Loz

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Despite all of the back and forth on the thread, for the sake of the organisation, I hope people will correct the > information, whatever the reason the incorrect statements about the SIMs were posted. Anyone who > does so, I'll happily delete my responses to them about it from the thread. I'm not playing your games. You've made some scurrilous accusations but, as Wellington said, publish and be damned. Besides, as I've pointed out, your responses have actually done the most damage to said organisation. If you choose to leave them up, that's up to you.

I'd guess you could talk to OFCOM, as BT are failing to provide your phone and broadband service through no fault of your own. Won't be quick, though. Are BT suspending all charges while this is happening? If any of the scaffolding is on your land, then I'd suggest you have quite a bargaining chip with next door.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry Loz, I didn't mean to suggest that they > would only accept SIMs from industry people. and Amusingly, you keep telling everyone else to read things properly. You could start with your own posts. > Given that they are asking for pay as you go SIMs from very specific companies, for me > it was clear that they didn't want everyone's phone with its SIM but only a specific type of > SIM from 2 named providers as its own separate donation. > It is 100% clear that you didn't know or ready any of that based on your post on the matter. You > based on DF's post very clearly thought they were asking for people to hand over their sims in their > phone and even asked why they would need them. Actually, I did read the website and, as I have shown, it does ask for SIMs. You are the one who seems to be making stuff up that isn't on their website. E.g. they don't ask for two specific companies, as you claim, but actually says "for example pay as you go SIM's from Lebara or 3." (my emphasis). > Agreeing with a broad characterization that donating is crazy I think is irresponsible. You > disagree, which is your right and clearly nothing I can say on it will convince you otherwise. Weasel words, and dishonest ones as well. You have been a master of misrepresentation on this thread. Nowhere did I say that. I said, quite clearly that "I'm with DF - there is no way I'd hand over a SIM.". And then I explained quite clearly the rational behind that statement. > I think it is disparaging and reckless to post information undermining the efforts of an > organization trying to help people without bothering to fully understand the request and > clearly explaining what you think is wrong with it. You are the one that doesn't seem to fully understand what they are asking. On the other hand, I did read it and understand it, saw what the dangers were and I very, very clearly explained why. I am really annoyed you have accused me of disparaging the charity, no matter no many weasel words you use to try and justify it. If anyone has made this particular charity look bad on this thread, it would actually be you. You've inadvertently represented it with a rather deranged-sounding voice, wildly misrepresenting what people say and calling names at anyone who dare contemplate discussing or questioning any aspect of the request.

Your quote from the website STILL doesn't back your claim that they only asked for SIMs from industry people. Face it - it's not there. You, not DF, are wrong on this. And sorry, but you accuse me of disparaging a charity because I agreed on a technical point with DF... and somewhere along the way he used the word 'crazy'? Is that it? Really? Could you grasp at a more tenuous straw? I could post a lot more on the dangers of giving away your phone, if you really want.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > loz, yes they dp separate out the requests. When you go down to How You Can Help, they are very > specific. You just have to scroll down on the same page. But they do not separate them into industry and non-industry requests, as you are claiming. And you still haven't explained how I 'disparaged a charity'.

Yep - I cringed when I read Cameron's comments. I suspect he just lost a few Labour MPs sitting on the fence on the subject.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you read the link (this is to you as well DF). They aren't asking individuals for their SIMs in > general, just the smart phones. They are asking companies and people working in the industry for > sims that are pay as you go without roaming fees in Calais that the charity will then top up with > donations. To be fair, the only time this is mentioned on the link they say "we want to collect as many smartphones, chargers and SIMs from companies, brands and individuals in the industry and beyond." They do not, as far as I can see, separate the requests between smartphones and SIMs as you claim. If they meant that, it's really not very clear on the website. > Let's be careful before disparaging the work of a charity. I don't believe that I did. I just agreed with DF that handing over a used SIM is really not a good idea. I'm not sure how you managed to read that as "disparaging the work of a charity".

You flogging any dead horses as well?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you think there's a load of data on your SIM which could be accessed, what are you going to do > if someone steals it now? Surely you should have dealt with that possibility already? I have indeed - my SIM is passcoded. I'd have to unpasscode it to give it away.

Dunno about Bognor, but I had a couple of weekends in Margate about 5 or so years ago. Can't say it was the most pleasant experience.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is difficult. While cycling on the pavement is safer for dreamymummy and her children, it is less > safe for other vulnerable pedestrians and a real problem if adopted en masse by loads of cycling > parents and children. No excuse for lone adults to cycle on pavements. The 'exception' to the law that allows children to ride on pavements is simply that children under 16 cannot be issued with fixed penalty notices. So it is still against the law, it's just that no fine can be issued. That would not apply to any adult, whether cycling with or without children.

Because you get more energy released from burning gas than you do burning coal. You also get an addition plus in that burning coal also releases quite a lot more mercury into the environment.

I'm with DF - there is no way I'd hand over a SIM. Apart from personal info, you can't guarantee your name isn't still associated with the account connected to that SIM. Also, if you've transferred the number (as most people do) the SIM is useless anyway. Not sure why they'd want them, anyway - I'd be surprised if the phone companies wouldn't hand over a bunch of PAYG SIMs if they asked and were going to top them up.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at Brixton and Peckham, under our very noses traditional working class neighbourhoods are being converted > into wealthy enclaves, despite the demographic of the populus remaining relatively static. Brixton was an upmarket middle-class area way before it was a 'working class neighbourhood'. Which is why it has such nice housing stock. Electric Avenue is named as it was the first London street to have electric street-lights installed. It was only because it was bombed so heavily in WWII that the area fell into decay, became an area of high council house building and the working class moved in. So, it is not right to say Brixton is gentrifying. It is actually re-gentrifying.

Most of the Croydons, Bromleys etc were moved out of their traditional counties and became London boroughs in 1965.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WTF is BTL? > > Is it a TLA? Yep. It stands for Buy to Let.

People still referred to Croydon, Kingston and Mitcham as being in Surrey. Indeed, Surrey County Council offices are still located in Kingston, even though it is no longer inside the county. It's a like people saying Harrow, Uxbridge etc is in Middlesex, Bromley is in Kent and Romford is in Essex. You can see it in the postcodes of the area - none of them have the usual W, SW, SE, etc. But they are actually London boroughs.

Lou. you can build a brand new 2 bed house for about ?70k all in. It's finding somewhere to put it that's the costly part.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > surely, if you have a repayment mortgage then you > will end up owning the property. > > Interest only, really - why? A few reasons. 1) You can rarely make repayment mortgages work with BTL. Rents usually barely cover the interest payments. E.g. 400k at 3.5% is ?1200 interest only or about ?2000 repayment. You are not going to get ?2000 rent for a property valued at circa 550k. 2) Tax reasons. You can do other things with that money that are more tax efficient. 3) If you are only in it for the short term (like the OP stated) paying off the mortgage for about five years won't get you very far, anyway.

old_bloke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where have all the real London people gone I think they have all gone off to 'infest' Spain.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you are talking to Sue, BB? If so, and are > referring to a poster named after a type of chilli... Just re-reading this, I've realised that there are TWO posters on that thread who my clue could refer to. The chilli I was referring to was, of course, of the scotchbonnet variety...

As cyclemonkey says, you won't make a whole lot out of rents, but you can make a decent amount out of capital gain. It is not a risk-free investment. Your entire strategy is reliant on house prices rising a decent amount some time in the next few years and interest rates not rising so much that your mortgage starts to swallow up all your rental income. You need to be *really* picky about your tenants - one bad tenant can cost you a lot of money. Always look to keep good tenants - they are so valuable and make your life much easier. So long as you complete before April 2016, the new stamp duty rules won't affect you. But, if you are a 40% or above taxpayer you really need to consider the changes coming on interest relief - they will have a big impact on your calculations. If you live reasonably close, I would recommend you manage it yourself - letting agents really aren't worth the sort of money they charge unless you need a local presence. The forum is an excellent place to find tenants and tradespeople. Contracts and forms for inventories, etc can be found online, especially if you join an association (worth it for the first year). I'll see if I can put together a PM in the next day or so with a few more thoughts, things to consider and things to watch out for.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well yes, if you started now, but most of these properties have not been bought recently. People > have been building up portfolios for years in some cases. Which is why I specified single (or even 1-3) property landlords. Most of these changes won't affect large scale landlords. > So compared to what they paid for the property the return on their original investment is very good plus > the capital value has increased significantly precisely because these properties have not been available > to buy. I basing my information on direct experience - rent returns are rubbish, capital returns are good. And the new relief rules will actually turn those small rental profits into losses. So, what are you basing your information on? I read a lot of rubbish about BTL landlords 'raking in massive rents', but - like most things - the reality is a lot different to the theory when you actually get out and do it. > Rent laws were freed up so that property owners could be assured of getting possession with a market, not > regulated, rent being paid by the tenants. So the properties were effectively paying for themselves. When you say "effectively paying for themselves", are you referring the old canard that rents pay off the mortgage and the landlord ends up with a 'free house'? It really doesn't work like that; more so when you a working with gross yields of 3-4%. Rent will usually cover the interest due on the mortgage, but the capital does not get paid. Most BTL mortgages are interest-only. > There were tax advantages and it all got a bit out of control hence the changes we have seen in > taxation. There will be more too I'm sure. The point I was making was that these changes will cause many small landlords to leave the market and dissuade new ones replacing them, and the result of this will be significantly higher rents. Is that what you want?

I like using kayak.co.uk for this sort of stuff, as it gives you an option of checking +/- 3 days. Just did a quick search and if you flew out on 12/12 and back on the 10/1, the cheapest flight is ?1139. But, if you wait and fly out on the 15/12, and come back a little early on the 7/1, that drops down to ?513.

The problem for the Corbynites is that they can stick rigidly to their beliefs or they can get elected, but almost certainly not both. And if you can't get elected, then you become a pressure group rather than an actual agent of change. The more you drift away from the economic centre-right and the social centre-left the less chance you have of being elected. It's a problem that afflicts both the left and right in this country. Osborne's about turn on tax credits can be nailed down to this. Blair had many faults, but he was, at least, a pragmatist.