Loz

1) If it does need replacing, ?1800 isn't too bad a price. 2) BG do not have a good reputation at this sort of thing 3) I've always found these guys to be pretty reliable - http://www.stevenson.uk.com/

Report them as stolen?

Does beer count?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i wouldn't mind jailing anyone who uses the phrase "rental yields" You have a better phrase to describe the money made form rentals? > I take your point (if not necessarily agree) about > buy-to-let being unnatractive at these levels - > but rental yields aside you are still getting > other people to pay your mortgage. Even at a loss > every month you end up with an asset much more > valuable than your no-paid-for mortgage Most BTL mortgages are interest-only, so the capital never gets paid down. ?400K at 4% gives you interest of ?1333 per month, on a property that would probably rent out for 1400-1700 at the moment. So not much left there for costs like insurance, repairs/repainting, appliances, agents (if used), etc. So you are relying entirely on the capital growth of the property. And that, at the moment is a big risk. It's usually people who aren't Landlords that paint such a rosy picture of renting properties. If it was such easy money, why don't they do it themselves? Answer: because reality is, unsurprisingly, rather different.

numbers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love the insinuation that its the woman's fault for 'breaking up the home'. Nothing to do with a > married man cheating on his wife then? > > *rolls eyes* To be fair, it's usually the 'other party' that gets such blame, regardless of gender.

I surprised the poster didn't accuse you of taking the piss, KK.

I've had some great female bosses in my time. Has to be said that some of them, though, were a lot less welcoming to the female staff that reported to them than they were to us blokes.

KK's post on that thread made laugh out loud.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-10/enhanced/webdr06/4/6/enhanced-buzz-26448-1380883674-7.jpg

BUT WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING???? IT'S VERY RUDE!!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ?385k would be more like it > > 3 years ago maybe. Much higher now... Not for a two bed in SFE. I keep a eye on prices there, since I own one of them...

I think that is a typo. ?385k would be more like it, even for Foxtons.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lol, I'd have flicked your ear really hard for being a relentless wind-up if you were my > offspring, but seeing as how you are an unrelated grown-up, it's off to the naughty step for you! It's one minute on the step for every year old you are, isn't it? Hmmm. I may be some time.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple > > question. It's something that BS never > bothered > > to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they > > thought I believed. > > No. I only quoted what you said you believed (or > in some instances believed you had proved). I've said many differing things on the subject - you merely selectively quoted me (often out of context) in order to try and provoke some sort of argument. I said just enough, and rarely anything remotely inflammatory or controversial, to enable you to continue your argument with what was effectively yourself. In fact, the only controversial thing I've said in this thread has been studiously ignored by you. Even LD - usually more belligerent in these sorts of threads - mostly kept out of it. Otta, general wise old head of the forum, pretty much told you outright. But you still kept arguing .. and arguing ... and arguing, even though no real counterpoints were ever made. Basically, you trolled yourself.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, stop dodging the bullet. Do you still claim > that cyclists are similarly dangerous as motorists? Yes or no? Simple :-) Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple question. It's something that BS never bothered to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they thought I believed. Which was invariably - and unsurprisingly - wrong. Answer... it depends. 'Similarly' is a hard word to quantify - which is, admittedly, why I used it. (You're a lawyer, I'm sure you'll appreciate that answer). But as you asked nicely, I'll give you a fuller answer. Here's what I think: when it comes to pedestrians, it seems that the stats would suggest that cyclist are less dangerous than cars/vans, but still a significant danger proportionally to their numbers/usage. It is hard to tell as standardising isn't easy, since the data isn't quite as available and as granular as I'd like. But, with what we have, that would be the suggestion. If only binary_star had the sense to have asked that question six pages ago. But, hey... I haven't had this much fun on the EDF in ages. :))

Now that the long saga of binary_star's jiggery-stattery has come to it's long drawn out, rather boring and seemingly pointless end, more people seem to have rejoined the thread. Time to see if we can get a decent debate going. So. I'll try again. I think most people (including myself) think that more cycling is a good thing. The cycling lobby could easily harvest a lot of good will and achieve some their goals much faster, but some of the community have an unerring ability to get up people's noses, as this thread shows. A lot of good stuff is done behind the scenes with government and the police, but their public persona of cyclists is absolutely wretched. As it is, politicians and other decision makers are making positive noises, but are almost certainly reticent to act for fear of being seen as 'pandering to the cycling lobby'. If the general public was bought on board with a friendlier approach, rather than yelled at and browbeaten with the general 'holier than thou' attitude, then things may just move a lot faster. I'd hasten to add, the cycle-evangelists are a small proportion of the cycling fraternity, but they are the loudest. Are the ones so loud in demanding improvements to cycling actually holding back the development of cycling in the UK?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So come on then, counter my logical demolition of your crap stats! I've not posted any stats on this thread, LD, just a link to someone else's. I think you must be referring to BS's... well... BS.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ready to tap out yet Loz? Goodness me no. I think I actually have BS on the verge of an aneurysm.

Much as I despise Mad Hattie, I don't think there is much here. She's handled it terribly though. Patricia Hewitt seems to be staying very quite while Harman and Dromey try and mount a rearguard action. (pun possibly intended).

BS... 'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail. And the original calc done ages ago was in response to a very specific challenge, which I rather elegantly met. So, context fail Really, you are just trying to pick fights where there are none. Are you like this out on the road as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of your way if you are.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have maintained that cyclists are as dangerous to > pedestrians as cars are because they cause more deaths per mile. Is THAT what you have your knickers in a twist about? In that case: no, I haven't. As Otta tried to point out to you.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But most people are not saying that cyclists are MORE dangerous than anyone else on the roads. Give that man a gold star.

Oh dear, BS - you wade through about two years of my posting history looking for 'cyclist-bashing' comments and that's all you can dredge up? Bit of a waste of an evening, wasn't it?? You must have been so disappointed. But still, you went with what you had. Bless. And northlondoner - I am usually impressed by a well-made argument with solid stats to back them. Unfortunately BS seems to have no idea what point he/she is trying to make and just throws in whatever stats he/she can find and makes the rest up. I still have zero clue and to what BS is actually trying to say. My point was simple and correct - henryb was complete wrong to say that 'cyclists don't kill' (even, bizarrely, BS posted proof of this). Since then, BS has gone off on one and your guess is as good as mine as to what he/she's point is.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our local councillors for Peckham Rye are all local residents. Out of interest, how do you know that PR?

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would [give up] well if I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. But you don't though, do you? Give up or have any idea. Truly, you're arguing with me, but have no idea of stats or even the point you are trying to make. You just seem to be throwing stuff around to make an argument, but with no coherent point. And, like LD, when there is a reasonable, balanced post like a made a couple of days ago and repeated, then.... nothing. Not a sound (well, except LD being childish). It's like you just want to jump up and down, making lots of noise and playing the victim, but not actually interested in a debating any issues. Like a bunch of spoilt-brat children, whining because they don't get their own way all of the time. It's just bloody pointless talking to you. Honestly, I tried, but it's just gotten way past the point of ridiculousness. I'd love to have a decent debate, but with someone who isn't (probably wilfully) obtuse.