Building’s feedback section reflects its readers: well-informed with balanced views. Unless you count the scurrilous slurs and innuendoes that English law requires Alex Smith to delete ...
Building’s new feedback section, What You Think, generates a healthy spectrum of comment which, for the most part, is constructive and well-informed – we’d expect nothing less from our readers.
Occasionally, however, we receive posts that hail from the darker recesses of the internet. Often posted anonymously, these posts reveal the shadowy underbelly of construction. They’re often scurrilous and unsubstantiated and are usually far too scandalous to publish without me ending up in the libel court.
Nevertheless, for a flavour of the bitterness and recrimination that appears from time to time we have printed some of the more damning – with libellous elements removed.
Financial results
“Reading of ****’s success is no surprise considering the state of one development near me – unfinished roads, areas to be landscaped just left as open mud. There are similar stories from other developments. I’d suggest it spends some of its profits on finishing off what it was legally bound to do on previous developments. It does not build communities, it builds ghettos.”
Company news
“Well done **** on taking a stand on cowboy traders such as ****. Too many companies accept shoddy deals just to get the job done. Without them it will be short-lived for sure.”
Industry profiles
- “**** and **** are both lightweights. **** does not have a brain in his body. **** and **** are clueless when it comes costs. I’d hate to hire them to build my house.”
- “The man is a fat maggot.”
Postscript
Alex Smith is Building’s web editor
Join in (and maybe raise the tone) of the debate at www.building.co.uk/whatyouthink
No comments yet