Brendan

That?s very magnanimous of you Jeremy. I however don?t absolve these people of their culpability. Perhaps I have an over developed sense of morality. In fact I know I do because I go though my life ripping my hair out on a daily basis at the disgusting way people treat one another and how they seem to think it is ok. I don?t think anyone will disagree with the fact that legality doesn?t constitute morality. Somebody doing something immoral is not justified just because it is legal. I?m willing to let the stupid and greedy off on the assumption that they?ve never thought about it properly but I will not tolerate the wilful and knowledgeable exploitation of families need for housing. The attempts to try to justify this exploitation just go to show that my original assertion that they are sub-human filth was correct. I wouldn?t break bread with such people. In fact I wouldn?t use then to wipe the dog shit off my boot. After the shit my family has suffered recently at the hands of this kind of bastard if one of them tried to fob the issue off as if a family needing their own home to live in was some sort of unreasonable request, they would come very fucking short indeed. My only solace is that most decent right thinking individuals share my opinions on this type of parasitic filth leaching money off of people who earn less while denying them a home of their own. Once again, vile sub-human scum who deserve every ounce of vilification the decent people of this world choose to pour on them.

Never really been a fan. I don?t see the point of the egg. Ruins a perfectly good pork pie in my opinion. The perfect breakfast at the cricket is a couple of pork pies washed down with the bottle champagne that you brought in as your MMC allowed quota.

Don't you just stick a boild egg in the middle of the pork? I never knew it was such an involved topic.

Me woggle?s made from Italian leather I?ll have you know.

End of a good day for the first test of the season at Lords and England are doing well, they?ve managed to field 6 players in this match. That Pietersen character still thinks he?s been recruited to play baseball though.

Jeremy we both know that there are people for whom renting is preferable but you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people you meet who rent are being forced to. So once more I will bring your attention to reality of what that arrangement means. Where Mr A does not get access to private home ownership and rents for 25 years off Mr B who gets the chance to own 2 homes. His own worth 500K and a second buy-to-let worth 250K after the 25 years. Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18K Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 750K = 810K After 25 years Mr B is approx 45 x better off than Mr A and Mr A is homeless. As opposed to the preferable situation where each get a chance to own their own home proportionate to their salary. Mr A?s being the 250K one obviously. Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18 K + 250K = 268K Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 500K = 560K After 25 years Mr B is still better off by approx 2.5 x and they both own a house and their families benefit from the associated security. After 25 years of forcing his subjects to rent the cost of refurbishments, redecoration, major repairs, new boilers/appliances/furniture are not even a blip in the 45 x richer that Mr Landlord is going to be from sitting on his arse collecting his tithe.

Sacks? Although I'm sure they could arrange that there.

Cape Town?

Well considering that one of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is the inability to empathise it is not really an unreasonable term.

Do you seriously think it doesn?t cross peoples minds that what they are effectively doubling their personal wealth at the expense of someone else who they are forcing off the property ladder or at the expense of the public purse? I?m sure it does it is just that some people lack the moral capacity to properly process what is wrong with it. Or they are sociopaths who don?t care about the damage they do to others.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My plan was to watch other countries games in > associated bars - Holland in de Hems in Chinatown, > that sort of thing That?s a good idea. I?m sure given some thought you could find an appropriate venue for each team in London. Algeria Argentina Australia: Plenty but none that I would really recommend. Brazil Cameroon Chile Denmark: The Phoenix England France Germany: I?m sure I ended up at a comedy/Oktober fest theme park style bar near Old Street when on a stag do once. Ghana Greece Honduras Italy Ivory Coast Japan Korea DPR Korea Republic Mexico Netherlands New Zealand: See Australia Nigeria Paraguay Portugal: One of the cafes on Stockwell Road Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa: See Australia Spain: Bradley?s near Tottenham Court Road? Switzerland: The Swiss Cottage. United States Uruguay That?s all I can come up with. I?m sure others could be a lot more creative than me though.

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want someone to blame, blame Sarah Beeny > and all those ghastly property shows. Once again I find myself forced to agree with you.

Probably wasting you breath though H. I?ve had these sorts of arguments more times that I care to remember. (Mostly with the older generation of South Africans when I was younger.) People who refuse point blank to see things from outside of their point of view and insist that everyone else is ok and should just be happy with what they have because they are intrinsically unable to admit that they are actually complicit in something that is fundamentally wrong no matter how you look at it.

I agree with you that the blame can be laid on Labour and would gladly join in an anti-labour party slagging session. I just won?t do so if it means buying into default sectarian support for a party which harbours some of the most wilfully antisocial bastards it has ever been my displeasure to meet.

Should have known it was the first test match of the season when I got piss wet through this morning on the way in.

A churl, wiktionary defines it as: From the Old English ċeorl, meaning a free man. Akin to Old Norse karl (Danish karl) and German Kerl. So behaving as one of the liberti which could just as well be interpreted as acting up above one?s station. Which may be part of what?s annoying some people here.

Perhaps a bit churlish there Huguenot. As an aside, has anyone else noticed that politicians seem to be using the word churlish a lot at the moment?

Dongs?

ha ha. You wait until now to make a valid point Mitch. But still allowing people a fair go in this world free from exploitation isn?t left or right wing it?s just common decency.

That?s not even taking into account that this society is so unequal that vast amounts of people are factored out of the equation completely and have to have housing provided by the state. Which is something that the same people who vehemently object to any suggestion of equality then hypocritically resent.

Well therein lies the fundamental difference between you and me Dave. You can?t conceive of the fact that someone sees the world from the point of view of others, not just their own. I used my situation as an example to demonstrate that even those who are relatively lucky are falling prey to private landlords and that people on an average income must be even more vulnerable. If I lived in a country manor I would still have an issue with this sort of thing going on. I don?t suppose you?re ever tried to put yourself in the position of family of 4 brining in 30K a year and tried to get your head around the realities if that. So to recap for our listeners here are 2 possible scenarios in the housing market (very simplified to exclude savings, investments, inflation etc) Scenario 1 where Mr A does not get access to private home ownership and rents for 25 years off Mr B who gets the chance to own 2 homes. His own worth 500K and a second buy-to-let worth 250K after the 25 years. Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18K Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 750K = 810K After 25 years Mr B is approx 45 x better off than Mr A and Mr A is homeless. Scenario 2 where each get a chance to own their own home proportionate to their salary. Mr A?s being the 250K one obviously. Mr A 25K ? income tax = 18 K + 250K = 268K Mr B 100K ? income tax = 60K + 500K = 560K After 25 years Mr B is still better off by approx 2.5 x and they both own a house and their families benefit from the associated security. I know which world I would rather live in and which would have a more stable economy and society. Now the chances are if you have a rental property at the moment you are not renting it to people who are choosing to rent but rather to a couple or family who are being forced to and by virtue of the fact that they can afford the rent would probably be able to afford a similar property if there were enough of them on the market. So you are forcing people into scenario 2 and benefiting from it. Unless you built the house with your funds you are not providing them with housing you are just controlling their access.

It may also in all likelihood start out only on the bottom of the wrung properties and take a while to work its way through the entire market.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr and Mrs ?25K > still can't buy a house. Well why couldn't they? Prices will just adjust to what people can afford. (using hypothetical figures) If there are 10 houses and 10 families who need to live in them. In the current situation only 6 of those 10 houses go to families and the remaining 4 are bought by private landlords and rented out to the least well off 4 of the families. Take the private landlords out of the equation and the prices adjust to 40% (or however it works out) lower and the poorest 4 families buy the cheapest of the 4 houses. Yes it's a major drop but far more in line with the 4 x yearly salary which seems to be considered sustainable.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mean like the business model of every car hire > firm? Yeah but they are homes not rental cars. Very different story. People don't have a fundamental right to have a decent rental car over their heads.

Correct. The only time it is acceptable to drop your H is when pronouncing H.