PokerTime

Sue, l am not raking over this with you all over again. You are not truthful. You take no responsibility for your own behaviour ever and there is never any point discussing anything with you. You browbeat and bully. You throw temper tantrums. Why should anyone have to put up with that? There are at least three occasions on this forum where you have written things that can be absolutely refuted by footage shot by the documemtary crew. The final straw was being called unreliable after working 21 days straight because I took two days off after that. That's when you asked for a meeting that you then cancelled and did not rearrange. You are ridiculously unreasonable. I am in no way the only person to have had problems with you. That is my final word on it.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Poker Face - have you changed your user name ? No I haven't. I had a different username when I ran the football but haven't used that one in many years. I have no new username since this one and don't post on the forum these days. Actually that means I changed it once but l have never posted from the two names if that makes sense.

Just because Sue says something is so does not mean it is true. I have had enough of her lies too. BUT the point is that no-one can know from a forum or a news report what the truth is. That requires concrete evidence. I have no vendetta but I will defend myself from things that are just not true. Sue cancelled a meeting and never rearranged it. End of story.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly. > > Oh and btw, "PokerTime", I did not go to the Small > Claims Court because you told me there was no > point in doing so because you had no money. > > Edited for typo. C I said no such thing. You cancelled a meeting that you did not rearrange. The next thing you are on this forum playing the victim as you always do.The problem is that you don't remember details. I will stop short of saying you deliberately lie. Your behaviour was terrible. Even the production company thought you were out of order. Who in their right mind would do anything but stay well away from that. You drive people mad.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having been involved in a disagreement with a > "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every > sympathy. > > Why would somebody who thought they were in the > right refuse mediation? Because it was never offered in your case and similarly why would a client who thinks they are so right not go to small claims court? There are indeed two sides to every story and sometimes there is even documentary evidence to support one side.

Yes Photoshop is best for what you want to do, along with Adobe Pagemaker, which is a programme specifilly designed to create brochures, magazines and all types of press materials. Indesign and Illustrator do different things and After Effects is a high end Editing Software for Film and TV Visual Effects.

Hong Kong used to be the most expensive city on the planet. That title now goes to london. In Hong Kong, the cost of property and rents went so high they had to slap a 26% tax on foreign property purchasers. It was a bubble. London is heading for the same disaster. Growth is not infinite. What multiple of average salary do prices have to reach before we all get it? And when there are no min wage people left in London to do all the dirty jobs, who are we going to blame then? The poor? For not being able to earn enough? A vibrant city (and I'm talking in economic terms) needs a range of demographics to keep functioning. If we price everyone but the most affluent out of the city, that economy will suffer. The article may be irritating but it hits on real issues. The rise in the cost of property in London over the past 40 years is unprecedented. The reasons are many. But it can't be allowed to go on.

I was there yesterday and it was a great day but I agree with Otta. The government don't care. The only good thing is that the majority is so silm. They were actually better off under coalition (70 seat majority I think? ish). The way to fight back will be to lobby tory backbenchers bill by bill (Cameron already lost the first vote re EU referendum).

I was there yesterday and like some of you above, when Charlotte Church came on stage to give her speech, didn't expect much. I was pleasently suprised. She gave a terrific speech, that she'd written beforehand and clearly put a lot of thought into. It's very easy to be cynical and sneer, but how many of you above heard her speech yesterday? Russell Brand is not the best speaker as we all know. To be honest I think he makes it up as he goes along, but his support does bring coverage of what is for many a serious cause. Austerity is hitting the poorest and most vulnerable people hard, especially people like the disabled. 250,000 people joined that march (a police estimate annonuced on the main stage). And let's remember that only 23.5% of the electorate voted for this miracle conservative majority. They don't represent 76.5% of the electorate at all, some of whom are celebrities and should be free to lend support without being ridiculed.

If he's riding a learner bike which will be a 125 then it doesn't require an expensive course to learn to ride that. The CBT is one day of training anyway. He can learn to ride in a car park, with some cones, and then do a CBT once confident handling the bike.

It's a ludicrous idea and I can't see it happening. The proposal would not hand over the entire home, just 60% of it, so the tenant would still have rent to pay, and other charges, but would also no longer have the safety net of Housing Benefit open to them if they lose their job. So would work for some people but would be a risky route for others, especially those who gain low paid or insecure contract work etc. It's worth pointing out also that LA's can now charge up to 80% of market rate on new tenancies, and that once part ownership is handed over it's no longer a social home. So anyone being gifted 60% of their home under this scheme may well find they are paying market rent on the other 40%. The claim about reduction of the Housing Benefit bill is a red herring too, given the much higher cost of housing people in the private rented sector. If IDS really wanted to save money, the answer would be to create enough low rent property for those who need it. The last thing the social housing sector needs, is more transferance to the private sector. It's easy to claim that money raised can be reinvested in new homes, but practically impossible to deliver on any like for like scale. 2 million social homes lost since the 1980's. 1.7 million people/households currently on council waiting lists. We never needed to be in this predicament on the first place, and it shows how out of touch and uninterested the Conservative party are when it comes to the UK's Housing Crisis. Nothing to do with a pink bus I know.

I'm pretty sure that maintenance of new trees lies with the supplier for the first three years and not the council. When I enquired about getting funding for tree planting/ replacement, that was the system explained to me, that a new tree costs on average ?800 and comes with a three year initial maintenance by the supplier.

The cost of this scheme is ?1.59 million. At a time when vital services to the most vulnerable have been cut, should we really be wasting money like this? You really have to question what planet some councillors and council departments live on. It's not as though our roads are a constant war zone of death and injury.

Ah you are right, I did not read it and thought we were talking about Labour's manifesto promise. Again, given that no capital debt is attached to 80% of the rental market, a rent control could work, but the figures would have to be regionally set, and an annual inflationary increase allowed. London is unique again in that 52% of households rent, whereas regionally it is only 30%. Of course, the situation is not helped by LA's selling off former council estates for redevelopment, which in reality is displacing the poorest out of London. I think there are better ways though, to slow the market, and to give wages a chance to catch up.

First of all, rent caps are not capping the amount of rent charged, but cap the percentage at which it can be increased year on year. Social housing rent increases have been capped at between 1-3% above inflation for decades, which is why they have rents more realistically in line with the salaries of those that live in them. Building homes is a solution and Labour have committed to building 200,000 homes per year for the next five years if they are elected. The conservatives have made no such commitment. But similar promises were made by New Labour and fell well short. It takes times to build homes, and it takes time to find public private partnerships to deliver them (under the current system of financing). But I totally agree with RC that the Conservatives have no interest whatsoever in affordable housing and even less in local authority owned housing. They are completely Victorian in their outlook and attitudes towards the poorest members of society (which includes the low waged). Loz you are completely wrong on this. 80% of rental property is already paid for and has no mortgage attached. There is no negative loss to the landlord from a rent increase control. The other 20% is also not under threat unless interest rates rise faster than the allowed rent increase. Then we have a problem, but buy-to -let is such a small part of the overall rental market, that to champion the risk to that sector, over the lack of risk to the rest of the sector is a distortion. It is better to target help at buy-to-let investors hit by this policy than to reward all landlords with taxpayers income through top-up benefits, while they continue to raise rents at any level they like. ?28 billion was spent last year in tax credits and HB to families with at least one parent in full time work. That is tax payer?s money subsiding low wages and landlords. The tax credit makes no distinction between the minimum wage of a small business, or the minimum wage of a large corporation. Just as HB makes no distinction between the rent increase of a buy-to-let investor with a mortgage attached, and the 80% of properties with no capital debt attached. Rent increase controls WILL work in that they will over time allow salaries to catch up and cost the nation less in welfare. Who cares if landlords make less profit in all of that as long as they do still make a profit. Balancing the economy isn?t just about deficit control (as hard as that is to do in an economic system built entirely on credit and debt), it?s also about putting value back in to peoples wages, and away from capital assets. Another good reason for controls is that it will dis-incentivise fluid income, through changes to the pension lump sum rules, from being invested in buy-to-let and exacerbating the problem. The prediction is that the over 65?s will further push first time buyers out of the market. A lot of the arguments levied again rent increase controls are the same arguments levied against the introduction of a minimum wage. They are scaremongering, with no basis in reality. We know what the problems are. The free market is not going to sort them out. There has to be regulation. Also there needs to be measures to bring empty properties into use as well. There?s a march on Jan 31st if anyone is interested on the shortage of affordable homes in London.