slurs
These include:
- Racist remarks/slurs/themes
- Homophobic or transphobic remarks/slurs/themes
- Slurs against disabled people
- Slurs against someone because of how they were born/something they have little control over
- Slurs against groups of people based on faith or where they were born (we should instead discuss those faiths or the country itself, rather than the people in them - because there is good and bad in everything).
Content external to this site is beyond the control both members and administration on this site.
"In the early hours of November 29, 1962, Peter Rachman, a Polish-born property developer, was driving his Rolls-Royce home toward Hampstead Garden Suburb, north of London, when suddenly he felt ill. The bald, corpulent man pulled over to the side of the road and, sweating heavily, spent some time doubled over the steering wheel. After a short while, Rachman felt well enough to complete his journey. Once he reached his mock-Georgian mansion on fashionable Winnington Road, he took to his bed. At 9:45 the next morning, after a fitful, uncomfortable night, Rachman suffered a heart attack and his wife, Audrey, called for an ambulance. Rachman was admitted to Edgware General Hospital; at 4:45 PM, he suffered a second, this time fatal, heart attack. He was forty-three years old.
The following Thursday, Rachman was buried in Bushey Jewish Cemetery in Hertfordshire. There were only a handful of mourners, principally his wife and some members of her family. Peter Rachman had arrived in Britain sixteen years earlier as an impoverished ex-serviceman, and had remade himself to the extent that, at the time of his death, he was a successful businessman who habitually sported diamond cufflinks, tailored suits, and crocodile-skin shoes. Despite such sartorial flamboyance, Rachman’s was a private life, and he remained largely anonymous. There were no obituaries, and no public acknowledgement of his passing. This would soon change. Within a few months of his death, the British public would become extremely familiar with the name of this Polish émigré, but his posthumous fame was hardly flattering.
On July 14, 1963, The Sunday People published a lead story supposedly exposing the late businessman’s nefarious practices under the banner headline “Rachman—These Are the Facts.” The paper identified Rachman as a central figure in an “empire based on vice and drugs, violence and blackmail, extortion and slum landlordism the like of which this country has never seen and let us hope never will again.” With no fear of a libel suit from a dead man, other newspapers followed and targeted Rachman, although there were plenty of examples of unscrupulous landlords at work in London. The day after The Sunday People’s splash, the BBC broadcast an episode of its flagship investigative program Panorama that depicted Rachman as a degenerate racketeer in tinted glasses, with a cigar in his mouth and a roll of banknotes in his pocket.
The BBC reported that in order to extract maximum profit from his houses, Rachman would not hesitate to “Put in the schwartzers”—as those in the real estate world commonly termed the practice of letting their properties to black people, so that rent-controlled white tenants would feel they had little choice but to leave, enabling the landlords to let out their flats at a higher rate. Panorama reported that, if this didn’t work, Rachman would pay Caribbean immigrant tenants to play deafening music at all times of the day and night. The BBC also reported claims that Rachman hired black hoodlums to intimidate white tenants, or, conversely, white hoodlums to harass black tenants; and if these tactics failed, Rachman would employ thugs with Alsatian dogs to wrench doors off their hinges, remove roof tiles, and rip up floor boards in order to terrify those he wished to evict."
Can’t see anything here that can’t be posted/quoted.
What a fuss about nothing
1 Like
I don’t believe anyone would have pilloried you for including it Omah.
It’s not as if you were using any derogatory term yourself in a demeaning way.
You can bet your life that I would have been “pilloried” … 
You may throw caution to the winds … I keep mine in my pocket … 
Don’t forget there are many who are not prepared to hard graft to get their first home. I well remember working anything up to 14 hrs a day (and all weekends) with the main job and a couple of other when that main job day ended. After 18 months, I had or should I say" we had" saved enough money from having nothing to paying for our wedding and buying a house.
Sorry but I have absolutely no sympathy for these people who can’t or won’t get off their backsides. If Sue and I can do it so can everyone else ,and by the way mortgage rates back then were around 15%
So who does the pillorying here?
Who are you so frightened of?
Do you want to join the club?
Not with you…,what club is this?
Aren’t you looking to join the pillory club?
I don’t know what you’re talking about, why would I join a pillory club?
It’s an article ffs, where’s the free speech?
I don’t know - it is with the pillory club?
But jobs were plentiful and houses were much cheaper .
You need a deposit of at least £25k now and how do you save that on zero hours contract and paying rent .
2 Likes
Omah, you’re beginning to sound real weird.
I still don’t think you’d have been pillioried … besides, you could hide behind me if you had been.
I tend to agree … young uns nowadays seem to have different priorities and expect a higher standard of living so aren’t familiar with the idea of making sacrifices.
It’s the initial deposit that seems to be hampering most of them so perhaps the governments idea of a ‘backed loan’ , at an attractive but realistic rate, is not a bad idea for those who don’t have a rich mum or dad or grandparents to help them onto the ladder.
Muddy it was just as hard back then to get a decent job. I had extra work helping out a pal with car maintenance every evening. So forget this zero hours crap and getting a deposit it is a load of BS. Nothing to stop anyone working abroad to get a good job for a few months to get started.
Houses cheaper? rubbish not on what I was earning £15 a week and houses well the one we got was £7200.and to earn that after expenses nearly half went on living costs of that £15 so please don’t give me that crap.
Sue and I actually managed to save £1500 in 18 months which was no mean feat (1971/2 era) no one helped us we did it on our own
Muddy how many nowaday actually have a DR say don’t work so hard or you will be ill? The amount of weight I lost through grafting worried the DR.
Get out of your head things are harder now than before because they were very hard back then
oh and by the way guzimping was rife and as soon as showing interest in a property up went the price. We only manages to get a house through relatives.
That was the real world not the mamby pamby one now
I lived through that period don’t you know ?
We were refused a mortgage on a house a very modest semi ( £11’000) and we had £1000 deposit which had taken us years to save . The BS man a young AH laughed us out of his office ( I closed our account on the way out )
Houses in the area we lived were not cheap there were certainly no houses for £7200.
Ours was a 2 bed one room downstairs middle of a terrace of 3. kitchen and bathroom at the back.
And lucky to get that. The room downstairs so small you could almost stretch out and touch either side.
No way could we afford a 3 bed semi at the time.
Yes there was actually the nature of my husbands job dictated where we lived as it does for many people