miga

Thank you RD, I'm honoured.

Whither last decade's "happy slapping" phenomenon?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure there's a bit of leeway for the > 'conscientious bumper' (added information, price > reduction) but a bit of leeway can so often be a > slippery slope to taking the piss. Yep. That's the kind of thing I mean. You add a bit of info, a picture, a price reduction etc. Some things just have a v. limited market so need a while to sell. Allegedly.

Really? Surely it's OK to bump if it's still on sale after a week, say?

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can see why DF and Louisa feel like they're > being singled out - it's because they are. > > Whether this level of bile is justified or not, it > seems like it's almost a rite of passage to have a > go at them on the forum. Just to further clarify this: I think it's particularly lame/weak/aesthetically unappealing when posters with no particular horse in the race pile in to take a pop at these two, once the point is well and truly made, as on this thread. "Me too sir, me too, I also think they were naughty, can I have a star?".

It's busy in there, many more people use it than the Lounge. Bump it?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's Christmas. Let's all hold hands and have a > group hug - then start up again in January. Let's reach around to each other at this fistive time.

I can see why DF and Louisa feel like they're being singled out - it's because they are. Whether this level of bile is justified or not, it seems like it's almost a rite of passage to have a go at them on the forum.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back in October didn't the wonderful Dave say that > Russia bombing Syria would lead to further > radicalization in the area? I was waiting for someone to bring that up. There is a big difference in attitude to collateral damage/civilian death between Russia and UK, which should clear DC of hypocrisy in this regard. However, seeing as planes dropping bombs kind of look the same from the ground, I'm not sure if the average Syrian would care where they come from.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I sit childless in the park, drinking a gin > flavoured coke, I periodically shout out 'Jacob!' > or 'Channing!. Be careful,' to my mythical kids > and get reassuring nods from the mums. > > Oddly, sometimes strange children come over to me > and say 'did you call me?' Ah, so that's you. Good to put a face to a name.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you both look really dodgy or something? Well - I don't think I look (too) dodgy, but I'm also acutely aware that when I take the kids to (e.g) the park, I ought to yell out to them from time to time, just so the rest of the parents are aware I'm not a lone man on the periphery. As in, I find myself exaggerating/overemphasizing my fatherly role just so people know I'm not a random guy in an environment with kids. Maybe I should get a "Dad" badge made up, like the ones for preggy ladies on the tube. As if the dark shadows under my eyes and the crusted up porridge on my sensible fleece weren't enough...

I would detest being told how to vote by my family/community as in the Biraderi voting system, but there's nothing stopping the 40-50% of disinterested voters, most of whom are presumably not mobilised to vote by their community, from going to the ballot box and reducing the effect of the former.

I agree with you Lou, and this is what city devolution, as championed by George Osborne and devised by many others, is meant to achieve.Manchester has done it and there are funds earmarked to help others transform.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's always easier to decide not to do anything. Just because it's easier to do nothing, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Anyway - this was a conscience vote - not really a Corbyn v. Cameron thing. There were (admittedly fewer) Tories who crossed the other way, despite being whipped.

It's better to be seen as stridently doing anything, than to appear indecisive by thinking, planning and possibly deciding that doing nothing is the best option. Anyway, they can't bomb Assad now.

You could have said that, but then you'd have been foretelling information that's not on the web site and that you found out subsequently. Also, AFAICR, they mention both old and new phones. It really is a terrible web site, and I'm in agreement with DF's and Loz' initial caution much more now than earlier, when I was merely understanding of it. I will continue supporting charities which are run much more transparently.

Oh, I believe you that they're asking people to donate their newly bought SIMs. The new information is the 'new' bit, which wasn't on the web site. I, and apparently almost everyone else on this thread, was able to divine the rest of that from the web site. Glad we're all on the same page now.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What exactly is it then that I am saying that you disagree with? > Seriously, what are you taking issue with that I > have said? The most recent thing that you've said that I disagreed with is this misquote: > You agree that the characterization of the appeal to help refugees as "CRAZY" is fine Which I've already neutralized. In general on this thread I've disagreed with your: * asking people to delete their posts * initial misinterpretation of this group's web site, from which you then backpedalled** * inability to concede the validity of some posters' circumspection. * incorrectly characterizing this group as a charity (admittedly a minor point) So let me just restate my original point, for avoidance of confusion: > DF might have used language that's a bit OTT, but the information on how to prepare > your phone and/or SIM on that web site is pretty scant, so a worthwhile point to consider > for anyone contemplating donation. **You said: > 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. Which has already been countered.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You agree that the characterization of the appeal > to help refugees as "CRAZY"is fine for reasons I > don't understand at all. Jeepers - misquote much? I already said DF's original wording was OTT but that I understand his circumspect reaction.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And my issue is by people not bothering to read > what the charity was actually asking for before > posting false characterizations of the request, > you put other people off from looking into it. It > looks 'dangerous, crazy etc' when its nothing of > the sort. Just on that *charity* thing, while we're striving to be quite precise...they're not a registered charity (you can look it up, there's a .gov.uk register), but (they claim) a group of volunteers, associated with CalAid (another group of volunteers), and a Swedish group of the same name. Also, and this is not very unusual, they slightly oddly use a .co.uk domain rather than a .org.uk one. So, there's a web site run by a group of volunteers with not much information on it, on a .co.uk domain, asking for smartphones with insufficient information for the layman about cleaning them up prior to donating. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they're a new outfit, but I totally understand a circumspect reaction as expressed by DF, Loz et al. I'm open to the idea that you know something that's not visible to everyone on the web site, though.

DF might have used language that's a bit OTT, but the information on how to prepare your phone and/or SIM on that web site is pretty scant, so a worthwhile point to consider for anyone contemplating donation.

That's an interesting take on things from Helen Hayes: "get the Russians to stop supporting Assad". There was an article a couple of months back from Marti Ahtisaari (AFAIK, a respected diplomat and not known for being full of it or indeed for being a Russian stooge, Nobel laureate etc.), who said that Putin had through negotiators offered the removal of Assad "in an elegant way" as a bargaining chip three years ago, if the other side would stop backing the opposition. I guess IS was an unintended consequence and "we" thought Assad would have been defeated by now. Classic Cold War BS, with a huge humanitarian cost.

If only it was politically palatable to go nuclear....

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Figures from 2010 show that more than > three-quarters (78%) of all landlords only owned a > single dwelling for rent, comprising 40% of the > total privately rented housing stock. So - 60% of BTL properties are owned by people who have more than 1 BTL? Would be really interesing to find a good source on what proportion of the BTL market is owned by the >15 (unaffected) individuals/entities. But if the intention was to help boost supply for people wanting to "get on the ladder", I'm not sure this policy will work. A combination of people intent on a BTL taking the 3% on the chin**, entities unaffected by the change (>15) just chugging along, and people already deep in equity on their BTL making enough to not warrant the transaction cost of going into some other form of investment, will mean the picture stays more or less the same in my opinion. It just seems like another populist, headline grabbing measure, and the best outcome is that it isn't too consequential. But the 3% being passed on to tenants and boosting rents, or the BTL market being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands are two outcomes which also seem possible. **Having someone else pay off a second property, or even go most of the way towards it, is one way to create housing opportunity for your kids, whatever the moral or political dimension. I know a few people who are doing this.

Another populist move, IMO. Wonder what proportion of BTL properties is taken up by people/entities with more than 15 on their books, who are exempt from this bump. Apart from the schadenfreude of punishing potential BTLers, will it have the desired effect of freeing up supply?