Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

As we approach the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    Can I congratulate you on the uniform excellence of your posts to date? I do hope you are a genuine newcomer to the site, rather than another lapidary sex toy maker.
    Thanks, but I don't think I get the lapidary reference, so perhaps I'm being teased in some sly way?
    @Leon ekes out a slender living by knapping flint dildoes. He is sometimes wrongly accused as being the alter ego of other former posters.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,268
    edited September 10
    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Oh I agree. The explosion of salaries in the city and law since the 1980s hasn't helped
    Being an MP pays £81,000/year.

    While that compares very poorly to the City or law, it doesn't look that great relative to being a software developer with a decade's experience, or a GP, or even a chartered accountant.

    A pedant writes, for GPs, you are thinking of partners. Salaried GPs get between £60 and £90,000 for a full week.
    https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/other-doctors-pay-scales/salaried-gps-pay-ranges
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    Can I congratulate you on the uniform excellence of your posts to date? I do hope you are a genuine newcomer to the site, rather than another lapidary sex toy maker.
    Thanks, but I don't think I get the lapidary reference, so perhaps I'm being teased in some sly way?
    If you keep posting for a while you will get it, but rest assured the joke wasn't at your expense (unless you are a lapidary sex toy maker).
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    All of the above is correct, but that is not what you said that was libelous. What you said that was libellous was that it was NOT AN ACCIDENT and that is libelous (in my humble opinion).
    Consistency in spelling would give your humble opinion greater weight. And what a lot of nonsense anyway, in my humble but at least I'm a fucking solicitor opinion.
    I noticed I had used both spelling, but actually I couldn't be arsed to change it. Did it change any of the meaning for you?

    I am not a solicitor. Other than some minor qualifications in common law and company law I have no legal qualifications whatsoever so I don't know where you got that idea from and hence my humble opinion as that is exactly what it is and why I sought support from one of the many legal lot on here.

    Think you are mistaking me for someone else, and being grumpy about it at that.
    No, sorry, I'm just drunk. I just get pissed off with the mimsy silliness (not from you) which crops up on here about ooh you didn't orta say that it's libellous it will get OGH into trouble, etc, when usually a. it isn't and b. even if it is, the way the law presently is, it'll get the actual poster into trouble while OGH sleeps soundly in his bed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Oh I agree. The explosion of salaries in the city and law since the 1980s hasn't helped
    Being an MP pays £81,000/year.

    While that compares very poorly to the City or law, it doesn't look that great relative to being a software developer with a decade's experience, or a GP, or even a chartered accountant.

    A pedant writes, for GPs, you are thinking of partners. Salaried GPs get between £60 and £90,000 for a full week.
    https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/other-doctors-pay-scales/salaried-gps-pay-ranges
    Sure: but most GP practices are owned by the partners, with maybe one or two salaried doctors. The BMA says that the vast majority of GPs earn between £70k and £100k. Most, therefore, earn more than MPs.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 10
    While Emma "Balls of Steel" Raducanu is rightly making all the headlines. Two Brits made the final of the men's double, Salisbury won it, and Salisbury goes again in the mixed double final.

    Has having a Brit in 3 finals ever happened before in the modern era?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
    Never.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845

    While Emma "Balls of Steel" Raducanu is rightly making all the headlines. Two Brits made the final of the men's double, Salisbury won it, and Salisbury goes again in the mixed double final.

    Has having a Brit in 3 finals ever happened before in the modern era?

    On which topic. I grovel, prostrate and beg forgiveness of whoever it was tipped her for SPOTY less than a week ago.
    I was most dismissive. I don't know a lot about tennis clearly.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
    Absolutely.

    If insurance companies are choosing to earn a massive profit on people's homes then they should be taxed accordingly.

    If they don't want to pay the tax, they're more than welcome to put the homes back on the market.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
    You mean taking profit from the rental income? So an alternative revenue stream to the whole insurance side of the business?
    Are insurers particularly likely to get into holding large rental portfolios for any logical reason related to insurance?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,104
    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    All of the above is correct, but that is not what you said that was libelous. What you said that was libellous was that it was NOT AN ACCIDENT and that is libelous (in my humble opinion).
    Consistency in spelling would give your humble opinion greater weight. And what a lot of nonsense anyway, in my humble but at least I'm a fucking solicitor opinion.
    I noticed I had used both spelling, but actually I couldn't be arsed to change it. Did it change any of the meaning for you?

    I am not a solicitor. Other than some minor qualifications in common law and company law I have no legal qualifications whatsoever so I don't know where you got that idea from and hence my humble opinion as that is exactly what it is and why I sought support from one of the many legal lot on here.

    Think you are mistaking me for someone else, and being grumpy about it at that.
    No, sorry, I'm just drunk. I just get pissed off with the mimsy silliness (not from you) which crops up on here about ooh you didn't orta say that it's libellous it will get OGH into trouble, etc, when usually a. it isn't and b. even if it is, the way the law presently is, it'll get the actual poster into trouble while OGH sleeps soundly in his bed.
    No problem. No offence taken and thanks for coming back with that; appreciated.

    Also impressive posting for someone who is drunk, wish I could achieve that.

    As it was I was just trying to protect @HYUFD (fat lot of good it did me). As I said I am no expert, but that seemed a whooper, in your face one, for which he should be grateful that she is stuck in the states and wouldn't get a sympathetic hearing anyway.

    Stupidly he could have reworded what he said without going back on his any of his argument one bit, but he is so, so stubborn.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317
    edited September 10
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Today is the end of my stint as editor of PB and I was thinking it had been a quiet stint.

    Prince Andrew has been served with the legal papers for a lawsuit in which he is accused of sexual abuse, according to a court document.

    Lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, who is suing the Duke of York, say in the document that the civil lawsuit was handed to a Metropolitan Police officer on duty at the main gates of the The Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, on 27 August at 9.30am.

    Sources close to the prince say he has not been served the papers in person.

    The source couldn't confirm if security had received the papers.


    https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-lawyers-for-woman-suing-duke-of-york-claim-he-was-served-with-legal-papers-12404352

    Well until they send Anne Sacoolas over here they are not getting Prince Andrew
    What a weird thing to say considering the allegations
    Whatever Prince Andrew is alleged to have done he did not kill someone as Anne Sacoolas is alleged to have killed Harry Dunn.

    She is protected by US diplomatic immunity and unless they remove that we of course must not send Prince Andrew to the US
    Ah right he wasn't involved in a tragic accident like Sacoolas, where she stood by Dunn's side and waited for the Police and Ambulance to get there before he tragically died . . . he is only accused of raping a child instead.

    So much better to rape a minor, than to be involved in a tragic fatal accident.
    The accuser was 17, not really a child and above the age of consent here and she is still alive to tell her tale, unlike Harry Dunn.

    It was also not an accident, the CPS charged her with causing death by dangerous driving in absentia
    18 is the age of consent in New York and she was a minor. Having sex with a minor in New York is rape, no ifs and no buts about that.

    Accidents can happen even if they're by dangerous driving. You don't accidentally rape a 17 year old.
    Can I suggest you lay off this topic? You clearly feel very strongly and we wouldn’t want OGH to get in trouble by accident
    I'm happy to lay off the topic if you say the same to HYUFD first.

    I wasn't going to say a word on the topic but to have his actions dismissed as inconsequential compared to a tragic car accident . . . of course innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz but accusations of sexual assault are not anything to be waved away as inconsequential. That is what got me annoyed.
    I doubt he will write something libellous. You might by accident
    HYUFD has already said 'it wasn't an accident'. I'm no lawyer but that sounds libelous to me, even if there is little chance of being sued.
    The CPS has charged her with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death, that is not a mere tragic accident even if not a deliberate murder either
    You are puttting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a mere tragic accident did I. I simply pointed out you were wrong to refer to it as not an accident, which it clearly was. It was not deliberate. If it were that would be murder.

    I believe you are putting yourself at serious risk here.
    It you are charged by the CPS with criminally dangerous driving leading to a death you are charged with committing a criminal offence not an accident even if you did not commit a deliberate murder either.

    As far as I can see Prince Andrew has only faced a civil action, not criminal charges like Anne Sacoolas
    I give up. I'm just trying to stop you getting into serious trouble. I am not taking sides on the argument. I am just saying you need to be careful what you say and by specially stating it was not an accident you are accusing somone of murder and that may put you in very hot water.

    I suggest you clarify.
    It was PT saying Prince Andrew is facing rape allegations, as far as I can see he is only facing a civil action not criminal charges.

    Anne Sacoolas however has been charged with a criminal offence by the CPS that led to the death of Harry Dunn, there is no question about that. You do not have to have committed murder to have caused someone's death in a criminal way as Anne Sacoolas is charged with doing via the charge of causing death by dangerous driving
    You are impossible. I don't give a damn about the arguement you are having with others. I am not involved so stop trying to argue with me.

    All that you say in your 2nd para is true. So what.

    All that matters is you said it wasn't an accident. It was (no matter that there might be criminal negligence). If not an accident then it is deliberate. In such a case that is murder so you should be very careful what you say.

    Can one of the many lawyers on the site clarify please?
    As you have already been told it is defined by the authorities as a collision not an accident, that does not automatically make it murder.

    The offence she was charged with of death by dangerous driving, also means she has been charged with criminal activity leading to a death too, the CPS decided it was not a completely innocent accident on the evidence, even if that does not mean it was murder either
    As I have already been told? You are referring to an incorrect earlier post. Everything you read is not correct.

    Be it on your own head. Not going to try anymore. Just wasting my time. You are being an idiot by being so stubborn and exposing yourself so. You can still put your argument without putting yourself at risk.
    Trying to teach @HYUFD about the law is about as unrewarding and pointless as you teaching him maths.

    I'm off to do some reading.
    I also have legal qualifications and there was nothing remotely libellous about saying she has been charged with a criminal offence of death by dangerous driving, she is charged with causing a criminal collision leading to a death.

    The evidence of the CPS therefore is that it was not an innocent accident but her dangerous driving which caused the death
    I think you are missing a step. While the CPS think it wasn't an accident, it requires a court case to prove it wasn't.
    Yes and I have not said she has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving have I.

    Yet while Philip T and others were happily accusing me of libel he was saying Prince Andrew has been accused of rape, ie facing criminal charges when he is only facing a civil action
    No, but you said it wasn't an accident, which is what everyone is worked up about. Saying it is not an accident implies she did it deliberately. The CPS having charged her does not make her guilty of that.
    She has been charged with dangerous driving which means it was not an accident on the charges by the CPS as it would have been the dangerous driving which led to the death.

    If she is found guilty of what she is charged with had she been driving in a manner that was not dangerous then it would have been an accident.

    It doesn't mean that. It means the CPS *THINK* it was not an accident. It is only proven by a court trial.

    You almost had it with your second paragraph. Except you seem to think she's guilty before the trial.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317
    dixiedean said:

    I take it Andrew is still not on normal Court events schedule?

    Naughty.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
    You mean taking profit from the rental income? So an alternative revenue stream to the whole insurance side of the business?
    Are insurers particularly likely to get into holding large rental portfolios for any logical reason related to insurance?
    So.

    There are two things at work here:

    (1) Insurance companies take premium in today, but only have to pay out claims at some point in the future. If it takes you 18 months on average to pay claims, you effectively have someone else's money for a year and a half. Owning things like property allows you to benefit from hanging onto that money,

    (2) Insurance regulators like insurance carriers to have lots of reserves. Some needs to be liquid. But some they are more relaxed about. And you want to maximise the returns on your reserves.
  • Great & moving Arena on the Everly Brothers on BBC4 just now which I'd seen before but forgotten how good it was. Lots of resonances for the modern USA, not least glimpses of the dirt poor mining country from which they came which is probably even more dirt poor now. Don and Phil had different political outlooks which contributed to their recurring schisms and a final estrangement.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,916

    Great & moving Arena on the Everly Brothers on BBC4 just now which I'd seen before but forgotten how good it was. Lots of resonances for the modern USA, not least glimpses of the dirt poor mining country from which they came which is probably even more dirt poor now. Don and Phil had different political outlooks which contributed to their recurring schisms and a final estrangement.

    I saw them support Simon & Garfunkel 18 years ago, they were great.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
    Absolutely.

    If insurance companies are choosing to earn a massive profit on people's homes then they should be taxed accordingly.

    If they don't want to pay the tax, they're more than welcome to put the homes back on the market.
    There is an irony here

    They invest in homes to provide in part pension income to their pensioner clients

    I believe Legal and General have these investments and are expanding their portfolio
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,317

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
    Absolutely.

    If insurance companies are choosing to earn a massive profit on people's homes then they should be taxed accordingly.

    If they don't want to pay the tax, they're more than welcome to put the homes back on the market.
    There is an irony here

    They invest in homes to provide in part pension income to their pensioner clients

    I believe Legal and General have these investments and are expanding their portfolio
    I guess that's the nub. Too many are viewing housing as investments and not as a place to live.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,689

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
    Absolutely.

    If insurance companies are choosing to earn a massive profit on people's homes then they should be taxed accordingly.

    If they don't want to pay the tax, they're more than welcome to put the homes back on the market.
    There is an irony here

    They invest in homes to provide in part pension income to their pensioner clients

    I believe Legal and General have these investments and are expanding their portfolio
    If they were investing in the technologies of tomorrow instead then we could solve the housing crisis and Britain's chronic lack of productive investment in one fell swoop.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,133

    Great & moving Arena on the Everly Brothers on BBC4 just now which I'd seen before but forgotten how good it was. Lots of resonances for the modern USA, not least glimpses of the dirt poor mining country from which they came which is probably even more dirt poor now. Don and Phil had different political outlooks which contributed to their recurring schisms and a final estrangement.

    I was watching it but have turned in now, got it on record.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,227
    rcs1000 said:

    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
    You mean taking profit from the rental income? So an alternative revenue stream to the whole insurance side of the business?
    Are insurers particularly likely to get into holding large rental portfolios for any logical reason related to insurance?
    So.

    There are two things at work here:

    (1) Insurance companies take premium in today, but only have to pay out claims at some point in the future. If it takes you 18 months on average to pay claims, you effectively have someone else's money for a year and a half. Owning things like property allows you to benefit from hanging onto that money,

    (2) Insurance regulators like insurance carriers to have lots of reserves. Some needs to be liquid. But some they are more relaxed about. And you want to maximise the returns on your reserves.
    It sounds like there's a huge hazard at play if rental incomes crashed, it could wreck the reserves of insurers, who would be forced to sell homes to prop up their cash reserves, and that could cause a drop in house prices.
    So if my amateur analysis is right, a concerted rent strike could bring whole finance sectors to their knees and flood the market with cheaper property.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    That's as maybe.
    The policy was intended to encourage folk to own their own home.
    Not own some other bugger's home.
    Absolutely.

    If insurance companies are choosing to earn a massive profit on people's homes then they should be taxed accordingly.

    If they don't want to pay the tax, they're more than welcome to put the homes back on the market.
    There is an irony here

    They invest in homes to provide in part pension income to their pensioner clients

    I believe Legal and General have these investments and are expanding their portfolio
    Iirc, from my days on a local government pension panel, insurance companies (along with pension funds and other financial companies) have long been heavy investors in commercial property. This has obviously been a bit of a drag anchor recently, so they have all been moving heavily into residential as a buffer. It's extending into other large commercial areas.
    I've definitely read something about this recently but googling hasn't found it for me
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845
    edited September 10
    rcs1000 said:

    Great & moving Arena on the Everly Brothers on BBC4 just now which I'd seen before but forgotten how good it was. Lots of resonances for the modern USA, not least glimpses of the dirt poor mining country from which they came which is probably even more dirt poor now. Don and Phil had different political outlooks which contributed to their recurring schisms and a final estrangement.

    I saw them support Simon & Garfunkel 18 years ago, they were great.
    S+G were big fans.Their ambition might have been to support the EB. You can tell the feeling was mutual. A similarly ill-matched pair in character. But from relatively greater privilege. Love them both.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Starmer calling for higher taxes on unearned income to replace the tax on workers. Done right it could make the Tories very uncomfortable as they will have to leap to the defence of landlords and personal service tax dodgers.

    Is a teacher with 1 home she lets out in addition to her marital home making more in 'unearned income' than a hedge fund manager?
    Yes. She's a landlord, however you try and dress it up.
    So are 2.6 million other Brits, they provide a service to those who want to rent, it is as much earned income in a free market economy as anything else.

    If nobody wanted to rent there would be no rental income to be earned
    Nobody wants to pay rent, you sort of have to though, if you can't buy a house and you don't want to freeze to fucking death.
    Can I congratulate you on the uniform excellence of your posts to date? I do hope you are a genuine newcomer to the site, rather than another lapidary sex toy maker.
    Thanks, but I don't think I get the lapidary reference, so perhaps I'm being teased in some sly way?
    @Leon ekes out a slender living by knapping flint dildoes. He is sometimes wrongly accused as being the alter ego of other former posters.
    Rightly accused.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,434
    Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    The legacy of 9/11 is the permanent eclipse of America. It was completely dominant in 2001, now it is approaching a failed state at war with itself, where a coup attempt is no bar to being a leading candidate for the presidency.


    Hard to disagree with this. Which is the next top superpower though?

    China is the obvious candidate but I was reflecting on this the other day. Surely the ability to invent and develop new technologies will be a big factor in deciding power structures in the years ahead.

    Can anyone think of a single significant technological invention to come out of China in the last few hundred years?

    Edit: I'm not allowing "covid-19" as an answer.
    The Romans invented the whoopee cushion
    I'm not sure that's really an answer to my challenge.

    What have the Chinese ever done for us?
    Tea, tofu, printing, gunpowder ...

    Edit: silk, too. Joseph Needham probably made a full list in his works, which i have never read.
    Yep. So nothing in the last 1000 years.

    Superpowers are not built on sweat alone.
    I little bit of the same hubris that meant that Singapore would never fall to the Japanese, and that British motorcycles would always dominate.

    China has a lot of people and they are not automatons. There is and always has been a vibrant culture of creativity in China, and China has a long history of learning from other countries and cultures as part of that.
    It's not hubris, it's a genuine question. China has the population, the resources, the organisation, to become what it is: the workshop of the world.

    I genuinely don't see the invention and development of new ideas though. Maybe that's just where we are in time, and those innovations will come.
    Racist drivel
    Don't be silly - there is nothing racist about my drivel at all!

    I am simply questioning whether China can become the pre-eminient global superpower without also being the leading global technical innovator, as every former global leading power has done before.

    Now the answer might be: 'yes it can'. Or it might be: 'China is already the leading global technical innovator'.

    Or perhaps, as others on here have hinted, maybe China's path to being the pre-eminent global superpower is not certain.
    China has an average IQ (at least on the coast) 5 points higher than the white west. It has a 2500 year old tradition of global if complacent supremacy. It has been (in the past) incredibly inventive, albeit this ingenuity was stifled by its own lazy sense of hegemony. ‘Why bother?’ - was the thinking. ‘We are already the Middle Kingdom - Centre of the World’


    It will invent again

    Right now, FWIW, China has the world’s largest supercomputer and boasts the most advanced form of AI - beyond GPT-3
    China is also not hamstrung by woke causes unlike the west which increasingly obsessed about diversity over merit
    Damn! Those bloody wokists ruining everything again, eh?
    Sure but when you promote diversity over merit things start to gradually fall apart....I would say the quality of mps for example is much reduced since diversity became a thing
    I don't think that's the only factor: I'm sure I (or most of the denizens of this board) could become MPs if they wanted to.

    But it combines being poorly paid relative to most professions, with antisocial hours, abuse on Twitter, and constant media invasion into your private life.

    I mean, why bother?
    Oh I agree. The explosion of salaries in the city and law since the 1980s hasn't helped
    Being an MP pays £81,000/year.

    While that compares very poorly to the City or law, it doesn't look that great relative to being a software developer with a decade's experience, or a GP, or even a chartered accountant.

    A pedant writes, for GPs, you are thinking of partners. Salaried GPs get between £60 and £90,000 for a full week.
    https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/other-doctors-pay-scales/salaried-gps-pay-ranges
    Sure: but most GP practices are owned by the partners, with maybe one or two salaried doctors. The BMA says that the vast majority of GPs earn between £70k and £100k. Most, therefore, earn more than MPs.
    GPS are moderately useful. Most MPs aren’t.
  • Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Am I right in thinking you are have a bet on a Emma win at 100/1?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,434

    Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Am I right in thinking you are have a bet on a Emma win at 100/1?
    If only! I think you have mistaken me for someone else (sadly!)
  • Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Am I right in thinking you are have a bet on a Emma win at 100/1?
    If only! I think you have mistaken me for someone else (sadly!)
    My apologies, there is definitely a regular on here who has a few pennies on at that crazy price.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481

    Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Am I right in thinking you are have a bet on a Emma win at 100/1?
    I put a bet on her on Thursday before the semi-final. It was only 6/1 though.
  • DRUNK DRUNK DRUNK!
  • Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Am I right in thinking you are have a bet on a Emma win at 100/1?
    If only! I think you have mistaken me for someone else (sadly!)
    My apologies, there is definitely a regular on here who has a few pennies on at that crazy price.
    Kinbalu, the clever bugger.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,897
    Westminster Voting Intention (MRP):

    CON: 37% (-6)
    LAB: 33% (+3)
    LDM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    RFM: 5% (+3)

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 6-8 Sep.
    Changes w/ 13-15 May.

    MRP Seat Forecast:

    CON: 311 (-75)
    LAB: 244 (+72)

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 6-8 Sep.
    Changes w/ 13-15 May.

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1436439050337017860?s=19

    Not a pollster that I have seen before, but BPC registered.

    Quite a swing since their May MRP.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 601

    SKS has a policy and a good one at that

    "the money could have been raised by taxing the incomes of landlords, and those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks shares".

    Expect Rishi may steal that in the Autumn statement

    The missing point in this controversy is not just the unfairness but it is the billions short of what is needed
    Wealth tax Big_G.

    1% per annum of individual wealth above £1m would net £170bn per annum.
    And see entrepreneurs and investors find more friendly tax jurisdictions

    There is a case for taxing the wealthy but £1m is too low, not that I would qualify
    If the wealthy elite want to leave the country rather than pay their taxes, I say let them go. But if they want to remain British citizens and/or they want to keep their flat in London or house in the Cotswolds, thay can pay their 1% on them.
    What about dual nationals who left as children and then made a million somewhere else? You want to cut their ties with the UK even though they have never "fled the country"?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700
    edited September 11
    kjh said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Stocky said:

    Carnyx said:

    Stocky said:

    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tres said:

    I was in my first proper job after graduating, and that day all the management were offsite at a planning event.
    After the first plane hit one of my friends got a call from his mum (like SE) saying what had just happened and so a group of us went into the main meeting room which had a tv and saw the second plane hit shortly afterwards.

    By contrast I was in my room packing up to go to uni.
    Sometimes reading these posts make me feel OLD.
    Sheer nonsense, Your Majesty.
    They certainly make me feel old, and actually how quite young to us oldies our colleagues on here are
    You ain't old, old bean. Are you going to call the world whippersnapper?

    South Wales beckons.
    I actually am quite enjoying reading colleagues recollection of that dreadful day

    For all our differences we are an excellent and unique discussion forum
    I'm missing a few of the old regulars though: Bluest Blue, Peter the Punter, Ave It and even MysticRose (though she was irritating). And @Barnesian hasn't posted for a while.
    I hope it does not mean that we need an obituary wall. At least one of us has made provision for his executors to notify us (I think I remember who, but won't risk it as it might be tactless if I get it wrong!).
    I think that's very thoughtful. I have on occasion PMd lapsed posters to urge them to at least post once in a while to let us know they are ok.
    I guess we could all leave a modest donation to PB in our wills. That would allow the editors to know when we've popped it and post a suitably gushing obit.

    "Benpointer was a stalwart poster of boring lefty stuff that frequently generated the response it deserved."
    "On this sad occasion Cyclefree will no longer have the last word. (Or in her case, the last thousand words.) And by the way she told me to tell you that. One of our bossier and more opinionated posters."
    "kjh has sadly corrected hyufd's maths for the last time"
    “Thereafter, he corrected it with a smile”

    New Thread

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359
    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    dixiedean said:

    42% of Right to Buy properties are now rented out by private landlords.
    Many to the very Councils who sold them on the cheap.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Some are part of insurance company's portfolio of investments
    Wait, how does that work? Housing isn't a very liquid asset, so what do insurance companies want with them?
    Yield.
    Yield and longevity
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,140
    Slightly FPT
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    TIMES FRONT: Ministers drop shake-up of planning laws

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1436425928889016324?s=20

    No surprise, the party was facing heavy losses in the local elections next year in the Home Counties unless they did
    It's disappointing a governing party, ahead in most polls and with a majority of 80, hasn't got the courage to pursue a course of action it clearly thinks necessary to improve or alleviate the housing crisis in this country.

    If you lose a few seats and a few Councillors, so what? Isn't it more important to do the right thing for the country even if you are damned for it than to constantly back away from any serious change at the first sign of electoral disadvantage?

    Let's have a debate about this - let's have the developers explain how they would resolve the issue - let's talk about land-banking, overdevelopment and the like. Let's talk about how new developments transform existing communities and what can be done to mitigate/alleviate this.

    To the outsider, it appears the Conservatives are the Party of the developer not the party of the local community. In truth, of course, the Conservative Party (and other parties too) should be looking at the bigger picture.
    There are 1.1 million houses already with planning permission, better to get developers to get them built yes and stop land banking before building all over the greenbelt without any real input from the local community.

    Locally losing councillors here in Epping Forest is a bigger matter than the general election, we have one of the safest Tory seats in the country at Westminster level but locally lots of councillors vulnerable to the LDs and Greens and Independents on a 'protect the greenbelt' platform which could mean we lose the Tory majority on the council and go to NOC.

    The fix for landbanking is to keep issuing planning permission at such a rate developers can't sit on land to constrain supply, as if they do, it just means other houses are built instead.

    That said, given the lead-time to get planning permission, I'm not surprised there are a million houses with planning issued and not yet built - developers don't want peaks and troughs in building (they have to lay off and take on staff etc). If we're building 250k houses a year, that's a four year buffer - that's probably the sort of size of one would want as a developer, given planning for any particular development can take literally take years to approve, and the whole playing field might be tilted in any direction without much warning by government decree.
    There's something very dodgy in that stat.

    A pure 4 year buffer is impossible, because Planning Permission lasts 3 years.

    Probably a combination of PP being used for far more than just "things that will get built" - one of many tools in risk management as land comes up for development, for example. Also, not all PPs granted are buildable.

    For a construction company to maintain a stable workforce, they need far more than a 4 year pipeline - they need land ready to put into the process for a number of years beyond that, as the whole thing often takes a decade or more.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,140
    edited September 11
    ..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,023
    New thread's up.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,434

    Suspect Amazon will go for the free to air option, if they can find a carriage partner on commercial terrestrial telly. The advertising revenue will be huge on ITV or Channel 4. I can’t see why they’d choose BBC given there can be no ads.

    Sky’s carriage with C4 for the cricket WC final was a huge success.

    Called it.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/58514875
This discussion has been closed.