Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I am not planning any nuclear attacks

henrysmith.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#81

Post by switch007 »

gambiting wrote: post #24
madaxe_again wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fine state of County Durham. As a tenant - a student tenant, no less - your rights are virtually squat.

That is absolutely not true. Having rented properties in the UK I know that letting agencies will treat you like shit. No matter. Contact the property ombudsman, he will sort them out: http://www.tpos.co.uk/ Might even recommend going to court over it.

Brit chiming in here. The contempt that estate agents and landlords have for your privacy, well-being and life in general is almost indescribable.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#82

Post by happyscrappy »

mason240 wrote: post #64
madaxe_again wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they just gave me my marching orders and said they'd proceed to eviction if I didn't scram - and scram I did, as the place was falling down anyway.

So were not actually evicted.

He also states:

"As a tenant - a student tenant, no less - your rights are virtually squat."

This is patently false.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#83

Post by mikeash »

pyre wrote: post #73
Beltiras wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Terrorist are not too concerned about mouseclicks ....

He's just making a Visual BASIC GUI for the terrorist attack[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU

Impossible, Microsoft's EULA surely prohibits use by terrorists.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#84

Post by mikeash »

switch007 wrote: post #67
omh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK you almost certainly have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (even if the agent says you don't). This gives you a lot of strong rights which you can use if you know how. In practice the agent or landlord has a lot of leverage but you can often win if you use the law to your advantage. In particular there is a very specific set of steps they have to follow to evict you.

Licenses/contracts are quite popular in place of ASTs in student/shared/bed sit accommodation. Even in housing association properties, you can have a 2 year "trial" period. You only have to lightly scratch below the surface these days to find rights eroded left and right. EDIT: I said "in place of ASTs", but ASTs aren't always appropriate.

Do such contracts actually make a difference, though? You can put anything you want into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. An apartment lease can say, "Tenant waives all renters' rights under the law," but the tenant will still have all rights granted him by law. Is the problem simply that people believe the enforceability of their contracts beyond what is actually true?

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#85

Post by aroman »

stevebot wrote: post #47

This reminds me so much of an awesome 30 Rock episode where Fred Armisen plays the middle eastern neighbor of Tina Fey's character. She ultimately gets him turned in for planning an attack, when he was just preparing for The Amazing Race with his friend. Its sad how sensationalist and afraid we have become.

I think "cautious" is a better word. What aspect of this story was sensationalist?

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#86

Post by voidlogic »

mattmaroon wrote: post #5
Bahamut wrote: post #3

Sadly, if you look carefully at the pictures, it's pretty clear it's for a game...and I didn't even need to read that he mentioned that they were game ideas. Goes to show how dumb people can be.

No it's not. At all. I mean, a rational person might make the assumption that this guy is not actually whiteboarding an ICBM launch from a rented apartment. But there's nothing about it indicating to a non-technical person that it's a game.

>Rational person might make the assumption that this guy is not actually whiteboarding an ICBM launch from a rented apartment

In my mind the real problem is that there is nothing wrong with "whiteboarding an ICBM launch". Me or me and my friends have every right get wargame 1980 or 2014 global thermonuclear war. Its seems like it would be a fascinating intellectual exercise. For that matter why can't people wargame terrorist plots, apply game theory, etc.

Between first amendment rights and the need for academic freedom, people should and do have every right to do this. In someone saw this can became concerned, they have have every-right to investigate, but in my mind, so long as it doesn't involve anything official or contacting the people involved without tangible evidence.

After all, if I talk about what might happen in a car crash, it doesn't remotely imply I intend to go out and get into one.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#87

Post by lwhalen »

stevebot wrote: post #53
samspot wrote: post #42

Devil's Advocate: You are a nontechnical person and stumble upon what appear to be plans for a terrorist attack. You talk to the person about it and they say "Don't worry. is computer game". A great exploration of this is the 30 Rock episode where Tina Fey reports her neighbor for what ends up being a plan to get on the show 'The Amazing Race'. The problem is, not knowing any better, you feel obligated to report the…

Ha nice, I immediately thought of that episode to after reading this. I really miss that show :(. It is a good point, but I wonder when it breaks down and turns into something like McCarthyism.

Ohh I'd say about 13 years ago.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#88

Post by [deleted] »

mikeash wrote: post #84
switch007 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses/contracts are quite popular in place of ASTs in student/shared/bed sit accommodation. Even in housing association properties, you can have a 2 year "trial" period. You only have to lightly scratch below the surface these days to find rights eroded left and right. EDIT: I said "in place of ASTs", but ASTs aren't always appropriate.

Do such contracts actually make a difference, though? You can put anything you want into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. An apartment lease can say, "Tenant waives all renters' rights under the law," but the tenant will still have all rights granted him by law. Is the problem simply that people believe the enforceability of their contracts beyond what is actually true?

[deleted]

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#89

Post by kjjw »

citricsquid wrote: post #26
madaxe_again wrote: post #9

Ah, letting agents. I got evicted from a property years ago because they did a surprise inspection while I was out (which is, of course, totally illegal), and decided they'd found "mountains of cocaine" on the kitchen counters. It was fucking Ajax kitchen cleaning powder. Still, they didn't care. The police (who they contacted) thought it was laughable, but couldn't do anything about the fact they were evicting me.

For the sake of clarity it's worth noting that in England tenant rights are quite good. For an eviction to take place it must be ordered by the courts and a landlord can only apply to the courts for possession after providing a tenant with 2 months notice. A quick eviction in England takes 3 months, an average eviction is closer to 5 and in some cases it can take much much longer. The only situation in which someone…

And then you'll never be able to rent again. At least through a letting agent, which is how most rentals occur.

Re: I am not planning any nuclear attacks

#90

Post by switch007 »

mikeash wrote: post #84
switch007 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses/contracts are quite popular in place of ASTs in student/shared/bed sit accommodation. Even in housing association properties, you can have a 2 year "trial" period. You only have to lightly scratch below the surface these days to find rights eroded left and right. EDIT: I said "in place of ASTs", but ASTs aren't always appropriate.

Do such contracts actually make a difference, though? You can put anything you want into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. An apartment lease can say, "Tenant waives all renters' rights under the law," but the tenant will still have all rights granted him by law. Is the problem simply that people believe the enforceability of their contracts beyond what is actually true?

I understand your point about other laws overruling contract law, but for housing (and I admit I haven't read the Housing Act(s)), I believe your rights under those acts are dependent on what kind of agreement is in place and the housing situation.
Post reply on HN