pwa wrote:I do think Vorpal's questioning whether I think poor people have a right to a nice place to live is uncalled for.
It was a reaction to your assumption that the apartments must be grey and tatty. Apologies if you were offended.
Apology not needed, and if I gave the wrong impression by my post, and offended anyone by doing so, sorry. Really.
But I did make that assumption, for some reason. Maybe not tatty, but grey, yes. Perhaps it was influenced by my experience of social housing locally, the less desirable sort allocated to those in dire immediate need and not in a position to choose. And by the bits of information I got from media reporting, including the fact (?) that a lot of the residents were first generation immigrants from poorer countries. Historically such people (Irish, Pakistani, etc) have moved in to housing of low standard, vacated by the more established sections of society as soon as they had the money to do so. Maybe I put thoughts like that together to fill in the blanks in my knowledge about what the flats were actually like inside, to draw up a picture of people struggling to make poor accommodation a bit less grim for their families. Reality has proved me wrong, which was part of the purpose of my comment.
The other part of what I was saying is how my surprise at the pictures of nice flat interiors, attractively kitted out, triggered a line of thought about people doing ordinary things like going shopping for furniture, putting together a nice environment to live in. And the aspiration, the hope for the future that such nest building indicates. My rational head knew that these people must have had futures mapped out, but seeing their nice things triggered an emotional response to lives terminated so abruptly.