EDOldie

I don't think there's anything wrong with a log or coal fire in your house once every now and then. Makes the room smell lovely and it sounds and looks grate. Houses simply aren't heated by solid fuel these days and the regulations, which were much needed at the time, are perhaps a little out of date? I think there should be some sort of exemption to allow us to use our fireplaces occasionally. Mind you I'm worried yule log off after reading this.

Loz Wrote: Hi Loz, Won?t quote your message or this will just get too long, but. Property is a long term investment, and without working out the figures in minutiae, buy to let should be a good investment for anyone. If you look at rents and capital values over a ten year period both have increased way beyond anyone?s imagination. There?s no reason to say that this trend should not continue either with interest rates set to stay low, possibly even go lower, more QE even? If you buy a property, or have bought one in the last five years, ok things might not be as good now but it still looks like a one way bet. If you get an interest only mortgage after 20/25 years the capital will seem tiny in comparison to the value and as rents rise you can put some of this aside to pay off the capital. Hence the free house analogy. If you put that money in the bank, well forget it, you won?t be able to buy a property in 20-25 years time. I?m not a buy to let investor and I don?t want to see rents go up, but they do, as does the cost of buying a property. The tax on property is an obvious one for the government. It?s cheap to collect and difficult to avoid. And the residential property market appears to be the only area of growth in the economy at the moment. If other parts of the economy starts to grow in real terms what will happen then? If investors buy any investment badly they won?t see a great return and may even lose money. However, I think in the buy to let market, as long as you stay with the cheaper end of the market in any given location, it is difficult to go wrong. And as it?s almost Christmas, one last thought. They?re not building any more houses, oh yes they are, oh no they?re not, oh yes they are, oh no they?re not, oh yes they are, oh no they?re not, (continues for rest of thread).

I don't think it extreme to want to be buried in a place you were born and have a lifetime affinity with. There's nothing wrong with cremation but some of us would prefer our remains to remain here

Loz Wrote: > The only money is in capital gain, which has been > traditionally good, but who knows what will happen > in the future? But 'extortionate' profit on the > rental in London? Nope. Not for your single > property landlord. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Stamp duty changes do make a difference but people get used to them and have little choice but to pay the tax if they want to move. There is an argument that the seller actually pays it in terms of the value. The price they are able to get for their house is depressed because of the duty. This certainly seems to be so at the top end of the market where sales are, by all accounts, very sluggish in central London since the introduction of the 12% rate above ?1,500,000. For example on a ?10M sale the stamp duty would be ?1,113,750. Under the previous rules it would have been ?700,000 and I think, although I?m sure one of you will correct me if I?m wrong, would have been ?153,750. So a very significant increase even taking in to account the way values have risen. With regard to the buy to let scenario the problem has been that buy to let investors have had access to low interest rate cash and been able to out bid normal home buyers thus creating the price increase we have seen particularly at the lower end of the market and the subsequent lack of availability of property for owner occupiers. My own view is that stamp duty should be abolished on all owner occupier house sales below ?500,000, the current London average house price, and then a fixed percentage, say 10% above that but not on the whole amount. I.e. the first ?500,000 of any house purchase would be stamp duty free. At the higher levels of the market this would be very similar to what people are paying today but I believe this would be a fairer calculation and free up the market at every level. The next thing is the residential investment market. One of the tools used by HMRC is the so called Envelope or Envelopment Tax. This is what Ed Balls was going to base his ?mansion? tax on. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/annual-tax-on-enveloped-dwellings-the-basics I think this should apply to all buy to let properties and second homes and that there should be no lower limit. I think this could raise very good revenue but the danger is of course that Landlords will seek to pass on the increase in tax to tenants. However, coupled with the abolition of stamp duty below ?500,000 there would be a more level playing field between either owning or renting. The benefit to buy to let investors should be a gradual increase in property value as well as reasonable return rather than the extortionate one they are currently enjoying because they are not properly taxed. All makes sense to me but am I talking out of my elbow?

If you go to Lisbon stay at Estoril, not Cascais both of which are outside the city but a shortish train ride from the centre of Lisbon. If you can afford to splash out for a super meal go here http://www.hotelfortalezadoguincho.com/ but if not there are plenty of good and very cheap restaurants about. We went in October a few years ago and the weather was beautiful with a good sea temperature too and not a stag do in sight. The surf is incredible near the restaurant mentioned above you can spend hours there watching the surfers.

Well mate you're usually pickled when I see you. As in life so in death? I want to be buried in Camberwell Cemetery, near a tree, or is that too controversial these days?

Not East Dulwich or Peckham but I know but a lot of us use Dulwich Village and the Village will soon have an Oyster bar/deli. Looks like the guy who used to run (own?) Poissonnerie de l'avenue in Sloane Street has taken the lease of the old deli next to the dry cleaners. The dry cleaners was, when I was a kid, a fishmongers so what comes around goes around?? They seem to be spending some money on the place and at last we might have somewhere decent to eat in the Village.

Good points Loz and ???? but there are a lot of people who don't vote or Greens who might vote for a more left wing Labour where they have no chance in their current seat (which is almost all under this silly electoral system we have). It's the rebel appeal that won him the leadership and if that translates into a national vote, well. I agree I think it's very unlikely but I thought that about the leadership campaign.

First to admit I am no Labour supporter but Corbyn started out at 500/1 for the leadership and I think could win the next general election. He's perceived as caring and an underdog if a little naive sometimes, and I think seen by many people, particularly younger people, as radically different to the general middle to middle right ground that successive politicians have all sought to occupy. He's quite cool whereas Cameron et al are distinctly not. Don't forget the Tories have a very small majority, 12 seats and there were 21 by-elections in the last parliament. 6 of those were due to the death of the MP. With the reselection plans he could create a much more left wing Labour party and really change the face of politics in the UK. No one should underestimate him I think.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are a freeholder you can be interred in > your own back garden in a cardboard box. However, > don't go asking permission from the council > because they will say no despite the fact they > have no right to do so. > > In shared freeholds neighbours' permissions are > required and it is preferred that you do not take > eternal sleep near a water main but otherwise you > could be pushing up your own daisies If you're on the Dulwich Estate so you'll probably need a licence. My supposed Victorian relative (there's no proof just family legend) Dr William Price, was responsible for the reintroduction of cremation http://www.llantrisant.net/price.htm in the UK with his rather eccentric actions following the death of his infant son er, Jesus Christ. Anyway it's quite an interesting story if you've got ten minutes to read it

More evidence of why an extension of the Bakerloo line to Camberwell is so desperately needed.

I'm really not trying to be silly but would something like this be appropriate in this location? Might satisfy both sides of the argument? http://woodlandburialtrust.com/woodlandburialplaces.htm

There was definitely something spooky going on up there!! I think this is part of a huge site the Met have had for many many years. They are gradually selling off their land, notably East Dulwich nick's old and new. I found the below on the net. It looks like 113 and 123 are next door to each other on google maps. MI6 Telephone intercepts were for some time handled at the London Station or VBR, by a group of specialists and linguists known as UKZ and operating with a team of specially cleared BT engineers known as the OND. Metropolitan Police Interception and Special Services Centre was situated at 113 Grove Park, Camberwell, London SE5 and served as a joint MI5/MI6/MPSB/C7/GC & CS unit. This had been in operation as 'Grove Park' since around 1919 and was still a covert listening site well into the 1980's. Some operations were transferred to Sandridge near St Albans in the late 1930's and that base was taken over by GCHQ in 1946. A fleet of detector vans was based there throughout the 1950's and 1960's. By 1970's had reverted to Home Office control and had became a Surveillance Research centre developing equipment for Grove Park and other users.

Sure it was his front tooth, not another part of his anatomy?

Yes the military memorabilia shop in North Cross Road was to the left of the fish & chip shop almost directly opposite the Actress (in those days the Uplands Tavern). It was converted to a house or flats some years ago. I seem to remember they had some pretty unpleasant Nazi stuff in there such as medals and other regalia. All a bit creepy. That was probably around 1975?

That's the whole point. They are not doing their job, which is to maximise their revenues, by letting the pub stay empty for a couple of years, longer with the Grove. What is the real cost to the Estate of this seemingly disjointed approach to the management of their assets?

Well it's actually very disruptive, not just to locals such as myself, but also to the businesses locally who struggle with the high rents. The Dog is a major attraction and neighbouring (this spell check is American you know)shops benefit hugely from it being open and suffer when it is closed for long periods such as this. Is it any coincidence that Shepards have had to sell out to Sainsbury's? It is of course very easy to criticise the Dulwich Estate but they really should get their act together on this and the Half Moon, and the Grove. It is having an adverse effect at all of these locations, although I think most of all in the Village, and you do wonder what the Charity Commissioners are thinking allowing this sort of thing to continue.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But London could be more like Dutch cities and > that is what we should be aiming for. That could be fun, cannabis cafes in Lordship Lane, some er, ahem, other attractions, for the area as well. Perhaps we'll all end up very tall and blond too! The point really is that London is not a designed city, it is a series of villages that over the years has merged together. In Europe cities have often been planned and have less dense populations and often more space so they work in a way London never can and never will despite the best efforts of TFL, local councils, etc., etc. We have to achieve some sort of balance and people giving up their cars is a pipe dream (whoops back to Holland) and there are some people particularly the elderly and disabled who rely on their cars for mobility and social interaction. I very occasionally cycle but I could not do my job without a car and this is true for millions of others. We have to live with cars and make provision for them to move round London quickly, safely and in the least polluting way possible. Traffic jams caused by silly planning exacerbate the situation and simply make things worse.

I think this was part of the Labour manifesto for Southwark when they were elected. So, because of the bizarre way our er, democracy works, they have a mandate from you, the people, to do this. I think it's part of the climate change argument which, either way, could be seen by some as another form of control over our behaviour (is the spell check on this in American?). If you were a bit cynical about politicians that is. Which of course I am not. Trust them completely.

Bologna's no good, just outside Tuscany

Might be Alleyn's or even, if the wind were blowing that way Dulwich College? Or, maybe it's a Holy Ghostly church

There are already far too many supermarkets in the area. The planners bleat on about creating jobs but the truth is that jobs are lost when these convenience supermarkets open you only have to look at the effect on the shops by the Plough in Lordship Lane. Sainsburys have stores all over Dulwich now and something must be done to stop them

siouzie14 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Although Dulwich College is a > beneficiary of the Dulwich Estate, it is not part > of the Estate but is a separate charity with its > own Board of Governors. I think if you look at the list of the Estate Governors there is quite a bit of crossover. i.e. some individuals sit on both the Estate Govs and Dul Coll/Jags or Alleyns Govs.

"Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford." ? Samuel Johnson