Loz

Just got this on facebook...

Emily, If you want to set up a Just Giving page or similar, I'd be happy to send a fiver or so your way to buy some. I worked with a small education charity in Vietnam last year, so I know what a massive difference these sorts of places make.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > maxxi Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > That DOES kinda stick in the craw - the energy sapping, mind numbingly dull and too-slowly > > > delivered observations of a confirmed cheat lighting up the studio. > > > > Oh, please - show me a professional footballer and I'll show you a confirmed cheat. > > > Ah, of course! They all cheat so let it go. Why didn't I think of that? > > And so if I name a few you will have the evidence to back this up? I didn't say that at all. But surely you are the one 'letting it go' by just concentrating on one individual when you could probably lay that claim on the entire commentary team? Why not the rest? And, yes, I'm fairly confident that for 99% of footballers I could find evidence of rolling around with an injury hoping for a free-kick/yellow card before leaping to their feet (or not, if there is a minute to go and they're winning), 'professional' fouls, falling over under minimal/no contact, ridiculous claims for sideline throw-ins etc, etc. Cheating is pretty much endemic in the game. Even to the point it is accepted conduct - how many times have commentators said something along the lines of "well there was a slight contact there, so the lad was right to go down"? Maybe not for goalkeepers, but I suspect that is more lack of opportunity than anything. PS Before you start listing potential names, whether I could be bothered to go searching is another matter...

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That DOES kinda stick in the craw - the energy sapping, mind numbingly dull and too-slowly > delivered observations of a confirmed cheat lighting up the studio. Oh, please - show me a professional footballer and I'll show you a confirmed cheat.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure there are a minority of people who are put off buying a house 'in case the boiler goes' > but honestly, can you think of a single person who actually thinks like that? That's not what I said. SJ said "No one takes a risk buying a house." I merely pointed out that there are, indeed, risks. I never claimed they all would would be seen as deal-breakers. You need to understand and mitigate risk, and that mitigation is not necessarily to run away from the deal. But, on the other hand, if you do not take possible interest rate changes and potential of negative equity into account when buying a house, you would be not giving these significant risks the necessary due diligence. That is why they are the basis of the new 'harder mortgage checks' that have just been implemented. If you buy something worth hundreds of thousands of pounds thinking there is no risk, then the old adage of fools and money would spring quickly to mind.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not so sure how many buy-to-let fans there would be if housing stock was plentiful but then that's > supply and demand which is also capitalism, innit. The housing shortage is pretty much just a London/SE problem, but BTL is popular UK wide, so that probably answers that.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one takes a risk buying a house. They look at the price of the home they want to live in and > decide if they can afford the payments Apart from negative equity causing you problems and forcing you to stay in a house that may no longer, for whatever reason, suit your needs. Apart from maintenance costs - especially big ticket items. When the boiler goes and there is no landlord to ring. Or the roof is leaking. Apart from subsidence making it virtually unsaleable and worthless. Apart from interest rates rising considerably leading you to lose your house. Yep, no risks at all.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't England win Fans of the Tournament in Portugal 2004? Nah. The just stole the trophy and drank beer out of it.

It's that Guardian-esque misuse of historical terms for emotional effect. See also Workfare - "slavery" and reduction of any government benefit or service- "Victorian London".

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Buy a house. Biggest you can afford. Treat yourself. But don't buy someone else's house JUST > to make a profit. You don't buy food to let it out to other people. Don't do it to homes. First you say the grocer analogy isn't appropriate, then you use it? Though you did use 'let' rather than 'sell' to try and avoid being picked up on it. Change that and you see how the argument quickly falls apart. But don't buy someone else's house JUST to make a profit. You don't buy food to sell it to other people. Don't do it to homes. Houses are resources. Dress it up in as much hand-wringing language as you like, but it doesn't change that basic fact.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edited for split infinitive Ironically, another entirely unnecessary convention!

Why just mankading? Why not apply a five run penalty for stumpings/run outs? After all, a mankad is just the stumping or run out of the non-striker. I really don't get the difference.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But comparing food to land and all the time pretending that landlords = grocers is lame. > Estate agents = grocers. But quite a few people do say, "how can you be allowed to buy and sell a limited, necessary resource for profit. It's unethical". Which is where the grocer/landlord analogy is relevant.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love cricket. Great to see Sri Lankan players > shaking Joe Root's hand after his 200. Proper gents. Especially after all the hoo-har about the mankading incident. That was ridiculous - there should be more mankading in the game as far as I'm concerned.

KidHardy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would try a system restore myself before > worrying about anti-virus etc Yep, that wouldn't be a bad idea either.

What fixed it ITATM? It's good to scan with everything you have, just to ensure there isn't anything left lurking. These things generally don't go away by themselves.

... except that ads on the EDF are served directly from the site, not an generic ad company.

1) Have you done a full scan with your antivirus? (and which have you got?) 2) If that doesn't work, try CCleaner.

Yeah, I think the obvious answer to that, *Bob* is "nothing". If 25 years doesn't do it, nothing will.

Yep, +1 for MalwareBytes. And until it is clear do NOT access anything like banking.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly, I believe no one should be paying a > million quid just to let the house out > > Multiply that by all the others doing same and the > house wouldn't be best part of a million quid in first place Wouldn't it? These houses for rent aren't lying empty. The demand for housing is there - whether it be for rent or to buy, so if you took away the rental market you would still have the pressure on prices. This is why I think all the anti-BTLers are mistaken. There seems to be a belief that if you get rid of BTL then prices will magically come down. But the problem is total housing supply, and reducing BTL won't change that. It's notable that the Beeb today did a article on 10 ways to cool the housing market - and lowering BTL wasn't one of the ideas.

No, just pointing out that entering the BTL market at the moment is highly risky. That yield is gross - take out the various costs of renting a property (the largest which will probably be any mortgage) and any profit on rental will be close to nil. You are much better off to be investing that money in other areas. Add into that the fact that London property prices are due for a potential correction, so there is a reasonable capital risk here as well. So, your missing-the-point sarcasm aside, what would you consider a 'fair' rent to be on a ?975k house?

A quick googling says his apartment is in Acton, West London. That's not to say he doesn't pass through ED.

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's also on the market to rent for ?2700 pcm. That is a gross yield of 3.5% on a value of ?975K. Who'd enter the BTL market at the moment?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do developers have to pay stamp duty AND income tax? Since the latest budget they have to pay stamp duty if they bought it as a company. They would also pay corp tax on profits. Plus, unless they bought it privately and lived in it, they would also pay CGT.