Talk:Peter Rachman

message: I was surprised to find this term used in this article, and particularly that it links to the Racial segregation article.  I'm no legal (or historical) expert, but I don't believe there was any legal segregation in Britain in the 1950s. Indeed, immigration was encouraged by the UK government as a solution to the labour shortage after the Second World War.  The linked article makes no mention of Great Britain or the United Kingdom except for Anglo-Saxon (i.e. mid-first millennium CE) England. There was certainly racial prejudice in the 1950s, and there was arguably effective segregation, but to state that black people found it hard to find accommodation "due to the colour bar" is very misleading IMHO. I propose replacing these words with "as many private landlords refused them as tenants" (or words to that effect).  Haydn01 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regrettably, the "colour bar" in Britain was quite real, as contemporary news reports confirm ,  (Dead link). Nearer our own time, reports (Dead link) suggest it is still real. On that basis I suggest leaving the wording as is. Hugh Mason (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour bar 

message: I have raised a challenge to the objectivity of this article as a whole, as well as asking for citations for at least a sample of the statements made about the legal background to PR's activities.  As just one example of a number of sweeping, but very dubious statements on the legal situation, the article speaks of: "the manifold laws prohibiting the settling of these immigrants in most of England, especially in London." So, what were the laws which prohibited the settling of immigrants in "most of" England, where in England did they not apply (!), and how did they apply "especially in London"?  The middle section of the piece is riddled with this kind of loose, questionable material.
There are also POV questions about parts of the article.  I recognize that even the most careful and well-intentioned drafter faces difficult territory when dealing with an individual who is (a) Jewish, (b) a crook, and (c) who preys on black immigrants.  Trying to record the facts honestly, while steering away from anti-Semitism (and possibly racism), is not necessarily easy.  My own assessment, for what it is worth, is that the current text nonetheless probably fails the POV test, with language such as "his flashy American Jewish gangster behaviour" (though I suppose some might see this as an anti-American statement more than anti-Semitic...).  It would be helpful for other eyes to look at this aspect of the article's tone and see whether I am over-reacting. Nandt1 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the POV anti-Semitic and anti-Immigrant stuff was recently added by an anon user. Not only is it POV it also false and not supported by the references given. I have therefore deleted it. Colin4C (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Nandt1 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article has Multiple Issues

message: I remember reading somewhere - or perhaps it was a BBC R4 documentary? -  that actually Rachman was not a bad landlord - but one of his former employees invented bad stuff so as to get paid money by newspapers. 2.97.209.159 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're thinking of this BBC Radio Four documentary. The Real Rachman - Lord of the Slums, from October 2012. There are conflicting accounts that he was (a) the Kingpin of a huge drugs/prostitution/gambling/property empire (b) merely a slum landlord, one of many or (c) an uninteresting nobody who had some bad friends. It has to be said that the only paragraph in Wikipedia's article that really deals with his infamous tenant management is entirely unsourced, indeed it's presented as rumour ("he is said to have driven out the - mostly white - sitting tenants"). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not true? 

message: Substituted at 02:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "Rachman moved the protected tenants in a smaller concentration of properties or buying them out, in order to minimise the number of tenancies with statutory rent controls. "
This refers to "the protected tenants" for the first time in the article. What tenants? It's the first time they're mentioned, same for rent controls. 
Seems like somebody's been hacking bits out of this article without cleaning up what's left behind. Big chunks of it don't make sense. Needs work!
188.29.164.28 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean!?