Loz

One look at that site said SCAM!

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Money deposited in a bank account is, as > established under case law going back more than > 200 years, legally the property of the bank, > rather than the account holder.? > MP Douglas Carswell - September 15, 2010; That's not a big surprise when you think about it. If you lend me ?20, the money is then my property to do with as I like, but I am in debt to you for that amount. It's the same thing: you have given the bank your money and now you are a creditor to the bank.

Yeah, I always wondered how a landlord was supposed to know if a tenant was getting HB. Especially as their status may change during the course of a tenancy.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Most BTL mortgages specifically prohibit tenants > > on DSS, so the landlord has no choice. > > That's not as true as it used to be, even when it > was against benefit recipients as opposed to > social tenants, which are subtly different. Most > lenders now don't have such restrictions, having > caved in to some tawdry lobbying by irritating > lefties who, possibly fairly, thought it iffy that > bailed-out and part-nationalized outfits should be > discriminating against their fellow-recipients of > taxpayers' money. Maybe there is change in the wind, but on a quick check of two mortgages from two different lenders (one taken out six months ago), both specifically exclude renting to DWP benefit recipients. This article from December seems to show that most lenders still have the restriction in place. http://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/mortgage-solutions/news/2229147/lenders-still-refusing-landlords-with-tenants-on-benefit

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Find a good handyman and give him a small retainer before you go. You'll > still save. And for that I'd really recommend Dea Hing at Dulwich Multitrade (http://dulwichmultitrade.co.uk/)

stephen509 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly what this thread is for. Well done. > > Everyone should get contents insurance & make sure > they have best possible preventions in place. And don't skimp on the valuation of your possessions. There is a weird rule that says if you have, say, ?20k worth of stuff and only have ?10k worth of insurance, then you are deemed under-insured by 50%. If you then have ?4000 of stuff nicked, they will only pay out ?2000.

Most BTL mortgages specifically prohibit tenants on DSS, so the landlord has no choice.

swissjoel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich is a DULL place to live. No soul, too > many prams and white (upper) middle class wannabes. It always amazes me that people that would never, ever say "there's too many black people around here" can happily type this rubbish.

Worker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really should take John K's advice; I'd buy > and read for one. Me too! Any professional authors out there that could work with Shorty and get a book out?

Oh, hang on... I think we have a professional troll here... http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=I+am+in+my+20s+every+group+I+join+all+I+see+in+the+group+are+just+older+people+and+I+see+no+one+in+their+20s+there+and+when+I+join+other+groups+it+is+

Telegram Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have got no friends and I also don't have a > girlfriend. I never do meet people my own age. Given how pushy you are over a fairly banal question, I can't say I'm too surprised at this.

Dudley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi again and thank you for the discussion and in > particular explaining the technicalities of an opt-out. > > Just a few points in general. > > 1) The Opt-out. > > The campaign is in part (although this is not by any means the main aim) about making an opt-out > for under 18?s only. It would not apply to adults. So I don?t think it is fair to label it as > censorship or Mary Whitehouse. How would that work?? I'm pretty sure that nobody under the age of 18 purchases a broadband service, so how would an opt-out for under 18's only work??

susiq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont suppose m.p's would consider a > small pay cut or reduction in perks to help us > keep our police station open, or perhaps we could > save some money by getting ride of some of our so > called council employees I don't suppose you'd consider asking the government to raise taxes across the board to pay for stuff like this? Why is it when people want the government to spend more money, their ideas for paying for it never involves they themselves putting their hand in their pocket?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People executed in WWI for cowardice in the face > of the enemy have been pardoned. > > The difference? Well, the main difference is that the WWI soldiers have been pardoned because it is believed they suffered from what today would be called Post-Traumatic Stress. It's mitigation, rather than the law being changed. What you are asking for is a retrospective change. That's very different.

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Best stand up, Jim Jeffries. I love Jim Jefferies, but he is very much for those who think there are no boundaries comedy shouldn't cross.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Tom Tim's lesser known brother? I have no idea what you are talking about. (thank you, edit function...)

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Totally understand why he's not for everyone, but it's the loathing I find weird. You'd be forgiven > for thinking there were hundreds of Stewart Lees up and down the land, adorning every panel show: > not one with a very limited and avoidable television presence. The appalling column he writes weekly for the Guardian certainly hasn't helped my opinion of him. Especially with the fawning posts in the comments that follow. Anyway, back to the more positive 'love' part of this thread. As someone posted a clip of him in the Pope thread... Tim Minchin. Brilliant.

My old provider (Orchard Internet) has just announced they are getting out of the web hosting business, which is annoying, as they were damn good. So I need a new one. What I need is... - Joomla 1.5 allowed/supported - Perl 5 and MySQL - Sendmail access from Perl/Joomla - Cron access - Webmail (at least 5 boxes) - Mail forwarding - Preferably around a fiver a month Any suggestions?

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peedophilia is well defined ... Actually, it's a slightly misused word. Paedophilia actually refers only to pre-pubescent children below 13 years of age.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Stewart Lee - less funny than a dose of the > trots > > >"'Ouse/Ass" ... did make me cry with laughter > > > That's the great thing about comedy, isn't it? > There's a level for everybody. Well I like my comedians delivering comedy, not just trying to play to a political gallery. Stewart Lee is for those that like their comedy delivered in the form of a badly mumbled political lecture. It's like we never learnt anything from the Ben Elton era.

Not funny: Gervais - brilliant writer, but a truly awful stand-up. Stewart Lee - less funny than a dose of the trots Miranda Hart - ugh. Micky Flanagan's "'Ouse/Ass" routine did make me cry with laughter, but I've seen little else funny from him.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Basically lots of investment which isn't going to occur. The normal approach in UK government is a user-pays approach to funding. Bike riders generate zero cash for the treasury, so there will probably never be much in the way of investment money available.

Dudley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Opt-in internet: We are aware some people will be > against it. But we think it is necessary and fair. Then I completely disagree with you. This is censorship - and a very, very dangerous precedent to try and set. Parents must take responsibility in these areas. By all means, give them the tools to control children's internet access, but an absolute no to a position of opt-out default censorship. For that reason alone, I could never support your campaign.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loads of opinionated arsehole you mean, still, could be fun. Same thing. Have you even encountered your HR department?

If you are feeling brave, post it up here. Loads of people here involved in recruitment in some way.