Loz

I have been searching of late. August was really slow. September picked up, but not as much as in previous years. The general thought is that people are battening down the hatches and staying put. SJ is right - properties priced reasonably are selling. It is still a slight buyers market out there, so expect offers near to your price, if that price is competitive. Drop the asking price ?20k and see if that arouses interest. Unless you are with Foxtons, in which case drop it ?50K.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > good point, well made Jeremy > > more about the man himself It is just me, or do those pictures make it look like he operates out of his spare room? Hardly Warren Buffet territory.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You guys were making it up as you went along when > pontificating about the calender. > > So, here's an extra little piece of bull. > > John K > > ? 9. Deinde, ne in posterum a XII kalendas aprilis aequinoctium recedat, statuimus bissextum quarto > quoque anno (uti mos est) continuari debere, praeterquam in centesimis annis; qui, quamvis > bissextiles antea semper fuerint, qualem etiam esse volumus annum MDC, post eum tamen qui > deinceps consequentur centesimi non omnes bissextiles sint, sed in quadringentis quibusque > annis primi quique tres centesimi sine bissexto transigantur, quartus vero quisque centesimus > bissextiles sit, ita ut annus MDCC, MDCCC, MDCCCC bissextiles non sint. Anno vero MM, more consueto > dies bissextus intercaletur, februario dies XXIX continente, idemque ordo intermittendi > intercalandique bissextum diem in quadringentis quibusque annis perpetuo conservetur. But that just explains leap years? PS Nette - you missed posterum

Interestingly, the first application was for an illuminated hoarding measuring 11m x 8m. This was dismissed on the grounds of "appearance, scale, height, location and illumination would result in an incongruous and obtrusive element within the street-scene, and have a materially harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area." The new application is for an illuminated hoarding measuring 10m x 7m. That they could even consider the new proposal to be materially different to the first application seems unlikely.

I'd have more sympathy if it was not illuminated. That would make it more the same as normal scaffolding. There is nothing wrong with advertising, but it shouldn't be intrusive. The EDF is a good example - the advertising is there, but it blends in with the environment. This hoarding will stick out like a well-lit sore thumb.

I thought 'Vulgar Era' was the early 80's? Or was it the late 70's?

Ha! I see some people are defining BCE and CE as "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era".

Oh, I agree, Jeremy. It's just I don't get the point of CE/BCE. Seems like a renaming for no good reason, rather than any actual meaningful change. At least when some people started using UTC instead of GMT there was at least a technical difference.

Block it. See who complains.

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Scaffolding looks awful anyway, I really don't see how this would make it look any worse. There are > > things in life worth fighting for, but I'm surprised anyone thinks this is one of them. > At last. Thank you Karter and Jeremy, can't believe how worked up people are getting over some > scaffolding. Weeping Jesus... But you seem to be equally worked up, Willard. You just happen to be worked up in favour of it. Now Jeremy can question us getting worked up against the advertising hoarding, but who on earth gets worked up in favour of advertising hoarding??

But if CE means the same as AD, isn't that still conforming to the basic religious aspect of the measurement. You are still basing it on the year, accepted by Christianity, of Jesus' birth. You aren't stopping the years being 'defined by God', just obfuscating it.

I can see the many flaws in the privatisation programme. A private monopoly will always be worse that a public monopoly. For privatisation to work, competition must be introduced. Having said that, privatisation has actually (almost surprisingly) provided a vast improvement on the dreary old inefficient British Rail. In ED, at least, Southern is doing a pretty good job - dumping the old operator (NSE?) and bringing them in showed that the operators cannot get away with crap service. Huguenot is right - it is the network infrastructure that is holding back rail travel. And that bit is virtually renationalised.

I've always considered Labour to be somewhat hamstrung in the economics debate since they admitted they would have cut budgets dramatically as well (?16 Labour cuts for every ?17 of Tory cuts, apparently). So I was rather surprised that they actually announced with some fanfare that they would cap student fees at ?6000, rather than return them to their pre-Coalition rates or even drop them altogether. Is taking the line "We'd do much the same, but not as heavily" really the strategy that is going to win Miliband the next election? Is he just the Tory-lite Labour leader?

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maxxi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Would this really have looked better covered with ads? > > Would it have looked any worse? Yes.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png

Well, as I think the 40p rate is entirely fair and the point in which is applied is not too far off (actually, I think it's a bit low and should be around ?45K), so I'll take the ?100K at 40% thank you. I'm previously made clear my thoughts about what I'd do if the 50% band ever got me. How so? Most 'necessary' goods are zero rated or, in the case of energy, unchanged. Zero vat on rent, transport, basic foodstuffs. Chances are most people on the lower end of the payscale don't pay much VAT at all. People at higher salaries tend to buy more VAT related stuff. Even the IFS said that, in the longer term, VAT is a progressive tax. I never did quite understand why they thought is wasn't in the shorter term, mind you. And the VAT increase raised a significant amount of tax. If it raised an extra ?1bn a year I would say it was a silly idea and dump it. Wouldn't you?

The problem is that this taxi has well and truly left the rank. If you do anything to bring down house prices you will cause economic disaster to people and families across the country. Remember 'negative equity'? Well that on a much, much larger scale. And the knock on effects to the wider economy will be disastrous. The only solution from here on is for councils to buy more property.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So suddenly, because you earn six figures, you > have to work any hours demanded of you? > > Blimey you guys swap sides quickly. Are you on the > sides of high earners or not?! I'm happy for doctors to earn that sort of money. But I expect value for money in return. And yes, if you earn six figures there is a lot expected of you. It's the reason I never wanted to work in the city - yep, you get big money but the trade off is you give your life to your job. There's no 'swapping sides' here by me. If doctors work hard they should be paid lots and a majority of that money shouldn't be clawed back in tax. On the other hand if we were talking, say, bankers I'd be still saying the same but I expect your tune may be somewhat different, DC. PS You've not responded to my 50% challenge yet...

Willard, I suspect the answer to that lie in the question, "How much money would an advertising company pay me to block out the windows with a permanent hoarding".

That's coz we don't want the royals anywhere near children...

Whoh - nurses I'd agree, but most doctors and surgeons get near to, if not over, six figures. How much do we have to pay them?

Is Rosie on holiday, Katie?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just on a slightly different tack though.....when is TFL going to do something to make major > intersections safe for cyclists? Vauxhall and Aldwych are terrible road systems to negotiate and > those who designed the lane system on Blackfriars (where a cyclist died around 8 years ago whilst in > the cycle lane in the MIDDLE of the road) want shooting. Buses are particularly bad around > cyclists. I can't think of any vehicle that has caused me to brake hard more than busses. To be fair, they've made both those junctions pretty terrifying for everyone. I take up a new religion every time I take on Vauxhall from the north trying to get down to Camberwell New Road in the car. As for Aldwych, that's scary enough from upstairs in a bus.

Hang on. That's ?12.6 billion over five years. In other words, back to the ?2.7 per year I posted earlier, except multiplied by five to make it sound much bigger than it is. And the same ?2.7m a year that seems to be very, very over estimated. Look I am willing to say that if the 50% rate brings in a significant amount of money (i.e. more than ?2bn a year), then fine, it works so keep it, Are all the pro-50% people here brave enough to say that if it doesn't (and that means less than ?1bn a year) then we should scrap it? We'll leave the middle as a place to argue over later. Timster? SJ? DC?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit like computer war game where no one gets hurt. The person in the VW Polo night disagree with that.