Its a good job the luvvies make sure we all know it isn't muslims that are to blame for Islamic terrorism, and if any muslim does anything bad then they aren't really a muslim, otherwise the less educated people in the country would go around bashing them or sumfink
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
I don't think that's the only 'allegation' being discussed in this context. However, you're accepting it's only an allegation I presume?
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
I don't think that's the only 'allegation' being discussed in this context. However, you're accepting it's only an allegation I presume?
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
None of us - I hope - would disagree that any community leader or priest who called for people not to co-operate with the police is aiding and abetting terrorism.
But I think you miss some important points too:
1. How different is this from other forms of terrorism in the past? Were there priests in the UK who told their congregations not to co-operate with the police in investigations into the IRA?
2. The security services may prefer this to continue because it allows them to pinpoint likely threats. Much better people turn up to one of three mosques, where there are informers, than they get radicalised on-line.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
I don't think that's the only 'allegation' being discussed in this context. However, you're accepting it's only an allegation I presume?
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
My NHS Trust has added Prevent training to its compulsory training list. It does all rather smack of Macarthyism. Why us more than any other organisation?
A lower key approach may well be a bit more effective.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
None of us - I hope - would disagree that any community leader or priest who called for people not to co-operate with the police is aiding and abetting terrorism.
But I think you miss some important points too:
1. How different is this from other forms of terrorism in the past? Were there priests in the UK who told their congregations not to co-operate with the police in investigations into the IRA?
2. The security services may prefer this to continue because it allows them to pinpoint likely threats. Much better people turn up to one of three mosques, where there are informers, than they get radicalised on-line.
1. So what? If there were cover ups in the past does that mean we should allow them now so as not to look racist?
"Despite claims to the contrary, ‘Prevent’ almost exclusively targets young Muslims for the views they hold on religion or issues such as government foreign policy. Schools and teachers are cast in the role of spies on our young people. This is leading to increasing division and to a breakdown of trust in schools and colleges.
It is deeply regrettable that Newham Council has implemented Prevent without discussion with community organisations and representatives, faith leaders, teachers unions or parents. In particular, the council made a particularly controversial appointment as the borough’s Prevent lead that has had a deeply divisive impact in the Muslim community. We therefore urge the council to be transparent in its appointments related to Prevent and other counter terrorism related posts.
Most importantly, we call on the council to urgently discuss the issues raised by the implementation of Prevent with imams and faith leaders; community representatives and organisations; teachers’ unions and parents."
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
You need to distinguish between tip-offs about a likely threat and raising a concern that someone may be at risk of radicalisation so that early preventative steps can be taken, as much for the youth's sake as for the rest of us.
The issue being raised by some of the press articles is that people are reluctant to do the latter, possibly because a ranting teenager is not a terrorist and labelling them as such is an overreaction. But it may make them vulnerable to those seeking to turn the rants into something more sinister - as plenty of ex-jihadists can testify. So we do owe it to ourselves to find a way of dealing with those at risk of radicalisation and those who do the radicalisation, and those around them - families, friends, acquaintances etc - are the best allies, if they are willing to get involved. If they aren't, it is a problem and no amount of ranting at those who point this out will make the issue go away.
All of this, whether Prevent is good or bad, & whether the Muslim leaders are right or not to be suspicious, is hard evidence that mass immigration leads to a segregated society
All of this, whether Prevent is good or bad, & whether the Muslim leaders are right or not to be suspicious, is hard evidence that mass immigration leads to a segregated society
So what? If there were cover ups in the past does that mean we should allow them now so as not to look racist?
The "so what?" is that a lot of people - I might mention SeanT, or the Telegraph comments section - talk about Islamic terrorism as if it is some existential threat to our way of life. It is treated as something with a high likelihood of killing us.
It is not.
The people who commit terrorist attacks, or plot to commit terrorist acts, or who encourage people not to report things are criminals. They should be hunted down by the police and the security services and convicted and imprisoned.
But they are not an existential threat to us. And hysteria about the problem encourages ridicule not action.
All of this, whether Prevent is good or bad, & whether the Muslim leaders are right or not to be suspicious, is hard evidence that mass immigration leads to a segregated society
What do you want the Government to do about it?
I don't think there is anything that can be done about it now
My prediction is that in the future, say the next 100 years, England will become almost two countries, maybe officially two countries; the muslim part and the non muslim part, and there will be never ending battles for territory a la Israel and Palestine.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
The allegation is that community leaders in East London are forbidding anyone to talk to the unit set up to prevent radicalisation
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
None of us - I hope - would disagree that any community leader or priest who called for people not to co-operate with the police is aiding and abetting terrorism.
But I think you miss some important points too:
1. How different is this from other forms of terrorism in the past? Were there priests in the UK who told their congregations not to co-operate with the police in investigations into the IRA?
2. The security services may prefer this to continue because it allows them to pinpoint likely threats. Much better people turn up to one of three mosques, where there are informers, than they get radicalised on-line.
Re 1, we should certainly seek to learn from how we dealt with terrorist threats in the past. One difference to IRA terrorism is that the ideological roots of IRA violence were essentially political rather than religious. To what extent is that the same with Islamist terrorism? Too many have shied away from making that analysis, possibly because they are afraid of the possible answers.
2. I suspect that quite a lot of radicalisation happens online from so-called leaders and teachers rather than from imams who genuinely understand Islam and that that is part of the problem with reaching out to youths. Even if what you say is true, I would feel more comfortable if the security services did something about what is happening in such mosques rather than letting them continue. Look at Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque. He was allowed to carry on his activities on the grounds that he was largely a noisy buffoon and an eye could be kept on him but it turned out that he was rather more sinister than that and to others, the French and the Americans, we looked unbelievably complacent for far too long about permitting the incubation of a threat to us and to others under our noses.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
You need to distinguish between tip-offs about a likely threat and raising a concern that someone may be at risk of radicalisation so that early preventative steps can be taken, as much for the youth's sake as for the rest of us.
The issue being raised by some of the press articles is that people are reluctant to do the latter, possibly because a ranting teenager is not a terrorist and labelling them as such is an overreaction. But it may make them vulnerable to those seeking to turn the rants into something more sinister - as plenty of ex-jihadists can testify. So we do owe it to ourselves to find a way of dealing with those at risk of radicalisation and those who do the radicalisation, and those around them - families, friends, acquaintances etc - are the best allies, if they are willing to get involved. If they aren't, it is a problem and no amount of ranting at those who point this out will make the issue go away.
I don't think there's much 'ranting at those who point this out', not on this thread anyway.
The other element in the tipping off the security services stuff is what is a credible tip-off? Should you phone MI5 about some testosterone-filled teenager mouthing off about Jihad or ISIS not being all bad? Being called a terrorist is currently just behind 'Paedo' in the consequence-filled accusation stakes.
You need to distinguish between tip-offs about a likely threat and raising a concern that someone may be at risk of radicalisation so that early preventative steps can be taken, as much for the youth's sake as for the rest of us.
The issue being raised by some of the press articles is that people are reluctant to do the latter, possibly because a ranting teenager is not a terrorist and labelling them as such is an overreaction. But it may make them vulnerable to those seeking to turn the rants into something more sinister - as plenty of ex-jihadists can testify. So we do owe it to ourselves to find a way of dealing with those at risk of radicalisation and those who do the radicalisation, and those around them - families, friends, acquaintances etc - are the best allies, if they are willing to get involved. If they aren't, it is a problem and no amount of ranting at those who point this out will make the issue go away.
I don't think there's much 'ranting at those who point this out', not on this thread anyway.
All of this, whether Prevent is good or bad, & whether the Muslim leaders are right or not to be suspicious, is hard evidence that mass immigration leads to a segregated society
I don't think it shows any such thing. The vast majority of immigrants integrate well, whether Polish, Chinese, Indian or Afro-Caribbean. I agree that a significant percentage of Muslims are less willing to sign up to our values and freedoms, but even within these communities a lot do so. We should not drive them into the extremists hands by a ham-fisted Prevent strategy.
Anyway just want to make it clear that I don't personally dislike any muslim because of his or her religion, people are people. I only know one Muslim, and he is a friend of mine, I just don't think it is a good idea for a society to have two major religions in competition, and all the well wishing and crossed fingers wont change that
My mum worked in Tower Hamlets council for 20 years and everyone knew about the dodgy voting practices
Must have been hell for your mum when she tried to report this to the authorities.
Councillor Peter Golds spent 10 years trying to get the police to take action against electoral malpractice. He was repeatedly told "it's a cultural matter."
Anyway just want to make it clear that I don't personally dislike any muslim because of his or her religion, people are people. I only know one Muslim, and he is a friend of mine, I just don't think it is a good idea for a society to have two major religions in competition, and all the well wishing and crossed fingers wont change that
Watched The Revenant and Bridge of Spies yesterday..Oscars stamped all over them
So far - Bridge of Spies was a very enjoyable watch. Trombo was excellent. The Big Short my favourite so far. The Revenant and Hateful Eight both over long, but agree that The Revenant will get nominations aplenty (although not sure it will win many...)
Watched The Revenant and Bridge of Spies yesterday..Oscars stamped all over them
So far - Bridge of Spies was a very enjoyable watch. Trombo was excellent. The Big Short my favourite so far. The Revenant and Hateful Eight both over long, but agree that The Revenant will get nominations aplenty (although not sure it will win many...)
Merry Christmas, and St Stephen's Day, Mr. Dugarbandier.
indeed, the feast of Stephen. I was raised a methodist, so a bit shaky on the whole Saints malarkey. I'm sure he was a good lad.
possibly requires a stoke\midlands accent for the rhyme- remembered schhooboy nonsense: (Good King Wenceslas looked out, of his bedroom winder silly bugger he fell out on a red hot cinder brightly shone his arse that night etc)
"It is deeply regrettable that Newham Council has implemented Prevent without discussion with community organisations and representatives, faith leaders, teachers unions or parents."
The Councillors of Newham are the representatives of the people of Newham. They are the people elected to be their representatives and are doing so.
There is no need for others to claim to be the community leaders. Councils should not be run by undemocratic, self appointed people. If such people want to make the Council's decisions they should stand for election. We have several Muslims elected to our local District Council.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Perhaps they stayed silent because they didn't know..
and its typical of a kipper to post this, ISAM did something similar yesterday, and of course its not racist , of course not, heaven forbid.
You think The Times is motivated by racial prejudice?
NO but I think kippers are, that's why Mike K posted it..
You should be a student at Oxford today. You're very keen on making unfounded allegations of racial prejudice.
Labourites scream about race to try and draw a veil over their questionable friends and support for dubious causes. Tories scream about race to rubbish the kippers and close down debate on immigration and the EU. It not that many years ago the Tory reason was the Labour reason. Plus c'est la change
All of this, whether Prevent is good or bad, & whether the Muslim leaders are right or not to be suspicious, is hard evidence that mass immigration leads to a segregated society
I don't think it shows any such thing. The vast majority of immigrants integrate well, whether Polish, Chinese, Indian or Afro-Caribbean. I agree that a significant percentage of Muslims are less willing to sign up to our values and freedoms, but even within these communities a lot do so. We should not drive them into the extremists hands by a ham-fisted Prevent strategy.
I should have thought that the whole point of the story carried in the Guardian as well as the Times is that there are communities that are insisting on remaining separate from the mainstream. A sort of voluntary apartheid in which members of the community must not be approached or expected to contribute to civil society except through, often self-appointed, "community leaders".
It is rather sad that once again PBers have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, split into the predictable two camps and, in some cases, started chucking around the usual allegations of racism rather than engaging with the issue.
Isam.. I have friends from Northern Ireland..Proddies..Southern Ireland..Papists..Muslims and Jews..they all spout the same ridiculous shit..just have different versions of it
It is rather sad that once again PBers have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, split into the predictable two camps and, in some cases, started chucking around the usual allegations of racism rather than engaging with the issue.
Everyone got the right end of the stick, they just didn't want to engage with it. Screaming about racism to polish their virtue in public was the easier option sadly.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Merry Christmas, and St Stephen's Day, Mr. Dugarbandier.
indeed, the feast of Stephen. I was raised a methodist, so a bit shaky on the whole Saints malarkey. I'm sure he was a good lad.
possibly requires a stoke\midlands accent for the rhyme- remembered schhooboy nonsense: (Good King Wenceslas looked out, of his bedroom winder silly bugger he fell out on a red hot cinder brightly shone his arse that night etc)
Totally different vision of the chap in the Czech lands!
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country. Many new developments in London get advertised in the Far East and people buy them off plan at expos held in their home country.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
My mum worked in Tower Hamlets council for 20 years and everyone knew about the dodgy voting practices
Must have been hell for your mum when she tried to report this to the authorities.
Councillor Peter Golds spent 10 years trying to get the police to take action against electoral malpractice. He was repeatedly told "it's a cultural matter."
The plods were more interested in threatening the people who said electoral fraud was taking place.
While the Electoral Commission and the establishment politicians all did their best to look the other way.
The whole story of toleration of crime by the authorities has strong echoes to that of Rotherham.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country.
Buy to let or left empty? Sorry to be obtuse, but we have a serious housing shortage in this country.
Both. There isn't a one size fits all.
e.g. The Far East customers are buying as an investment, so they want to buy it and rent it out. London is seen as a good investment, and it is obvious why. Steady government (I don't mean this current government, just in general), rule of law gives them legal protections on their investment, limited space for new housing in London means demand will always outstrip supply.
Many Arab buyers are buying it as a bolt hole for summers and don't want nor need to "share" their home.
OKC So what has that to do with buying property in the UK..The owner can do what he likes with it..but probably likes a little income from the investment..so probably hand them over to a letting company....
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country.
Buy to let or left empty? Sorry to be obtuse, but we have a serious housing shortage in this country.
Both. There isn't a one size fits all.
e.g. The Far East customers are buying as an investment, so they want to buy it and rent it out. London is seen as a good investment, and it is obvious why. Steady government (I don't mean this current government, just in general), rule of law gives them legal protections on their investment, limited space for new housing in London means demand will always outstrip supply.
Many Arab buyers are buying it as a bolt hole for summers and don't want nor need to "share" their home.
I dare say London property is a good way to hide away dubious money of dubious people from dubious countries.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
OKC What has that to do with the principle of foreigners being able to buy Property here..Why should every transaction be to the benefit of the UK Economy..
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country.
Buy to let or left empty? Sorry to be obtuse, but we have a serious housing shortage in this country.
Both. There isn't a one size fits all.
e.g. The Far East customers are buying as an investment, so they want to buy it and rent it out. London is seen as a good investment, and it is obvious why. Steady government (I don't mean this current government, just in general), rule of law gives them legal protections on their investment, limited space for new housing in London means demand will always outstrip supply.
Many Arab buyers are buying it as a bolt hole for summers and don't want nor need to "share" their home.
I dare say London property is a good way to hide away dubious money of dubious people from dubious countries.
There is certainly an element of that too, also as way of "securing" your money. I wouldn't fancy having made millions in China or Russia leaving all my cash in their banks.
Anybody who is a regular visitor to the Algarve will have noticed how many barrel chested Russians in tiny speedos you will see about the place these days. I don't think the nice weather is the only reason they have been buying up properties there.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For example I and, I think, Mr. Observer are two examples who moved to greener places albeit many years ago. The difference now is the scale of the movement which is probably unprecedented since the suburbanisation which followed the building of the railways in the 19th century.
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
... and the 200,000 or so empty houses around the country. They are mostly "not where they are needed", ie not around London.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country.
Buy to let or left empty? Sorry to be obtuse, but we have a serious housing shortage in this country.
No, we don't.
We have a vast supply of under-occupied houses.
Interesting comment. Don't get that impression.
That's the London press and politicians for you.
The details are publicly available in the annual Survey of English Housing (plus other equivalents).
There are enormous numbers of empty bedrooms all over the land.
As an exercise, travel on the top deck of a London bus and look at all the property above shops that appears to be empty. There was some work done a few years ago now which suggested, with credible figures, that if all that empty living space was refurbished and taken into use London would not have a much of a housing shortage. It si probably the same in most other cities.
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
The latter.
Lots of people who bought houses in the days of Thatcher now have family houses with two or more spare bedrooms. Lots of people who were granted lifetime tenancies in social housing when they were much younger and had growing families are the same.
The fact that many would like their housing position to be different does not equate to a shortage.
Almost everyone in my acquaintance has spare rooms, ranging from one to four, and most of those are in London.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
I recently used AirBnB and speaking to the lady who owned the house I was staying in, this is exactly her modus operandi. She rents out the 3rd bedroom when her son is at the fathers and she makes more money than when she rented the room out on a traditional basis.
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
The latter.
Lots of people who bought houses in the days of Thatcher now have family houses with two or more spare bedrooms. Lots of people who were granted lifetime tenancies in social housing when they were much younger and had growing families are the same.
The fact that many would like their housing position to be different does not equate to a shortage.
Almost everyone in my acquaintance has spare rooms, ranging from one to four, and most of those are in London.
Merry Christmas all. That's certainly true for my family - I have five bedrooms, of which two are used, and that will probably fall to one in 2016.
One of the many issues with the UK housing market is that I don't feel I have anywhere particularly attractive to move _to_. Modern builds are tiny boxen.
The regressive nature of council tax, plus the costs of moving mean that it's not even financially attractive (we did the sums at the beginning of 2014 and there was a c. 11 year payback at best). Of course, this is Wales, which has undergone revaluation - it may make more sense in England.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
London has a well-established room rental market, though.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort. A live-in landlord/landlady probably has the time/effort to do that though.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
London has a well-established room rental market, though.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort.
I don't know if you have used AirBnB much, but the going rate is a lot more than £40/night for a decent place.
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
The latter.
Lots of people who bought houses in the days of Thatcher now have family houses with two or more spare bedrooms. Lots of people who were granted lifetime tenancies in social housing when they were much younger and had growing families are the same.
The fact that many would like their housing position to be different does not equate to a shortage.
Almost everyone in my acquaintance has spare rooms, ranging from one to four, and most of those are in London.
We have lots of spare space and really are rattling around in a house that is much too big for our needs. Our original grand plan for downsizing has fallen apart because of my eyesight problems (living mostly on a canal boat is not good if you can't bloody see), but the economics of moving into a smaller house just don't work. Aside from anything else our son will eventually be far better off if we stay where we are and we are now of an age where we are thinking more about him than ourselves.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
London has a well-established room rental market, though.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort.
I don't know if you have used AirBnB much, but the going rate is a lot more than £40/night for a decent place.
I looked at AirBnB for my area... not the best to stay in, but since I was using my rent for comparison purposes that made sense.
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
London has a well-established room rental market, though.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort.
I don't know if you have used AirBnB much, but the going rate is a lot more than £40/night for a decent place.
I looked at AirBnB for my area... not the best to stay in, but since I was using my rent for comparison purposes that made sense.
Fair enough. It really depends. I can imagine certain areas of London are extremely attractive for tourists and / or business people and thus can charge a lot more money i.e. they can undercut the hotel market and achieve more than renting out on a monthly basis.
I recently stayed in Bath via AirBnB and it was more like £60/night for a room to get anywhere central (like London I can imagine it has the tourist market, the business market and the uni visiter market) So you can imagine if you can get 10-15 nights a month rented out, that is a nice little earner.
I don't know any of this for a fact, I am just hypothesizing / wondering if this is going on to any real extent.
Mr Chestnut; are you thinking of the Downton Abbeys? Or of people with one bedroom kept for family visitors? And are you suggesting that no-one should have a spare bedroom? Or just pointing out the facts?
The latter.
Lots of people who bought houses in the days of Thatcher now have family houses with two or more spare bedrooms. Lots of people who were granted lifetime tenancies in social housing when they were much younger and had growing families are the same.
The fact that many would like their housing position to be different does not equate to a shortage.
Almost everyone in my acquaintance has spare rooms, ranging from one to four, and most of those are in London.
We have lots of spare space and really are rattling around in a house that is much too big for our needs. Our original grand plan for downsizing has fallen apart because of my eyesight problems (living mostly on a canal boat is not good if you can't bloody see), but the economics of moving into a smaller house just don't work. Aside from anything else our son will eventually be far better off if we stay where we are and we are now of an age where we are thinking more about him than ourselves.
We downsized on retirement, ppartly for economic reasons and partly because we wanted to move to somewhere which would give us a better quality of life. At the time we had two teenage grandchildren who livd fairly close. Shortly after moving and settling in we acquired four more grandchildren in as many years and accomodating them on visits is, sadly, quite difficulty. One cannot, in these circumstances, win!
I wonder what, if any, effect AirBnB is having on under-used / under occupied properties. It is a pretty damn attractive opportunity to be able to let out somewhere and get more in 4-5 nights than you would if you rented it out on a monthly basis, and without the hassle of having to worry about tenancy agreements, can you evict somebody, etc.
Under-used properties = good; otherwise let properties/rooms = bad. That's the big debate of AirBnB on the housing market.
Sorry that's what I meant...I have a sneaking suspicion it is a lot more of the later rather than the former.
London has a well-established room rental market, though.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort.
I don't know if you have used AirBnB much, but the going rate is a lot more than £40/night for a decent place.
I looked at AirBnB for my area... not the best to stay in, but since I was using my rent for comparison purposes that made sense.
Fair enough. It really depends. I can imagine certain areas of London are extremely attractive for tourists and / or business people and thus can charge a lot more money i.e. they can undercut the hotel market and achieve more than renting out on a monthly basis.
I recently stayed in Bath via AirBnB and it was more like £60/night for a room to get anywhere central (like London I can imagine it has the tourist market, the business market and the uni visiter market) So you can imagine if you can get 10-15 nights a month rented out, that is a nice little earner.
I don't know any of this for a fact, I am just hypothesizing / wondering if this is going on to any real extent.
There probably are a few areas where tourist demand (per AirBnB) outstrips rental demand (per rents).
But if the market for tourist rooms isn't growing, then there should be hotels being turned into something else. Or the tourist market is growing - but we'd normally say that was a good thing?
There probably are a few areas where tourist demand (per AirBnB) outstrips rental demand (per rents).
But if the market for tourist rooms isn't growing, then there should be hotels being turned into something else. Or the tourist market is growing - but we'd normally say that was a good thing?
That's a good point. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the business of a small to medium-ish hotel that services that £50-60 a night B&B type market.
These days if I need a night stay for business, my default go to is first to look at what is available on AirBnB or serviced apartments is another attractive option.
Re the town of Ilkley being cut off by flood water..It is easy to get in and out by driving up and past the Cow and Calf rocks..I know,I lived there for over 20 years..
Just been laying Rubio at 3. His polling is flailing; he is very unlikely to win Iowa and unlikely to win New Hampshire. Cruz and Trump will soon have enough to lock out a third contender from consolidating the others - and if someone does unify the rest of the vote it might not be Rubio.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Some, but many don't live here, some haven't even stepped foot in the country. Many new developments in London get advertised in the Far East and people buy them off plan at expos held in their home country.
Several months ago I saw an advert for luxury London apartments near London Luton Airport. It supposedly was close to the City as well. If the buyers ever visited their investment they would be in for quite a shock.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For example I and, I think, Mr. Observer are two examples who moved to greener places albeit many years ago. The difference now is the scale of the movement which is probably unprecedented since the suburbanisation which followed the building of the railways in the 19th century.
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Middle class parents helping their children get a foot on the property ladder. I know an awful lot of people who have only been able to purchase their first home in London thanks to a considerable handout from mummy and daddy.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For example I and, I think, Mr. Observer are two examples who moved to greener places albeit many years ago. The difference now is the scale of the movement which is probably unprecedented since the suburbanisation which followed the building of the railways in the 19th century.
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Middle class parents helping their children get a foot on the property ladder. I know an awful lot of people who have only been able to purchase their first home in London thanks to a considerable handout from mummy and daddy.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For exa
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Middle class parents helping their children get a foot on the property ladder. I know an awful lot of people who have only been able to purchase their first home in London thanks to a considerable handout from mummy and daddy.
The mean London salary is almost £50,000, so if you have a couple with both earning the average London wage and they get a mortgage of 5 times household income you get to half a million. However many London workers buy in Outer London or the Home Counties where they get more bang for their buck as house prices are almost half the level of inner London
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For exa
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Middle class parents helping their children get a foot on the property ladder. I know an awful lot of people who have only been able to purchase their first home in London thanks to a considerable handout from mummy and daddy.
The mean London salary is almost £50,000, so if you have a couple with both earning the average London wage and they get a mortgage of 5 times household income you get to half a million. However many London workers buy in Outer London or the Home Counties where they get more bang for their buck as house prices are almost half the level of inner London
I believe the median salary is only around £35,000 in London. Assuming a couple each on £35,000 and borrowing 4.5 times joint income (I think it was capped a year or so back) will enable them to obtain a mortgage in the region of £315,000.
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For exa
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
Middle class parents helping their children get a foot on the property ladder. I know an awful lot of people who have only been able to purchase their first home in London thanks to a considerable handout from mummy and daddy.
The mean London salary is almost £50,000, so if you have a couple with both earning the average London wage and they get a mortgage of 5 times household income you get to half a million. However many London workers buy in Outer London or the Home Counties where they get more bang for their buck as house prices are almost half the level of inner London
Flight from London increasing according to this article:
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
Sorry, but who is BUYING these homes out of which "ethnic" Londoners are moving? And how do they afford them?
Foreigners. They see it as a good solid safe investment.
Do you mean immigrants?
Your original question is, I think, a very interesting one. That there is a population movement going on where "old" Londoners move out and "new" Londoners move in, cannot be in doubt. This is a population movement that has always gone on. For exa
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are bu
Middle class parents help
The mean London salary is almost £50,000, so if you have a couple with both earning the average London wage and they get a mortgage of 5 times household income you get to half a million. However many London workers buy in Outer London or the Home Counties where they get more bang for their buck as house prices are almost half the level of inner London
I believe the median salary is only around £35,000 in London. Assuming a couple each on £35,000 and borrowing 4.5 times joint income (I think it was capped a year or so back) will enable them to obtain a mortgage in the region of £315,000.
In central London the median is much higher than outer London which I believe your figure includes. The average London price is heavily skewed towards central London, for example in Kensington and Chelsea the average house price is over a million while in Bexley it is barely £200,000, mortgages of five times salary are pretty common in London depending on which bank or building society you use
Comments
"One north London faith group that represents tens of thousand of Muslims is said to have called for a boycott of Prevent, while Muslim leaders in east London have also raised concerns that the programme is spying on youngsters. Both campaigns have urged mosques and Muslim groups across the country to join the boycott."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/25/prevent-programme-lacking-referrals-from-muslim-community?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Nasty Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/25/prevent-programme-lacking-referrals-from-muslim-community?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Nasty Guardian
None of us - I hope - would disagree that any community leader or priest who called for people not to co-operate with the police is aiding and abetting terrorism.
But I think you miss some important points too:
1. How different is this from other forms of terrorism in the past? Were there priests in the UK who told their congregations not to co-operate with the police in investigations into the IRA?
2. The security services may prefer this to continue because it allows them to pinpoint likely threats. Much better people turn up to one of three mosques, where there are informers, than they get radicalised on-line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35181139
None directly over my patch, but a couple in Leeds.
A lower key approach may well be a bit more effective.
"Despite claims to the contrary, ‘Prevent’ almost exclusively targets young Muslims for the views they hold on religion or issues such as government foreign policy. Schools and teachers are cast in the role of spies on our young people. This is leading to increasing division and to a breakdown of trust in schools and colleges.
It is deeply regrettable that Newham Council has implemented Prevent without discussion with community organisations and representatives, faith leaders, teachers unions or parents. In particular, the council made a particularly controversial appointment as the borough’s Prevent lead that has had a deeply divisive impact in the Muslim community. We therefore urge the council to be transparent in its appointments related to Prevent and other counter terrorism related posts.
Most importantly, we call on the council to urgently discuss the issues raised by the implementation of Prevent with imams and faith leaders; community representatives and organisations; teachers’ unions and parents."
http://www.islam21c.com/special/web-posts/muslims-in-newham-speak-out-against-prevent/
The issue being raised by some of the press articles is that people are reluctant to do the latter, possibly because a ranting teenager is not a terrorist and labelling them as such is an overreaction. But it may make them vulnerable to those seeking to turn the rants into something more sinister - as plenty of ex-jihadists can testify. So we do owe it to ourselves to find a way of dealing with those at risk of radicalisation and those who do the radicalisation, and those around them - families, friends, acquaintances etc - are the best allies, if they are willing to get involved. If they aren't, it is a problem and no amount of ranting at those who point this out will make the issue go away.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/680693329634398209
It is not.
The people who commit terrorist attacks, or plot to commit terrorist acts, or who encourage people not to report things are criminals. They should be hunted down by the police and the security services and convicted and imprisoned.
But they are not an existential threat to us. And hysteria about the problem encourages ridicule not action.
My prediction is that in the future, say the next 100 years, England will become almost two countries, maybe officially two countries; the muslim part and the non muslim part, and there will be never ending battles for territory a la Israel and Palestine.
2. I suspect that quite a lot of radicalisation happens online from so-called leaders and teachers rather than from imams who genuinely understand Islam and that that is part of the problem with reaching out to youths. Even if what you say is true, I would feel more comfortable if the security services did something about what is happening in such mosques rather than letting them continue. Look at Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque. He was allowed to carry on his activities on the grounds that he was largely a noisy buffoon and an eye could be kept on him but it turned out that he was rather more sinister than that and to others, the French and the Americans, we looked unbelievably complacent for far too long about permitting the incubation of a threat to us and to others under our noses.
time to go out
I suspect they will be overwhelmed with the level of support from the public....
possibly requires a stoke\midlands accent for the rhyme- remembered schhooboy nonsense:
(Good King Wenceslas looked out, of his bedroom winder
silly bugger he fell out on a red hot cinder
brightly shone his arse that night etc)
"It is deeply regrettable that Newham Council has implemented Prevent without discussion with community organisations and representatives, faith leaders, teachers unions or parents."
The Councillors of Newham are the representatives of the people of Newham. They are the people elected to be their representatives and are doing so.
There is no need for others to claim to be the community leaders. Councils should not be run by undemocratic, self appointed people. If such people want to make the Council's decisions they should stand for election. We have several Muslims elected to our local District Council.
"The number of people selling up and moving out of London rose by two-thirds in 2015, figures showed on Saturday, as homeowners cashed in on the capital’s high house prices or escaped to more affordable parts of the country.
More Londoners bought homes outside the capital than at any point since 2007, according to the property firm Hamptons International, purchasing 63,000 properties during the year.
Almost nine out of 10 bought elsewhere in the south of England, but the Midlands saw a 165% increase in the number of Londoners moving into the area."
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/26/huge-leap-property-number-moving-out-london-2015
It is rather sad that once again PBers have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, split into the predictable two camps and, in some cases, started chucking around the usual allegations of racism rather than engaging with the issue.
While the Electoral Commission and the establishment politicians all did their best to look the other way.
The whole story of toleration of crime by the authorities has strong echoes to that of Rotherham.
e.g. The Far East customers are buying as an investment, so they want to buy it and rent it out. London is seen as a good investment, and it is obvious why. Steady government (I don't mean this current government, just in general), rule of law gives them legal protections on their investment, limited space for new housing in London means demand will always outstrip supply.
Many Arab buyers are buying it as a bolt hole for summers and don't want nor need to "share" their home.
Whether these are from former Londoners or more general south-east people I couldn't say.
We have a vast supply of under-occupied houses.
Anybody who is a regular visitor to the Algarve will have noticed how many barrel chested Russians in tiny speedos you will see about the place these days. I don't think the nice weather is the only reason they have been buying up properties there.
Who is buying the property in London is another matter. Some undoubtedly is being purchased by very wealthy people from overseas, though not necessary immigrants. Some are buying it as a safe investment, some are buying it for other reasons as well (one family I know sold their London house for £2m to a rich Russian who wanted to buy it for his cleaner to live in). However, it would seem unlikely to me that there are enough oligarchs and stinking rich Chinese trying to off-shore their assets to and such like to buy up all the property that must be coming on to the market. Who else is buying into a market in which the average ordinary house changes hands for nearly half a million?
The details are publicly available in the annual Survey of English Housing (plus other equivalents).
There are enormous numbers of empty bedrooms all over the land.
Or just pointing out the facts?
Fancy a mince pie Louis?
There's a gain/cost analysis between having more personal space in your home compared to what income renting out a spare bedroom would bring.
In London the financial and social dynamics encourage people to rent out the space more than they do in other parts of the country.
Lots of people who bought houses in the days of Thatcher now have family houses with two or more spare bedrooms. Lots of people who were granted lifetime tenancies in social housing when they were much younger and had growing families are the same.
The fact that many would like their housing position to be different does not equate to a shortage.
Almost everyone in my acquaintance has spare rooms, ranging from one to four, and most of those are in London.
I recently used AirBnB and speaking to the lady who owned the house I was staying in, this is exactly her modus operandi. She rents out the 3rd bedroom when her son is at the fathers and she makes more money than when she rented the room out on a traditional basis.
One of the many issues with the UK housing market is that I don't feel I have anywhere particularly attractive to move _to_. Modern builds are tiny boxen.
The regressive nature of council tax, plus the costs of moving mean that it's not even financially attractive (we did the sums at the beginning of 2014 and there was a c. 11 year payback at best). Of course, this is Wales, which has undergone revaluation - it may make more sense in England.
Let's take my room as an example. My rent + bills come to about £650/month (as under AirBnB you'd have to pay those as "landlord"). It would probably get you £40/night (if you did it in short stints), so you'd need to rent it out 17 days in the month to get that back.
Probably 20 to 25 days would be achievable, not a lot more return for the extra effort. A live-in landlord/landlady probably has the time/effort to do that though.
Cameron paddling about.
I recently stayed in Bath via AirBnB and it was more like £60/night for a room to get anywhere central (like London I can imagine it has the tourist market, the business market and the uni visiter market) So you can imagine if you can get 10-15 nights a month rented out, that is a nice little earner.
I don't know any of this for a fact, I am just hypothesizing / wondering if this is going on to any real extent.
One cannot, in these circumstances, win!
But if the market for tourist rooms isn't growing, then there should be hotels being turned into something else. Or the tourist market is growing - but we'd normally say that was a good thing?
These days if I need a night stay for business, my default go to is first to look at what is available on AirBnB or serviced apartments is another attractive option.
Hotels I reserve for weekend / luxury breaks.
We shall see.
RACCCCCIIISTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3374598/Woman-called-ISIS-says-banned-flying-shares-middle-terrorists.html