UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Britain's estates are 'social concentration camps'

Three decades of failed policies have destroyed the life chances of millions living in public housing, says a devastating new report. Emily Dugan investigates

Tina Baillie and her children from the Andover estate

jason alden

Tina Baillie and her children from the Andover estate

Millions of people have been condemned to live under "social apartheid" by 30 years of poor housing policies, a damning report on council estates will say this week.

The 107-page report, to be published on Friday, condemns successive governments for pushing poorer people into what it condemns as "social concentration camps" set away from private housing, jobs and shops. Children born on such estates are more likely to end up unemployed, suffer mental health problems and die younger than their counterparts in private housing, says the study by the Fabian Society. Most damningly for the Government, it concludes that pledges by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to end "no-go areas" and close of the gap between rich and poor have ended in failure.

The report, entitled In the Mix, finds that by concentrating council housing in estates set apart from the wider community, successive governments have produced a situation where living in social housing is not just a sign of poverty but a cause in itself. It is blunt in assessing Britain's housing policy as "nothing short of disastrous".

According to the Fabians, children bought up in social housing now have far fewer life chances than half a century ago, because they are concentrated on increasingly ghettoised estates. Those born after 1970 in council homes are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems than those born in 1946 in public housing, 11 times more likely to be unemployed and not in training or education, and nine times more likely to live in a household where nobody has a job.

The gulf between those left stranded on these estates and rich or even middle-income families is wider now than it was 30 years ago. In England and Wales, the average electoral ward is 16 per cent public housing, but in the poorest wards that figure rises to 70 per cent or more.

By splitting up those living in public and private housing, successive governments have fostered suspicion towards those who live on council estates. Research for the study found that a third of those polled felt people living on council estates had "nothing in common with them", and 60 per cent of those believed that mixed housing would be a bad idea. It concludes that segregated estates have had a devastating effect on social mobility. "There is nothing inevitable about this correlation between housing and disadvantage. It has been caused by political and institutional processes – and such processes can be arrested and altered."

The London Borough of Islington is widely considered the essence and epicentre of New Labour. It also illustrates the national gulf between rich and poor. The Andover estate, one of the biggest in the country, has now become a byword for deprivation, with high rates of unemployment and ongoing problems with drugs and crime. Tina Baillie, 41, first moved to the estate in north Islington when she was 11, and lives there with her three children, Rick, 18, Abbi, four, and Vinny, two. Her boyfriend is in prison and she says she has been out of work for "quite a while" now. Her hopes for her children are simple and informed entirely by the cycle of unemployment on the estate. "What do I hope they do? Work."

Although fiercely defensive of its residents, she blames the estate in large part for her life as it is now. "I wanted to do everything when I was younger: air hostess, modelling, the lot. But what am I doing? Fuck all! I'd move off tomorrow if I could: get a house and be somewhere different. But my kids love it and it's what I've got."

The struggle to get work can often simply be a product of coming from a certain estate: tenants living there become stigmatised, often having trouble finding work simply because of the postcode they live in.

Deborah Murphy is already terrified that her children will get stuck in the cycle of boredom, crime and unemployment that mars so many within. The 49-year-old, unemployed for several years, shares a small flat with her daughter Keshia, 18, and her four-year-old son Casey. "It's hard to make something of yourself here," she says. "I don't want my son to be here when he's 18 or 19 because there's nothing here. It's hard to get a job: if they find out what estate you're from when you apply it's really hard."

Andrea Assanah, 29, has brought up her nine-year-old son Bradley on the Andover estate, but she spent her childhood on a mixed street of houses. "I would have loved that for my son," she said, "but I had to take what I could when this place came along. There is definitely a better sense of community on a street and you feel less cut off."

The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, said: "One of the saddest failings of the Labour Government has been its failure to really shift the life chances of Britain's poorest children. The Government has not only allowed social housing to wither on the vine, it has allowed the gap between the richest and the poorest in our country to turn into a chasm. It is a betrayal of everything the Labour Party was supposed to stand for."

The shadow housing minister, Grant Shapps, agrees: "This report lifts the lid on the devastating impact of a failed housing policy that has led to an increasingly ghettoised social divide. This is bad for those directly disadvantaged and for society because it simply wastes lives."

But a spokesman for the Communities and Local Government Department said: "No government has done more to tackle deprivation... This Government brought in major changes to planning policy last April which means councils must ensure a proper mix of housing to meet local needs."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Employment Agencies
[info]brossen99 wrote:
Saturday, 2 May 2009 at 11:58 pm (UTC)
Employment agencies are the epitome of mass slavery to the Corporate Nazi's, it is virtually impossible to get a job in any large organization without going through an employment agency. Furthermore, it costs public bodies like local councils and the NHS a fortune when they could take on employees at less than agency cost price.

Employment agencies can use post code information to any potential employees to engage in a form of corporate ethnic cleansing. I suspect that people could be driven from any estate property speculators and developers have desires on. Then they blame some people for being on the dole for years, not having the option to move out to another higher priced area. Its all about rigging the property market causing massive house price inflation in some areas whilst councils are forced to virtually give their council house assets to bogus charity housing associations for the stock market parasites to borrow against. Against assurances to tenants voting for " privatisation " rents have increased at rates well above that of inflation, now there are reports of funds not being available for " regeneration " even though the target property is already effectively ethnically cleansed, if not economically cleansed.
"three decades" being the key phrase
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 06:09 am (UTC)
Being the duration of Blatcherism characterised sociopathic governments, it crops up again and again, in every measure and every parameter of the process and fact of Britain's bananarepublicanisation.

Step forward Cromwell, to clear a dense population of snouts out of Westminster and Whitehall - and hold the disinfected ground for long enough for democracy to put down roots.
Re: "three decades" being the key phrase
[info]worldcycletour wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 01:54 pm (UTC)
Who remembers the 'windfall free shares' from newly privatised building socieites... a few billion handed out... please return it... oops, doing so already, a la bailout
[info]world_of_water wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
'Successive governments'? What about the greedy selfish people who voted for them?
Gimme , gimme
[info]mekap wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)

Look ,pride of place , keeping ones own back yard clean, your children scrubbbed up and knowing that by up lifting an area by virtue of zero tolerance to crime and grime gives back a bit of power to the community therefore creating less helpless feeble occupants. People CAN do this collectively, and then the youngsters learn by example. It doesn't have to be a nannyfed dumbed down society, does it?
Re: Gimme , gimme
[info]pinhut wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 07:16 am (UTC)
With respect, what on earth are you talking about?

If one removes the cliches from your comment, one is left with naught but empty space.
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]downtoearthguy - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]pinhut - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 02:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]lady_icedragon - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 02:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]pinhut - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]lady_icedragon - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 03:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]dogsolitude_v2 - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]downtoearthguy - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Gimme , gimme - [info]dogsolitude_v2 - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Misnomer murders
[info]johnronan wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 07:10 am (UTC)
Fecless,fertile but friendly.
The post war housing experiment is not a concentration camp. brief visit to Bosnia S Lanka or Oswiecem would reveal how glib misinformative and insulting this label is to all.

The estates esp the sink estates act like the work house before as a punishment for th poor and equally importantly as a warning to the lower middle classes .One slip one wreckless adventure crime or unwanted pregnancy and welcome to housing benefit hill.

If people have nopower or responsibility for their environment hardly surprising they dont care.

Adapt adopt and improve,the levellers saw land as a key to autonomy a garden at least ,tenants to pay some of the rents.
Mixed communities where the PM,architect,have social workers and police to reside in these communities might ensure mutual interest.
Evict the trouble makers to comparable estates at the other end of country or Flaklands perhaps as a deterrenet to the drug gangs.
Grant Schapps & the Quality of Irony
[info]jimg66 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC)
There's nothing in this report that should surprise anyone but the breath-taking hypocrisy of Grant Schapps is something else. Who was it that sold off council housing in the first place? Who was it that prevented stock lost through the Right to Buy being replaced by councils? Surely, given his mention of 'failed housing policy', it couldn't have had anything to do with the Tories?! New Labour might be guilty of perpetuating a failed policy but the policy is unmistakably Tory.

Looks like those irony by-passes for members of the Shadow Cabinet have really paid off.
Social housing
[info]alison_jean wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 07:59 am (UTC)
I grew up on a council estate in the 50s and 60s and the difference then was that it was a privilege to get a house, all the fathers worked and the only single mothers were widows, and they worked hard too. The government needs to bring back the 'waiting list' for at least 75% of social housing and allow anyone to apply, with points given for number of years in an area (will improve social cohesion and allow children to live near elderly parents), working (will improve the social mix and bring role models in to areas where very few people work at the moment), and willingness to engage in community life, perhaps through volunteering.
We also need to end the 'tenancy for life' culture. Bad tenants should be evicted and underused houses should be sought and elderly residents moved to purpose-built sheltered housing. Tenancy should be reviewed every two years.
Now because social housing is based on need people have to make themselves needy to get a house.
When EU residents can come here in 2012 and apply for housing without having to work here for a year there will be an outcry as new tenancies go to large families of EU nationals. The waiting list will be the only way for low-paid British people to qualify for social housing.
Councils should be able to spend right-to-buy receipts on building new accomodation for the elderly and single people and to buy houses in private housing areas to make mixed estates.
People in social housing in areas with few jobs should be able to move to areas with jobs in other parts of the country. Why should a Polish builder get a council house in London when an unemployed builder in Hartlepool could find work if he could get housing?
Hostels should be built for asylum seekers so that the 'pull' effect of getting a house isn't an aim of immigrants.
Council housing shouldn't be a stigma, but housing policy has made it that way. An urgent rethink is needed and the allocation procedure should be the starting point. Waiting lists have soared and getting a social housing tenancy should be a stepping stone, not a millstone.
Re: Social housing
[info]cloburdliberal wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:02 pm (UTC)
this is well put and obviously from someone who has a notion of what they are talking about

I grew up on a "notorious" estate in Oxford in the 60 and 70's Blackbird leys.

all I can recall is that the overwhelming majority of men worked shifts and many woman too. The estate was tidy and there were old fashioned working class respectability values in place....such as keeping your home and garden in order and keeping up appearances. There were also many "gatekeepers"" in that age too. Men and woman who did voluntary youth work. Visible men who didnt stand for nonsense. People who stood at entrances, on the buses. All of this has gone, alas with the pride and the general optimism of the period.

What are the answers? Many. But there is not even the beginning of a wider social debate about the deletarious effects of some of the following; over consumption, the spiritual emptiness of UK secular society, negative and over sexualised TV input, bad nutrition, poor mental health and low aspiration on Britain s marginalised millions

Go to Holland if you want some answers to public housing and social cohesion. They are MILES ahead on this matter and many more besides.
what about class prejudice
[info]kathzbell wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
This doesn't address key areas. When council houses were sold, it became much harder to get a council house. Priority was given to people who already had problems, changing the social make-up of council estates by adding a higher percentage of people with serious problems that is usual in other areas. At the same time, owning a house began to see as a badge of success so the council tenants who remained were stigmatised as failures.

Then class hatred - by which I mean the dislike of the middle and upper classes for the working class - intensified. "Chav" jokes became mainstream and extreme.

If there was a discussion about other social groups who failed to achieve, some thought might be given to the prejudice that deters and prevents them. Why is this not explored here but merely mentioned briefly as the prejudice against people from certain postcodes?
Re: what about class prejudice
[info]carolmacg5 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:56 pm (UTC)
Well said about class hatred. Snobbery in this country is almost on a par with what it was pre-war with 'chazs' being the new 'below stairs'. It disgusts me.
[info]andre_t wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
Sevenoaks council housing - right to buy was taken up by most of the tenants. So the tax payer community supported these groups, and get nothing back when the tenants make a quick buck from property financed by the community. Where are the next "tenants" going to move to, most of the decent developments are now sold off.
Mixed housing ?
[info]mekap wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)

I definitely think the idea of social housing mixed with private is an utter disgrace. Why on earth should someone who has worked damned hard to save for a home and buy one at great expense and pay the bills be two or three doors away from some single youngster with her noisy brood of ear ringed 6 year old brats and pack of barking dogs.

I feel that social mixes like this do not produce a steadying effect ,just resentment towards housing societies. Brand new housing estates have to have about 35% + social mix but no one who buys actually knows who their near neighbours will be.

Elderly people should never be shunted around from pillar to post and excluded as such. They ought to occupy prime positions in the community and not be confined to blocks of flats. Warden assisted bungalow complexes with courtyard gardens are so vital just to keep the old darlings interested and moving around.
Re: Mixed housing ?
[info]nairb09 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
Mixed Housing can work if planned properly. The usual approach is to split each tenure; shared ownership & private ownership from the social rented by floors. So the potential conflicts of class and other social problems such as you have highlighted are minimised. From my experience inconsiderate neighbours have come from all tenures. A noisy private neighbour can be as painful as a noisy social rented one. The problem only comes when they tend to be aggressive when asked to behave, but that requires tact and class sensitivity. If you look down on them for being poor, they will turn the music up and encourage their offspring or pit bull terriers to scare you. Mixed housing could work in the long term, it brings working people and their wealth into communities. Shops and services follow where the people with income live. This brings shops and services into the vicinity of the poor, rather than establishing enclaves of poverty. New Labor's mixed housing policy has good theory behind it, but local authorities play politics of class and have implemented it in an ad hoc manner so it has not been taken up properly. Its time for Old Labor to force its hand.
Re: Mixed housing ? - [info]mekap - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Mixed housing ? - [info]lady_icedragon - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 03:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Mixed housing ? - [info]w1551ns - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Downwardly mobile
[info]ameliemaryann wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:33 am (UTC)
'Deprivation' - such as it is - is not cured by moving people into different environments or throwing money at them. The 'poorer' people of years ago seemed to manage to rise above their surroundings - which were far far worse than those of the so-called 'deprived' people of today. The deprivation they are allegedly suffering, I would suggest, is largely mental and spiritual, caused by the very things that the do-gooders are pushing all the time - something for nothing, and by the governments of the day taking away any reason to aspire. If you don't try you don't get, and many many of these people don't try, except to be downwardly mobile which in itself (because it's easy to apply by the people in power and the press) is lauded - viz: a whole host of vulgar celebrities and role models.Therefore it's OK to be low. That's the message.
Who's failed?
[info]r129 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
Government policies have probably failed. But what about the individuals? Previous generations would have considered them failures in many senses (no job, no stable relationship,....) Yet they still get (at no cost to them) accommodation and a standard of living many elsewhere want very much.

So perhaps some policies have suceeded only too well - the policy of never telling voters that nanny won't always provide.
The answer: stop funding benefit mums, stop taxing the poor
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
There is a simple answer to avoiding the phenomenon of generation upon generation of benefit dependents on these council estates: don't allow those who are benefits to get pregnant. You want benefits? Then you receive a contraceptive implant. You want to have children? Get a job so you can support them.

Coupled with this, we need a large personal allowance to take all low earners out of tax and a minimum wage that allows anyone working full time to pay a private sector rent in the local housing market.

Simple. Multiple social problems solved.
Re: The answer: stop funding benefit mums, stop taxing the poor
[info]charles_geach wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 11:03 pm (UTC)
Radical, but great ideas. It's f'king desperate now, so bring on the sledge hammer policies. They'll be popular from now on. What we actually need in addition to these policies is a global move to ensure that there is a hefty "equalizing" import tariff on all goods produced in zones that lack expensive social security systems like we have.
Rebuilding Community Infrastructure
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC)
We also need to start subsidising public transport more, to increase mobility and access to shopping and retail for these people and help retailers selling healthy food to set up in these areas, with government support as necessary. Most of these estates have run down parades of shops with some boarded up. Why not just buy them and set up food stores instead?

But no, that would be "intervening in the market" and we can't have that can we? Not when there are big profits to be made by transport companies and supermarkets.
Re: Rebuilding Community Infrastructure
[info]nairb09 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
I agree that it is time to subsidise healthy food shops and public transport in areas where these are lacking. If the French government can subdises all the Parisian boulangeries, why can not Britain subsidise healthy food stores in deprived areas? As for intervening in the market they have already intervened to save the global banking industry in our national interest, why not nationalise the rail system and provide affordable travel across the nation?
Re: Rebuilding Community Infrastructure - [info]w1551ns - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Yes
[info]larkspur_14 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:54 am (UTC)
Here they are. Thatcher's children just as much as the bankers and nuLabor are.
Letting The Rich Decide Where The Nations Wealth......
[info]media_myths wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
.....Goes is probably not the best way to ensure its fair distribution.

"But a spokesman for the Communities and Local Government Department said: "No government has done more to tackle deprivation... This Government brought in major changes to planning policy last April which means councils must ensure a proper mix of housing to meet local needs.""

Last April! You've been in power for 12 years!

Why do all governments, regardless of where they are on the parliamentary spectrum (centre-right, right or extreme right) constantly evade the question and refuse to admit their policies were wrong? The above statement by this faceless spokesman is a blatant lie yet we continue to let these fools and thieves run our lives. We're about to vote a "changed" Tory government in, yet they are backed by the same think tanks, corporations and faces that backed them when they were kicked out after years of sleaze, lies and corruption. In 10 or 12 years time we'll vote a "changed" Labour Party back in backed by the same crooks. Are we really that stupid? Are our memories really that bad? Don't we deserve something better than a parliamentary democracy that is no democracy at all?
You don't say....
[info]funk_le_monk wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
A report confirms the obvious.
estates
[info]bobsilentio wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)
We should follow the concentration camp idea through toa logical conclusion and exterminate the roaches and spongers who live on estates. They are nothing but human garbage.
Re: estates
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:48 pm (UTC)
I think Prince Phillip and Mr Kissinger would agree fully with you.
Exterminate the 'useless eaters' lovely.
Re: estates - [info]bobsilentio - Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:41 pm (UTC) Expand
After growing up on one....
[info]igrowfood wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC)
I grow up on one 40 years ago!!!!!!!
I wonder why it took that long to find something out that everyone who lived in them knew.
Oh yes, no-one bothered to ask or believe the answers.
plus ca change.......
John
Re: After growing up on one....
[info]carolmacg5 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:57 pm (UTC)
well said John
fabianism
[info]igolem wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC)
any report put out by the fabians needs to be treated with total suspicion, they are a byword for secret agendas, and divisive propaganda,lets be honest here folks ,the old values we had as a mainly white society have been steadily eroded by the mass immigration policies of successive governments to appease their global paymasters with a cheap and over supply of labour thereby eroding all our old beliefs in a system of fairness and just reward for your labours and creatiing these ghettos of anything for nothing
Tory crocodile tears
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 02:39 pm (UTC)
Where were you, Mr Shapps, when M Thatcher was giving tax breaks to mortgages, and awarding pariah status to people in council houses?

Current policies are merely a continuation of those initiated in the eighties.

Expect no change after June 2010.

PS. How's Lady Porter?
Re: Tory crocodile tears
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:53 pm (UTC)
I believe she's got a nice pied-a-terre in the Peabody building Westminster.....
Estate housing.
[info]eve57 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC)
Think yourselves lucky! People in similar circumstances here would probably find themselves on the streets in Vancouver. How one can blame the labour government for providing social housing is beyond logic! If you had a Tory government they would get rid of it as fast as possible, then what happens to those poor people who are complainging about their social housing - the streets await... Grow up and stop bitching and complaining. If you want to make something of yourself you will do it regardless of your postal code!
Re: Estate housing.
[info]charles_geach wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 12:19 am (UTC)
Well said, true in some cases, but the system in place is actually disempowering. I know I needed to be guided in the right direction to realize that I needed to get off my butt. Not many of us who are "none too bright" have access to such positive guidance.
Re: Estate housing
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
Evebabe, two points:

1. Although Canada has a small social housing sector, circa 6% of stock, it has a large private rented sector, approximately 30% of stock. Provision is made for those who need housing (mainly in the private sector), where rents are paid in full, albeit tightly regulated.

2. Most Indie readers don't live in social housing, certainly not on large 'sink' estates. You're targeting the wrong people. Try the Sun or Mirror. Don't expect too many replies.
New Labour betrayal of working class people
[info]carolmacg5 wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 08:50 pm (UTC)
The social exclusion of people living on council estates is part of a wider spread betrayal of working class people by New Labour. Touting itself as the party of the classless society, Tony Blair's government did nothing for social housing or its inhabitants; instead they blanked them. The subject was off their radar. They were only interested in courting Mondeo Man, the aquisitive middle-classes and yummy mummies. Sure Start is actually the only success they managed in these areas. You see, we were all supposed to desperately want to BUY our homes. The sensible few who saw through this delusional behaviour and stayed in social housing were to be pitied AND ignored because they didn't want to jump on the candy-cart. New Labour were never interested in equality - only in materialistic fantasies that were unsustainable.
I have lived on a council estate for 12 years and most of my neighbours, health and care workers, postmen, cleaners, pensioners, etc, etc. deserve respect not disregard OR horrified dismay, however sympathetic. We need to work towards becoming one country again where the word VALUE isn't about what you own.
Council Estates
[info]marinebigmike wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 09:14 pm (UTC)
There must be hundreds of similar estates up and down the country , can anyone come up with a sensible solution to the problem ?
Re: Council Estates
[info]traveluzion wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:04 pm (UTC)
Housing is infact not the issue. Anyone without a proper garden is condemned to eating toxic waste from the supermarkets. The economics are such that those on the lowest incomes have little choice but to eat from the truff of the pharmaceutical racket destroying their health, mental capacity and leading to an early death. People are infact quite capable of surviving the harsh British climate outdoors if necessary provided they have a healthy diet, they can also get together to build well insulated homes out of clay and store in the time honoured tradition. All that is infact necessary is to make those lands available to the people that they belong to.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date