Huguenot

Ah, you're such a cutie GB. Don't mind the conspiracy theorists.

I don't really understand what you're getting at mikeb. If you insist (incorrectly as it happens*) that the principal private residence is the driver of house prices, then you must also accept that no money has been made at all - people simply live there. The output of enforcing taxation against house value on residents that they could never have afforded that price in the first place, is that their house has gone up in value so evict them. You are trying to tax the resident because someone else can afford to pay more for their house (not the resident). *I say incorrectly because there is a direct causal link between buy-to-let being 1% of all house sales in 2000 to 11% in 2004 and the house price rises of the same period. Until that point there was a reasonable balance of supply and demand. House prices rises were driven by middle income families buying extra housing for a rental return, paid for through tax breaks that incentivised them to do so. It's an inconvenient truth because the people on this forum are those BTL landlords.

Exactly - not only is 'not clear' what influence might be wafting around, but the balance of probabilities is next to nothing (given that the quality of the association is about as strong as '...once knew a bloke whose neighbour's dog...' etc.). So really what this, the Mirror, yourself and all the other people who trot this out are trying to do is to make these people guilty by association. It's a campaign of persecution, defamation and smear based on snide insinuation. It's despicable, shallow and borderline criminal. What the hell, another dirty union tactic slung around by semi-evolved bullies. If only these energies could be put to something constructive, instead of trying to bring everything down to their own pigsty level.

I believe retailers of tat and shite are allowed to open on Sundays anyway. It's only the big retailers that can't open for more than 6 hours usually - so it's really only going to affect the likes of Oxford Street. Given that they were allowed to open for 6 hours anyway, I suspect that very few people will be doing any more significant work on a Sunday than they would have anyway? Storm in teacup. Besides, it's only Sliverfox and Lady Deliah who still think we should be living in 1342, working the fields all week and praying on Sundays. The rest of us have telephones and computers and lives to lead.

Tolerance, El Pibe? ;-) Don't let the missus see...

St. Patrick would have done a better job helping the Welsh if he'd helped the Irish win ;-)

Food's definitely the biggest thing for me :) I'll eat just about anything, but it doesn't mean i'll enjoy it. The endless quest for sausages, pork pies, prawn cocktail crisps and kebabs can be quite a drain ;-) Bread's a pain - I miss the bakers on the corner, but it doesn't keep me awake at night.

You've got 'evidence' that Gingerbeer is in fact BBW but you're not posting it for legal reasons? Are we just losing the plot here? Have we completely lost our sense of proportion? Do we really think we're going to end up in jail for something that may or may not be a very trivial practical joke or zero importance? Come on guys!!!! ;-)

Oh silverfox, don't tell me you don't get irony now? The essence of the church's argument is that marriage is lessened or destroyed by allowing gay people to do it. It is pleasing that if we replace 'marriage' with 'coffee machine' you immediately see that this is homophobia. You claim this is okay because it is the church's teachings - but then refuse to acknowledge that the church has quite happily ignored various other stone age prejudices against, for example, touching pigs or growing certain plants adjacent to each other. If the church argues that (inconsistent) anti-gay teachings cannot be let go in a similar fashion then there can be only one reason: that they are prejudiced against gays.

"I understand where they are coming from. I recently bought an espresso machine to which I was hugely attached until I noticed Whittard was selling the same model to gays. Suddenly my macchiato seemed cheapened; and questioned my commitment to the morning shot. Now the Illy languishes untouched and I have begun dallying with an old jar of Maxwell House I was once close to. We?d fallen out of touch after I?d committed to proper coffee but recently reconnected via Facebook. So I?m wise to the dangers of gay marriage." A point well made!

Atticus, who do you think is Big Bad Wolf?

"I think Silverfox is of the feeling that he can no longer see the shore he once walked confidently on and is trying to pull that shore to him. " That's a hard fought intellectual concession.

You are SO flirting.

Singapore's nice.

No, Samantha.

Really? Five? How many millions watch Cheltenham compared with Luck? Not to say I agree one way or the other.

As a point of interest, I understand that discrimination laws only apply to paid for good or services, not those donated freely. For example, one can offer services of friendship without being accused of discrimination against non-friends. If the church were to give up charitable tax status (ie subsidised by the taxpayer) they would probably be free to deny services to whomever they choose. Is this perhaps the underlying anxiety from the church - that homosexual marriage will eventually result in them being unable to claim to be anything but a tax paying cult?

I'm not aware that any particular church 'owns' marriage, nor that all churches have the same perception of marriage. So it's pretty hard to accept the gay marriage is being enforced upon churches.

That wasn't my point as such - the thing is that for most ordinary folk the price of their house is irrelevant. They're not rich. The ones milking it don't live in their houses. Tax multiple house ownership, tax capital gains - but don't tax people on their house for money they have never had and will never see.

I cannot see what your problem is with gay marriage SF. What does it matter to you whether two people who you don't know get married? Since you don't know who they are, why does it matter what gender they are? It only matters to you because you're prejudiced. Second dotage eh?

Many of the 'average' residents of terraced housing in ED will have bought their 3 bed family property 10 to 15 or more years ago. they may have bought it at 'right-to-buy rates' discounted against market value, or simply at an average price not much off 250k. The mortgage payments will consequently reflect a loan of around 200k or more, say 800 quid a month, and be within the means of the average middle class family. When the housing market went mental these people didn't suddenly become rich. They didn't get given half a million quid. Somebody may well want to pay 600k for their house, but they ain't selling, it's their home and they live there. Now suddenly, because someone else has offered more money for their house, we want them to pay 6k a year (1%) in 'envy tax' - they don't have it. They are not now and never were rich. Quite simply we're evicting them out of spite.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here based upon the idea that an increase in the value of a house puts money into people's pockets - it doesn't. If I buy a house today, and tomorrow somebody will pay more than I paid to own it, it also applies to the house I move into. I do not gain unless I downsize. If you try and tax a person for owning a house that goes up in value, there is no guarantee that they can pay the bill, after all they could only afford a cheaper property. You are simply saying 'someone else can pay more for your house so either give the government some money or the government is going to evict you'. It really is that simple. It's insane.

What a ridiculous claim to make Razors.

Common or garden explanation?

Think Woodrot, THINK! When you left the house this morning, and.... yeah, you're getting it... the woman in the RED jacket yes? How could they have known the time you left the house unless they were listening? And unless someone was watching you walk out the house, how the f**k would they have known when to put the girl in the red jacket there? She was a PRECISE distance from you. Not kidding. A PRECISE distance, measurable to millimetres. How? If you don't believe me, go back and check. Get some footage. She was a PRECISE distance from you. That number is critical. The f**cking number, think about it. How could they have known?? It was precise!!! Shit.