Loz

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hate to be the voice of dissent, but they are a bog standard railway cottages that seem to exist > all over London- why should these 2 be listed ? I don't think they deserve to be listed, but they definitely deserve to be saved.

Just when you thought Gwynnie P couldn't get any stranger... https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/26154942/paltrow-coos-about-the-vagina-steam/

I think if you're picking up dead animals from the side of the road and eating them, you've probably been taking long trips on the weirdo bus for quite a while now.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm going to have a nice soak in my tub... Boil my head.. then off out to meet my public.. > Hopefully find someone to have a sensible conversation with. > Anyone with a mental age of 8 should do after spending time here. Hello, Foxy's off on a flounce.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nothing at all. But I can make chips at home without using lemon Juice.. I've no doubt you can. But can you make 200 tonne of them?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now - what price should they go on the market for? Whatever price the market will let them. The point is, if this building keeps happening, then further down the line the prices will eventually come down when supply comes closer to demand. If London needs 100,000 new homes, then the first 50 built isn't going to affect the general price.

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - you've inspired me to both sign the petition AND become a friend of DPG. I'm pleased, hpsaucey. It's all too easy to sign a petition. Good to see someone willing to put their hand in their pocket as well.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My original post was just to highlight that 17-19 were used to produce French Fries.. 18 is citric acid. Prime component of lemon juice. What's your issue with that?

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i am opposed to all chemicals in food Everything in food are chemicals. Including food.

Tinky Winky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What makes you think that the signatories aren't Friends of DPG? What makes you think they all are?

DPG is hardly an evil multi-national. I suspect money is tight and they are responding as best they can. Maybe if all this signatories to this petition, rather than just criticise, put their hand in their pocket and became Friends of DPG then perhaps the gallery would have the money to keep things the way they are.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Rents, at least in ED, aren't rising. They've been pretty stagnant for about three years. > > Utter, utter bollocks. Unfortunately, admin seems to clear the residential section out after about a year, but three years ago 2 bed houses were going in ED for generally 1400 to 1600 pcm and they still are today. If you have anything that says otherwise (but for ED only) then I'd like to see it.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > doesn't matter a jot - the investor gets the property at end of mortgage anyway. It's a no lose Most BTL mortgages are interest-only, so none of those figures in my last post factor in any repayment of the capital amount. Few, if any, rental yield calculations would work if you tried to factor in capital repayments. But anyway, it still comes down to more people wanting to be in London than houses exist. If all landlords sold up tomorrow, prices would return to current levels in a short period of time. Except rents, which would shoot through the roof.

Past performance is no indicator, etc, etc. Rents, at least in ED, aren't rising. They've been pretty stagnant for about three years. The big jump in house sale prices over the last few years have not been followed by a commensurate rental increase. Gross yields in ED are currently quite low - around 3% to 3.5%, which is not anything as good as it sounds, as your costs need to come out of that. In fact, with a mortgage underpinning the let, your ROI will only be about 1%. Other parts of London are a much more attractive investment at the moment. The numbers just don't add up in ED. You would have to make some pretty brave assumptions about rents and house prices to make it work. Especially if interest rates rise, as they will eventually. Mind you, if you could pick this place up for 700-750k it would be a good investment, but that would be a cheap price for a 1 bed and a 2 bed flat in ED. But, unless it needs massive structural repairs, I can see it going for a much higher price.

The point is that many more people want to come to London than it can hold. Landlords have no carte blanche to set rents - the market does that. Either we build more in London, or try and get more jobs in the other UK cities. Preferably both. Only that will get rents down. Anything else is doomed to failure.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yeah, I hate the re-design. But I hate the Indy website too - those f*king adverts chasing > you all over the screen make me want to vote Tory and get the left-wing banned. I use Firefox and AdBlockPlus. I turned it off one day and was shocked at the big ad at the top of the Guardian website. I'd never seen it before. I don't have a style issue with the Guardian redesign (though it is ugly), more that there is not enough info per page - the front page of the site being a case in question. Cricinfo is going the same way, though not quite as bad.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tho he's miss-spelt the miss-spell :) *blushes with embarrassment*

Really, they new 'improved' look of the Guardian website is terrible. Huge text, strange pointless links, and loads of wasted space. Less info per page. Big sodding useless pictures. All the news seems to be hidden. I can't find a bloody thing. Has no one learnt anything from the Windows 8 debacle? Anyone read The Indy website? Is that any better?

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yup- a full scale widespread tightening up of landlord responsibilties, long tern tenant > security, rent capping and the other vajazzle that exists in say germany would help enourmously but > that is hardly likely to happen here- this is a country that still lionises the parasite royal family. Or a country that changed away from that 25 years ago as there were no rental properties being made available. Also, 'rent capping' does not exist in Germany. They have 'rent controls' but that is only limited to annual rises. The initial rental amount is not controlled in any way. Which is why rents in Berlin are rising at a very high rate. If you want capped rents, build council houses.

I think the general rule is if they have the triangular recycling symbol on them somewhere, they are OK. If not, bin.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Isn't canola effectively a genetically modified form of rapeseed? > > > > > > Yes... > > > > No...! > > > > From your own post, Foxy: "In the 1970s canola was created through traditional plant cross-breeding"] > > Not that simple.... Rape seed oil needs to be modified before cross breeding That sentence doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever, Foxy. > The claim is that canola is safe to use because through modification it is no longer rapeseed but > ?canola.? Except? canola is just genetically modified rapeseed. The development of Canola not involve any genetic modification for the very simple and obvious reason that Canola was created in the 1970s, but genetic modification technology for plants didn't exist until the 1980s. It is impossible for Canola to be based on GM technology! > http://vanessaruns.com/2011/02/08/gmos-and-why-you-should-never-use-canola-oil/ > > DulwichFox Foxy, you really need to find some credible sites for your information. The 'information' on that site is pretty much completely based on the email hoax Snopes identified.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Isn't canola effectively a genetically modified form of rapeseed? > > Yes... No...! From your own post, Foxy: "In the 1970s canola was created through traditional plant cross-breeding"]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't canola effectively a genetically modified form of rapeseed? No, it was formed by selective breeding.

That was no ordinary pig. That was an M&S pig.

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > animal lovers Yeah, those sheep shaggers really get your goat. Or sheep, even. Reminds me of an old joke about a Kiwi/welshman/insert-your-favorite-sheep-nation-here taking their driving test: Instructor: Can you make a U-turn? Driver: Oh yeah - I can make her eyes bulge.