StraferJack

Saw it more as a father ted ref maxxi

Even more shocking mick, is the fact I'm up at half past the midnight

I just screamed at the telly "get in" for Sturridge goal New territory

No one takes a risk buying a house. They look at the price of the home they want to live in and decide if they can afford the payments That's it. Wether the house goes up or down should be irrelevant. They have a home You have a son alan. How do you expect him to buy a place in years to come?

It's almost as if people take what I say, and say I said the opposite In many a post I say hurrah for a rental market. I also say there are several reasons why people end up with multiple properties and many of those reasons are sound. Disclosure. I have been a landlord myself. So why talk to me/about me as if I have said something else? What I HAVE said is that, if you are lucky enough to have acquired property in the years where it's inflation is obscene, and you deliberately use that unearned wealth to buy more housing stock (no longer supply and demand there) then that is where things get whiffy

"Stop trying to stir, it's irksome." Must be a different otta who started a whole thread about how the forum needs more good trolls

+1 PGC Spain. Wanting to see a new power in football is one thing. But talk of teaching Spain a lesson is weird. Like, they were doing something bad and needed to be punished.

feudalism = people who have land, control those who don't The inflated worth of property is seeing us nudge back that way But y'know...shoes

"If I own two pairs of shoes, have I bought 'somebody else's shoes'? Oh no, I forgot, houses are different because......no, I still can't get it. Is it because there aren't enough? Surely not, because then it would just be a supply issue, and nothing to do with morality. " I really can't help you - you are trapped in your own conundrum. fingers in your ears, la la la la - no problem here - everything is tickety boo. Shoes = houses. Food = houses yadda yadda People buying shoes or food to invest in them? And complaining about their yield? Nah - don't see much of that going on. People do or don't buy whatever shoes they want and noone else cares or suffers You want 50 pairs of shoes - go ahead. It doesn't affect anyone else You want to buy more homes than you need to live in? yeah that affects other people. But keep ignoring the part where I say being a landlord ins't inherently evil. All manner of roads lead to owning more than one property and that's fine but deliberately buying up stock? yeah. bad

If you generalise and reduce, yeah you can make any argument the same Doesn't make it so. If you want to say it's the same then feel free, but taking at a remove and call it a "resource" is ... Again with the word. But lame Buy a house. Biggest you can afford. Treat yourself. But don't buy someone else's house JUST to make a profit. You don't buy food to let it out to other people. Don't do it to homes.

Not newspaper. "Our boys" in a football sense It's all tawdry tho

Yeah I was harsh. Hands up And I'm a big fan of ianr generally. Was surprised by the directness of his post and got my radar confused.

It's an imperfect analogy as I've already pointed out to be fair mick But if people will persist with it it's the closest comparison

I guess I wasn't aware of the behind the scenes goings on. I read ians post at face value. Apologies to him if I misjudged

Feudalism ahoy Land has accrued value beyond mere money in recent years. Deliberately ( rather than by circumstance) grabbing as much of that land because of good fortune is basic greed I repeat, in and of itself being a landlord is not greedy. But as of late we have a situation where a smaller group of people are able to buy proportionally more of the property stock than is normal. This is possible because of fortune not effort Diminishing the supply of housing stock from potential buyers, just so they can pay off your pension, at their cost is, I believe greedy Saying you haven't heard a sufficiently good argument borders on psychopathic. It should be self evident. Earn money, buy food and shelter. Sorted. Depending on your circumstance buy the best shelter and the best food if you can and good luck to you But comparing food to land and all the time pretending that landlords = grocers is lame. Estate agents = grocers.

If I was admin I would clip ianr around the ear for being a pedantic bore, wasting his time

whenever anything legal hits the news, it's always worth checking jack of kent's twitter feed for a solid legal take on things "Jack of Kent12 June 2014 10:56 This is good fun. But looking at the legislation, it seems there are defences. Am sure News International can work them out. One thing to note is that page 1 does carry the Sun's url, which connects to a "contact us" page with the full address and so on. Just on the strength of this, the "mischief" which the legislation is aimed at is met. The statutory wording of "place of abode" is sufficiently vague to be read purposely. And also: one does not have to be a fan of News International to not want news publishers to incur criminal liability on such a basis. It is a great spot by Chris, but I don't think it is one to take too seriously.

Anyone with two pennies to run together can get their own food (in 2014 with food banks, not even that) Well paid people often cannot get their own house There is zero comparison Everyone but everyone drives food prices down Half the housing market wants (even needs) prices up and the other half down Completely different

I don't care enough about it to be honest Anna. I do understand why people take a stance like yours, and I have done myself in teh past, but I don't think it's as toxic as it was 25 years ago. Not that I like it much in it's current incarnation especially I didn't mean my post to be just an anti-sun rant (I can do that at the drop of a hat) - I just thought under-delivering on their promise to deliver to every house was ironic and I was heavy handed in lampooning the type of stance they take

Noone I know has received a copy in my neighbourhood Imagine if govt made a promise like this and didn't deliver - they would be all over it with front page "INCOMPETENT!" headlines But then again, if any other publication/website insisted on pushing tits through a door they would be going with "FILTH!" headlines (I expect they have pre-empted that one by not having page 3 today tho?)

Someone equates investing and profiting from housing with food retail and gets a pass?? If people with more money and food than others bought food from the shops and lent it at a premium to people who couldn't afford it.. (who would then have to give it back) then your "anaolgy" might start to make sense A natural balance of sales and letting is desirable - the current skewed market (where people were fortunate to make a lot of money on previous bubbles get first dibs on new stock) isn't It's not a difficult concept, but some people are so complacent they have zero idea of the reality. They think they could repeat whatever pattern they followed in the 80s (or whenever) - get a job, a house share, a flat, a bigger flat, a house etc

Honestly, I believe no one should be paying a million quid just to let the house out Multiply that by all the others doing same and the house wouldn't be best part of a million quid in first place

Loz does rather make it sound as if it's the owner/landlord who is getting the shitty end of the stick here "a man, right.. .he came in to my office and told me this house was for sale at 950k. And i could rent it for 2700 pcm... i thought that's CRAZY!! The gross yield is blah blah blah..... but my objections were useless.. he MADE me buy and let it out. And meanwhile.. MEANWHILE! my tenant is sitting pretty with a paltry rent in SE London"

And with a tone like that... Maybe admin gets tired of answering same questions over and over? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,27350,214005#msg-214005 As on the other thread, what's wrong with starting a singles thread. If the demand is there it will stay on the front page Alternatively... Craigslist?

I'm beginning to understand why locals can't afford to buy in the area a bit more now