Josh

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Josh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm surprised my post was immediately lounged > from > > the main forum. I think the East Dulwich Forum > has > > a problem with over-zealous moderation. I won't > be > > posting again. > > Why didn't you stick to this you dipstick? Because there are people like you on the forum.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No I am not the moderator. > > You are sticking the boot into a forum which has > the good grace to allow you your say. You have > stated in earlier posts you will never again post > on this unsuitable forum. > > Why are you intent on badgering people on this > site when it is obviously not good enough for your > high standards? > > Some of us believe it to be an invaluable asset to > this area. > > If you find it demeaning to use this "weak" forum, > go find a strong one and use it, whilst we > continue to function on here and enjoy wallowing > in all our weaknesses. I'm happy to make an exception on this issue.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IT ISN'T EAST DULWICH SPECIFIC. ED residents might nevertheless take an interest in their surroundings. How many posts have there been about Bellenden Road, which is in SE15 rather than SE22, for instance?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nothing civil or sensible about using people's > tragic death to moan about a bleedin' forum in my > opinion - you should get some perspective. Do you think the fire deserves to be on the main thread or should it be lounged?

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it does work well. There are hundreds of us > that think so. And if you don't mind me saying > so, you're hardly in a position to judge being > that you've been here five minutes. I've lived in the area for 9 years and have read the forum for years and posted only ocasionally. Serious issues to crop up from time to time. I'm not interested in the tittle tattle, and there are probably many people like myself who feel the same.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh good - how about going down to Kings and seeing > if you can help rather than commentating on how a > forum is moderated? If you can't make civil or sensible posts then I suggest you bite your tongue.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You honestly make me puke - that's reality, not an > insult Three insulting posts from you noted so far.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you think debating what section in a forum > news about people being burnt to death should be > in is important? You should get some soul you > absolute tosser Again, you're the one making personal attacks, not me. I'm simply criticizing the editorial policy that puts a tragic fire in the section dedicated to off-topic waffle and jokes.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're welcome Josh. It may not make sense to you > but that's the way this place has been run for the > past 3 odd years and it works. But it doesn't work well. The main part of the forum is effectively the lounge as it's full of small talk. Is there a problem with heavy-handed moderation?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So people have been killed in a fire in Camberwell > and you try and have a dig at a forum and its > moderation - you're a @#$%& Knob mate, no mistake, > why don't you crawl under a stone somewhere If you can't make a sensible response you can always resort to personal insults can't you? Do you think a major fire in which people have died should be in the lounge, so you can carry on speculating on where the next M&S Simply Food might open?

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are and thats why there is a thread about it. Thanks for some sense. It doesn't deserve to be put in the lounge, which is dedicated to idle chat and trivial jokes does it? It's a serious matter not a source of cheap puns.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Josh, I think it's because this section is pretty > much ED specific. Peckham, Camberwell, et al, get > relegated to the Lounge. Surely major events in neighbourhoods directly next to ED are of interest and importance to people who live in ED?

Are you the moderator?

Is there a problem with the way this forum is run? I've noticed that major stories of interest to East Dulwich - such as significant crime or today's fire in the Camberwell tower block - are relegated to the lounge, while the main part of the forum is full of rubbish about lost cats, where the best chips can be found, and the latest pointless boutique opening on lordship lane. What is the problem? Small-minded moderators? Lack of perspective? A preoccupation with shopping? This is truly a very weak forum, and East Dulwich deserves better.

What the fuck is this thread doing in the lounge? This story is the lead on the BBC news website and is all over TV news.

I'm surprised my post was immediately lounged from the main forum. I think the East Dulwich Forum has a problem with over-zealous moderation. I won't be posting again.

The night stalker - a burgler and rapist who preys on the elderly in SE London - is active again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193643/Night-Stalker-serial-rapist-strikes-times-fortnight.html There have been attacks or suspected attacks in East Dulwich. He is Caribbean, aged 35-45, and apparently wears a motorcycle helmet to hide his identity. Typically he wakes victims with a bright torch. This weirdo has been attacking elderly people around 80 years old since 1990 but still not caught. Perhaps a bit of vigilance might be worthwhile. Presumably he must follow people to figure out where they live, so perhaps he might be seen doing this.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You'd be shocked to discover that the > reinvested > > rent differential often comes very close to the > > equity asset you have in the house over a 25 > year > > period. > > Unfortunately this also means spending 25 years in > varying degrees of crummy rental accommodation, > subject to the whims of a series of disinterested > landlord, begging them to fix the washing machine > / rotten windows / boiler / repaint in a colour > other than beige. > > So, essentially, if you spend half adult living in > a bucket of mud with a broken handle, you might > come out of it up a few quid.. by which time > you're too old to enjoy anything properly anyway. > > > No thanks. If you're able, buy somewhere > affordable as soon as you can and enjoy it - and > forget about all the other stuff. or you could rent somewhere nice. Not every rental property is "a bucket of mud with a broken handle". And not every house purchased in East Dulwich is the opposite. I'd be happy to rent a house with subsidence, for instance, but not entirely happy to own one.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't forget any capital gain on your main home > remains tax free. Unless you are an MP in which > case it's tax free on both first and second homes! > No tax advantage to renting , not only that but > the tenant often is paying for the landlords > mortgage (i'm sure someones made that point > already but I've not bothered reading the whole > thread). You end up with nothing when you move out > unless you are a very astute saver and no chance > of any growth in a tax free asset. You might have > kept your ISA's up to date but, good luck. What's to stop a renter from putting money into tax-free investments such as ISAs, pensions, NS&I certificates, or gold? And don't forget that homeowners have to pay stamp duty, so property isn't a truly tax-free investment.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > None of these back-of-the-envelope calculations > are ultimately persuading me yet. > > The upside on the house purchase is final sale > price, less costs (capital, interest and > maintenance payments). > > On the "average UK house" 1975 to 2000 (twenty > five years) you'd expect that to be 100k (2000 > price) less 10k capital (1975 price), 40k interest > and 30k maintenance. Everybody ignores > maintenance, but it's an intrinsic part of the > cost of a house. > > For rent it's the "costs on equivalent house minus > actual rent payments" reinvested over a 25 year > investment period. > > You'd be shocked to discover that the reinvested > rent differential often comes very close to the > equity asset you have in the house over a 25 year > period. > > The differential is tight enough for it to be > utterly dependent upon exact timing as to whether > you're better off (in terms of final assets) > renting or buying over a 25 year period. exactly

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All valid points. > > The most annoying one is that by paying rent > you're papering someone else's pockets. > > Having said that, most of us would wave a silky > finger at the winner if we were rich, rich, as a > result. Paying a mortgage is also papering someone else's pockets. A person who owns a house with a mortgage is actually renting the property from a bank and doesn't truly own it. Interest paid on the loan is money down the drain just as much as rent is money down the drain.

> er, I'm not talking micro-periods,this is a long > term argument - house prices have fallen > significantly now twice in that 24 year period and > yet the basic sums will still be well in favour of > the buyer...most of us hope to be around for more > than 25 years of adulthood! As it happens, 24 > years ago was not actually a great time to buy > just before the crash on the late 1980s. If you'd > boght 19 years ago for instance you'd be really > laughning - but that's not the point, the point is > that in the long term it makes sense. As I've said > before, my house is my home not an investment > portfolio but if you operate within a reasonable > timespan of 25 years (or even 30 years if you > increase your mortgage to Sean's point) of > mortgage paying you end up with some equity > (incase you need it )and no 'mortgage' payments, > you pay rent for until you die Rent and mortgage interest are both money down the drain and are equivalent. A homeowner also makes capital repayments and can built up equity until it reaches 100%, allowing them to live mortgage-free. A renter can also invest equivalent sums in whatever investment they fancy: shares, gold, a pension etc. After 25 years of investing, the renter will build up a fund that pays sufficient income to cover their rent. The two strategies are balanced and it's not true that owning property is necessarily better. Owning only beats renting when house prices rise faster than inflation, which is what's happened since the 1970s. There's no reason to expect that to happen again now that the house price bubble has burst.

> mmmm....but you rent for ever where as a mortgage > is normally done in 25 years...so no more payments > and you won an asset. > > Also, calculations of rent vs mortgage are short > term so tend to ignore: > > 1) increase in asset vale > > 2) inflation > > > Ask someone what the rent was on say a 2 bedroom > house in East Dulwich in SE22 was 24 years ago and > what interest payments where for someone who got a > 100% mortgage on a 2 bedroom property 24 years > ago...then compare what the latter is paying > against the renter now! Of course buying 24 yeas ago looks much better than renting for the last 24 years, but the sums don't stack up quite so favourably at the moment. When house prices are falling it always makes sense to rent rather than buy.

lindylou Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, having said that it is a rare occurence > and not e veryone is bad. there's seems to be a lot violent crime discussed on this forum. Not just muggings but violent burglaries and murders as well. I don't think ED is typical of London in this respect, I think it's worse than average.

kinda sick, this thread. It reminds me of motorists slowing down at accidents to see if they can spot any body parts, blood or disturbing injuries.