Second home owner

[silversun]

Gorgeous weather here in Devon and yesterday morning the second home owners across the road turned up.
I've reported them to the police via email 101 but I'm still so angry that they have put our small hamlet of mainly over 60's at risk just because they fancied a change of scenery- they should be ashamed of themselves!
Please talk me down from going over there this morning😡😡

Who decides what is a primary and secondary home?
Someone who loves in a big rural house fri to mon and then a tiny flat mon to fri in London for work, which one is their main home? They might consider their rural family home their home.
Moving to one home and staying there is acceptable. Going back and forth isn’t. I’m sure most people would pick the bigger home with space.

Going to a rental or a caravan etc isn’t your home.

But to want people who own a bricks and mortar house to remain in a small flat?

The same people who are posting people to “stay the fuck at home” and not leave their tiny overcrowded flat to go to a park and then post pictures of their daily stroll on the beach?

Other countries have put up domestic abuse victims in holiday lets (second homes). Maybe the reason the same wasn't done here is locals abroad don't threaten arson or other violent crimes against "outsiders"? Sometimes the second home owner is themselves a DV victim and that's been their way out. Abuse happens in affluent homes as much as the stereotyped poorer households. I've read of a few cases here on Mumsnet and elsewhere where the woman left for a second home. Specific to the pandemic, some second home owners are in the vulnerable group. I haven't got a second (or even first) home but I know I've have gone to the safest place where there's a low chance of catching the virus if I'd had the option. I refuse to believe if the roles were reversed many posters on here wouldn't do the same. Obviously I'd have travelled well before the virus spread. For my sake as much as anyone else's. Last thing I'd want is to risk travelling once it was out there. Very very few people are still travelling (except a few MPs) and obviously people, unless emergency, shouldn't be travelling now.

On a related note, I'm genuinely wondering what locals in rural areas think about migrants? I know there's very few in rural areas (despite these areas seeming ideal to recover from trauma). Would you have the same attitudes towards them about putting pressure on local resources? Sometimes resources get stretched but maybe instead of directing hate and resentment at a small number of non born and bred locals, instead people could pressure those responsible for funding, i.e. councils and the government, to increase funding - wherever the problem occurs.

The poster explaining they pay full council tax on their second home is clearly responding to accusations of using local services. They're explaining that they pay for this use when when they're not there and so not using any of the services.

If you disagree with second home ownership (I don't especially like it whilst so many have no home at all) there's no need to be aggressive and tell people to "piss off" as one poster did. Why not just explain civilly what the issues are?

If second home owners travelled there before the lock down why are people still bitching about them? To travel to their city home would be an unnecessary journey.

For those who can't read properly or are slow to comprehend - Gordon Ramsey and his family were in their Cornish home a week before the lock down. One of his sons lives there all year. They look on it as their family home. They can't be the only ones to feel that way.

@AmIAStone You are not supposed to travel unless essential. If you are still working Monday to Friday you stay in your flat.

And why do some well off people think anyone criticising their behaviour must be jealous? Do they really think if you are well off your behaviour is beyond judgement?

Police should ask him to move back to his London permanent home.

That would be completely unnecessary travel. If Gordon Ramsey travelled to his second home before lockdown then he was entitled to do so. Now he is there what justification is there for expecting him to travel to another location risking spreading the virus there, accidents en route, potentially adding pressure to already struggling London hospitals?

We’ve been in lockdown for ages this is not okay. But if the prime minister won’t follow govt guidelines then other people won’t either

I think it’s particularly selfish if the population is older and they could be putting their lives at risk

If those who have travelled to second homes during the lock down expect locals to still be friendly to them after this is over, I think they are going to get a surprise.

Gordon Ramsey was in house a week before lock down. Fine good for him. But OPs neighbours arrived this weekend.

After the travel ban.

And it's irrelevant how they 'feel' about their house.

prime minister won’t follow govt guidelines then other people won’t either

Where do you expect the prime minister to go? To the Downing Street flat in the middle of government and civil servants? To his London house with increased security concerns/expense? Or to an official residence where the security is already in place, which already has secure communication so he could gradually build up to running the county as he has been elected to do? Regardless of whether you agree, he has been chosen to run the country and as such is not in the same situation as the rest of us.

A short rant about council tax:

1)People who own second homes pay council tax on them so that the roads/water/bins etc are working whenever they do decide to visit their houses. In normal times that's whenever the fuck they like. Currently, in an effort to prevent thousands of deaths, we are not allowed to use some of the things we pay for e.g. you pay to tax your car but aren't currently allowed to cruise about in it all day or drive hundreds of miles to the coast. Second homes - the same rules apply. Might be annoying but tough tit.

2)The reason some areas charge full council tax now is because - contrary to what a lot of second home owners think - it is not BETTER for the local area to have empty homes. Sure there is less rubbish to collect, but also a far shitter local economy because temporary residents = fewer visitors to local shops, fewer local employers/people starting businesses, fewer children and local schools (i.e. less funding), fewer people going to the cinema, volunteering etc etc than if those homes were occupied permanently. If anything second home owners should pay extra tax to compensate the local community for these losses.

Regardless of whether you agree, he has been chosen to run the country and as such is not in the same situation as the rest of us.

Which is exactly why he needs to follow the rules he is asking everyone else to do at their great personal expense. If he isn’t prepared to model doing this, plenty of people won’t bother either.

Lots of people seem to think a "travel ban" doesn't count if you're travelling between your homes. That's bananas.

I suspect the only reasons some posters here think it's cool to visit your second home are because a) they think they're far too rich, clean and "naice" to carry infection b) because they don't think of the many people they'll be in touch with in local shops, the street, on the beach etc as real people. Or at least - not people as important as them.

I'm struggling with how to handle friendships with some people who've decamped to second homes in the middle of this shitshow. I can understand the temptation but deep down I think they are selfish arseholes and am not sure how to regain my respect for them. My parents are in more danger because of people like them. Thanks a lot.

Which is exactly why he needs to follow the rules he is asking everyone else

So where do you think he should be recuperating then? Downing Street?

If they are going from one house to another in a car and are not near any people I really dont see any issue.

The guidance doesn't say that you can travel for x, y and z and anything else that you personally decide is no risk to anyone

Realistically, there isn't an issue with doing lots of things, but during the pandemic (which is killing people) you can only travel for very specific reasons and going down to your second home isn't one of them.

Presumably they won't be staying totally isolated whilst they are there. They will need to buy food somehow, or they will have had to buy enough food to bring with them. It is also possible that they stopped for petrol and/or a wee on their way down.

Okay, at a stretch they could have done this at no risk to themselves.

Hmmm but what if one (or all) of them are symptomless but carrying the virus. How many places have they spread that to UNNECESSARILY?

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/huge-regional-differences-intensive-care-bed-numbers-threaten/

""The south west looks most vulnerable in terms of ratios. It has the oldest population (so highest expected mortality) and lowest number of critical care beds per head of population. The modelling suggests it needs six times more than currently exists there (600 per cent).

On the upside, the south west currently has a relatively low infection rate. Public Health England (PHE) should be doing everything possible to keep it that way through aggressive testing and containment of new cases. If the virus gets out of control in the south west it is likely to sweep through the region’s retirement towns and nursing homes, overwhelming local hospitals."

"The guidance doesn't say that you can travel for x, y and z and anything else that you personally decide is no risk to anyone" - aargh so well put @eggcream

He should return to his main residence just like everyone else Aesop.

If there is some ‘special’ reason why he is exempted then that needs to be clearly spelled out, along with the circumstances this would apply to any other citizen.

People are living and working in tiny flats with no garden due to the rules his govt has dictated, how is this any different to expecting him to stay in his primary home, same as the rest of us? It looks bad and encourages others to think the rules don’t really apply.

Lumene you mean 10 Downing Street then? That is his current main residence. I am sure 10 Downing Street is just like any other home, nothing about that address to make is special at all....

People who own second homes pay for local services just as permanent residents do No they don't, they pay less. Depends on the council, where I live 2nd homes, holiday homes, or unoccupied homes still have 100% council tax to pay.

Aesop you have given no reason he can’t return to the place he lives, and nor has he.

Where do you expect the prime minister to go? To the Downing Street flat in the middle of government and civil servants? To his London house with increased security concerns/expense? Or to an official residence where the security is already in place, which already has secure communication so he could gradually build up to running the county as he has been elected to do? Regardless of whether you agree, he has been chosen to run the country and as such is not in the same situation as the rest of us.

What about his fiancee? She hasn't been elected to do anything, she was in their London flat but was reported yesterday as travelling to join him. They didn't even share a car to make it one journey instead of 2.

I think it would be lovely if everyone recovering from serious illness, covid or something else, could go and stay in a nice country house to recover but unfortunately they can't. People can't even sit down in a park without the police moving them on even if there is no one else in the park.

So we have Johnson plus fiancee travelling to 2nd home, another minister moving to his home in Hereford and travelling to parents, Scottish official having to resign due to visiting 2nd home and Gove jumping the queue for his daughter to get tested. It really isn't indicating that we are all in this together.

By the way the PM actually lives at 11 Downing St. The Blairs changed to the flat in no 11 as it was bigger, they had 3 and then a 4th child so needed more space than Gordon Brown who was a bachelor at the time. Since then apart from a period when Brown was PM and living at no 10 all PMs have had the larger flat at No 11.

I can't see it would be cramped for Johnson if a couple with 4 children lived in it. I can't imagine Cherie Blair would have stayed there with her children if it had been overcrowded.

Lumene you see nothing different about 10 Downing Street? No reason why he should not recuperate surrounded by cabinet colleagues and civil servants?

And if Joe Bloggs struggles to recuperate then so should he? How dare he be faciliateted to return to work quicker than anyone else! Why next I might be saying his job is more important or something