rendelharris

Ta - I was searching the wrong date range, didn't realise it was that far back.

The original link hasn't survived the move to the lounge, and oddly all searches on the Guardian website don't bring up the article, anyone know where it's gone?

vito Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a flat to let in anerley and i m trying to > do it on my own while negotiating a price with > estate agents... > I was wondering if the agency fees (6%-10% or > whatever they charge) are deductible from the > tax.. > anyone knows?? > Thank You Yes, they're deductible as a business expense: when you declare your profits from rental to HMRC you can subtract any agency or management fees from the total, there's a section for declaring allowable expenses. You can also deduct maintenance, insurance and quite a lot of other expenses: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/income-tax-when-you-rent-out-a-property-working-out-your-rental-income > > Vito

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the growth in the number of delivery vans and > private hire vehicles together with the loss of > road space to cycling have worked against the good > effects of the congestion charge: > [www.theguardian.com] > 016/jun/06/london-cannot-afford-a-bus-service-slow > down Interesting reading, thanks. Have to take issue with the claims about cycle superhighways though, they refer to a reduction in capacity by 25% on "certain key routes" - well at present they're only on two routes representing 1% of total capacity, and furthermore there's no attempt to assess how many of the cyclists using them would otherwise be in cars or private hire vehicles. Slightly suspicious also that the author of the quoted report, Prof.David Begg, is a non-executive director of FirstGroup, the UK's second largest bus company...which isn't mentioned anywhere...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some fair points there Rendel. I'm as bad as anyone else for checking - the other day before going out cycling I thought I'd have a tin of Heinz baked beans (other brands are available) - good quick energy, not too much fat or calories, and surely must be healthy, beans and tomato sauce, even proclaims on the can that it's one of your five a day...idly studying the ingredients whilst warming them up I found that one tin contained nearly 21 grams of sugar, 66% of the RDA for an adult male! That ought to be displayed at least as prominently as the boast that they're one of your five a day. Still ate them and they were most toothsome, but think I might be a bit more careful in future...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People need to take responsibility for their own > actions. We all know sugary/fatty food is bad for > you... fried chicken and snickers bars are quick > and tasty, but if you eat them every day, the > outcome is bloody obvious. Agree absolutely Jeremy, though it becomes slightly more complex when manufacturers deliberately overload products one wouldn't expect to contain a lot of sugar with it, effectively creating an addicts' market. Of course the information is available on the side of the packet, but how many people really consult that? Even if one thinks they should, they don't, so it would seem to me that some regulation and a more clearly understandable and prominent labelling system ? even health warnings if necessary ? would be appropriate.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't it ironic > ...that the poorest people supposedly eat more > sugar than the well off when at one time only the > very wealthy could afford Sugar. > > SugarTax Indeed, Georgians and early Victorians were proud to be fat, as it was a sign that you could afford to be so. Now the poor are fat while those who make their money from selling them the crap that made them so spend a fortune on personal trainers and surgery to stay thin. Funny old world.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you Wiki Nazism and replaced all the words > appertaining to Jews or races that the Nazis > viewed as inferior, with 'rich people or > 'aristocracy'- it would read something akin to the > far left views and aims So you believe that those on the far left want to round up the rich and the aristocracy and send them to extermination camps? Tell me, doesn't the tinfoil hat get a bit warm in this weather?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For me Hong Hong, Grove Vale all the way. Really > nice people, I've known the older lady for over 20 > years now. The food is delicious and always on > time, good value for money. The best bit is they > often do things you might not see on the menu too. > Small and large containers available. Free prawn > crackers with orders over ?10 I believe. > > Louisa. Seconded, lovely food, very accommodating to any special dietary requests, friendly, quick and good value. Couldn't be better!

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where does roaming come into pet ownership? The > only pet allowed to roam, what other pets are? Homing pigeons. Cats are considered under the law to have a legal "right to roam," though it doesn't exempt owners from liability for damage to property etc. Personally, while not having cats myself at the moment, I love seeing them coming in and out of our garden and mooching around the streets. Keeping them in at night is sensible though, not just for their own safety but to reduce predation.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you and me too rendel - good old capitalists they > were too :) Not good enough to hand down any worthwhile inheritance in my case, I fear...

RichJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point about refund vs cancellation raises a > question I have always wanted to ask but never got > round to. In circumstances where you tap into a > station using PAYG or contactless and then very > quickly realise that your train is either > cancelled or delayed such that you need to use > alternative transport, if you then tap out again, > is the system sophisticated to work out that you > must not have actually made the journey and then > refund you? Would seem logical that if you tap in > and out of the same station within say 15 minutes > of each other, then it almost impossible for you > to have made a journey. Well, I can't quite believe what I've just read! I assumed the card reader wouldn't charge one in such circumstances, but on the TfL website it says: A same station exit is recorded when you touch your Oyster card on a yellow reader when you enter a station, but then touch out to exit at the same station within a set time. This can happen when you change your journey plan, for example, because of service disruption. If you touch in and out at the same station without making a journey, the following charges apply: Between 0 and 2 minutes: a maximum pay as you go fare of up to ?8.80. If, having touched in and out within two minutes, you then re-enter the same or a different station within 45 minutes, the maximum pay as you go fare will be refunded and a new journey started. This does not apply if you touched out on a yellow card reader that is not on a ticket gate or take a bus or tram before re-entering Between 2 and 30 minutes: the minimum pay as you go fare from that station More than 30 minutes: the system will assume that two separate journeys have been made. However, they will both be incomplete, so you will be charged two maximum pay as you go fares of up to ?8.80 So basically, whatever you do you'll get charged! When meeting Mrs.H at Denmark Hill I've often gone down to the platform to help with her bags and used my Oyster to touch in and out again so I don't get accused of fare evasion on the way back, I'm wondering how often I've been stung for the maximum fare now!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So were the Huguenot minority of the 18th/19th > century, who settled much of the old 'East end' > considered immigrants, refugees or expats? > > Louisa. More 17th/18th century Louisa really - by 1700 there were nine Huguenot churches in Spitalfields, when in 1685 there was none. I'd say the Huguenots were essentially refugees, in that they were forced unwillingly to leave their home country because conditions had become intolerable there. Proud to claim descent from them via my paternal ancestry!

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit puritanical to call them immigrants: they're > exercising their right to be here. Migrants, if > you really can't resist pigeonholing. Can't see the problem RPC, they're migrants from France but immigrants to the UK. Admittedly "immigrant" has become a pejorative term for the right, but I can't see what's puritanical about it.

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Remodel, > Good job they gave us that fourth significant > figure. Do you believe the BoE sets the price of > gilts with their monthly rate decision? Remodel? I think people generally agree I'd be best off remodeled but... Don't those figures indicate, contrary to what you said previously, that UKGOV can borrow at a fixed rate of just over 2% for thirty years?

I'm generally regarded as a limp wristed wooly liberal on criminal matters, but this policy (and it's a policy, not a law) drives me mad. If I snatch a handbag and run off along a busy road, will plod not pursue me in case I run into the traffic? If someone's committed a crime they have to accept the risks of pursuit. Surely the police and lawmakers could agree on a formula absolving the police of responsibility for any injuries occurring from a rider removing their helmet during a pursuit? They still chase car thieves who don't wear seatbelts, don't they? Grrr...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just so happens that the Right To Buy was first > in the 1959 General Election Manifesto of the > LABOUR Party (Labour lost though)- which only goes > to prove that the fascist left LIE and LIE... uncleglen, you're entitled to your opinions, but describing any mainstream political party in Britain as fascist is a shameful thing to do. You're showing utter disrespect to the millions who died from real fascism. Stop it.

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, > The daily politics has amongst the least clues on > this matter of anyone who chooses to comment on > it. This is the same organisation who for decades > on a week-daily basis have slavishly quoted the > index level of the FTSE and the change on the day > in index points as though that were meaningful > information. Imagine doing something utterly > useless for decades and never questioning why you > are doing it. I would not be informed by an > organisation suffering from such an illness. Would you believe the Financial Times then, Henry? "The UK?s benchmark government borrowing rate touched a historic low of 1.396 per cent on Thursday morning, as the ripple effects of central bank action in the face of low inflation spread worldwide. "Tumbling oil and food prices in the UK and indications from the Bank of England that it had no plans to raise interest rates in the near future have weighed heavily on the country?s 10-year borrowing costs in recent months. "As a result, the yield on UK 10-year gilts fell 5.5 basis points on Thursday morning to the lowest rate in UK history. Longer term 30-year gilt yields, considered particularly reflective of the country?s inflation prospects, also dropped to a record low of 2.102 per cent."

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But why don't they do more useful things like... > catch criminals.... of more relevant do a few > fines for cyclists without lights. Ideally a > warning first for idiots like me who at this time > of year forget that the nights are drawing in. Second that in spades, the number of people in dark clothing on expensive bikes with black helmets who can't be bothered to spend ?10 on a couple of flashing LEDs...suicidal. Noticed my rear light battery had expired the other day, late at night, walked nearly a mile until I reached Greendale cycle path, not from any sense of virtue but because I don't want to end my days as a chalk outline on the South Circular...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back on taxpayer funding - I'm not sure that > taxpayers should fund Middleclass commuters from > the Home Counties (see also Tax Payer Funded > Higher Education as another form of 'regressive' > funding). Do working class Londoners not use the trains then?

There are some pretty good fixed rate deals for the government available at the moment Henry: according to The Daily Politics they can currently borrow at 1.08% for ten years and at less than 2% for thirty.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > commuter cyclists in a pedestrianised area does > not work. Couldn't they track it through the bus > station somehow It's not a pedestrianised area, it's a bus and cycle only road - it's badly designed and needs sorting out but Rye Lane is not a pedestrian only area.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely those are all good arguments for improving > the junction at lordship lane too then? I virtually never use that junction, preferring to stay off LL as much as possible - but I'm all for anything which makes things better for cyclists and pedestrians.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Five seconds is five seconds longer for the buses > to wait! Didn't TFL even pay for that junciton? I don't know who paid for it, I would guess Southwark but TfL may have contributed to the cycling infrastructure. As for delaying buses, how do you know (I don't) whether the five seconds has been taken from the north/south traffic or the east/west? If the latter the buses have no longer wait than they did before. If the former, at a guess I'd say the 37 passes through around 25 sets of traffic lights on its way from Putney to Townley Road, so what with those, badly parked cars, dilatory passengers, traffic jams and all the other shocks a bus is heir to, I doubt those five seconds make the slightest difference to journey times. It's a vast improvement in my opinion, and not only for cyclists but pedestrians as well. As the Dulwich society says, "...there is no dispute amongst users, and nearby residents, that the changes have improved the pedestrian experience at the junction and that it is easier, and safer, for school children to cross using the diagonal crossings."

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't capacity a bit of a red herring? The new > Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction got > approval and that not only reduces capacity by > virtue of the diagonal pedestrian crossing, but > will soon also have priority traffic lights for > cyclists. It already does have priority lights for cyclists, but as they only release us five seconds earlier, so we can get across the junction before those turning right or left go, they don't have any major effect on traffic flow. They're very helpful for us though!