# Greedy landlords rub their hands with glee as Londoners queue in the cold to buy flats



## editor (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm afraid I'm too angry to put together a coherent comment here, but take a deep breath and read on:


> Dozens of Londoners queued overnight in sub-zero temperatures last night to buy a one bedroom flat in East London for £400,000.
> 
> The house-hunters wanted to buy homes at the Chobham Manor development near Stratford’s Olympic Park, the _Evening Standard_ newspaper reports.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2015)

Your thread title does not chime with the section you have quoted - no 'Londoners queuing in the cold', only a foreign property speculator and provincial rich bastards looking for a pied a terre.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2015)

what's with the Surrey name in the east end too?!

don't tell me, i know


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Your thread title does not chime with the section you have quoted - no 'Londoners queuing in the cold', only a foreign property speculator and provincial rich bastards looking for a pied a terre.


_"Dozens of Londoners queued overnight in sub-zero temperatures last night to buy a one bedroom flat in East London for £400,000."
_
The rest is in the link


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2015)

> Dozens of homebuyers camped overnight in the icy cold to secure the latest flats to go on sale at the former Olympic Park — with the first in line having queued since Wednesday morning.
> 
> They aimed to guarantee that they get the best homes at the Chobham Manor development, where one-bedroom properties start at  £375,000 and two-bedroom mews houses are expected to fetch up to £695,000.
> 
> Housebuilder Taylor Wimpey set up a marquee outside their marketing suite in Stratford for queuers to camp in. It laid on free food for the mix of British and foreign buyers.




http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...spend-400k-on-a-one-bedroom-flat-9998005.html


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 24, 2015)

A one bed flat in Stratford for £375,000. That's just insane.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 24, 2015)

I used to pay £70 a week for a two bedroom flat in the East End. Before the hipsters moved in 

(((((Londoners)))))


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 24, 2015)

Interesting that the Lebedev rags share the same quotes but write the story rather differently. No idea what's notable about the properties or the marketing process, though.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 24, 2015)

how much would the bloody rent have to be?!?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 24, 2015)

ddraig said:


> how much would the bloody rent have to be?!?



Depends on the size of the mortgage, but probably upwards of £1,500 a month.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 24, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Depends on the size of the mortgage, but probably upwards of £1,500 a month.



http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-47992414.html?premiumA=true

Yes, looks about what the market pays.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 24, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-47992414.html?premiumA=true
> 
> Yes, looks about what the market pays.



I was in Stratford recently with a mate who'd last been there several years before the Olympics. He was a bit stunned by it all, to be fair.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 24, 2015)

ddraig said:


> how much would the bloody rent have to be?!?


Too damn high.


----------



## Ming (Jan 24, 2015)

Didn't realize how expensive London housing had become (i haven't lived there since 1999). Vancouver has a reputation for being pricey but it sounds like London is way more for property/rent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2015)

tbh dozens of people in a cold queue doesn't boil my piss, not after all the rather worse things that have happened in the past few years


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 24, 2015)

Isn't there an over supply of expensive buy-to-let flats for rent?


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 25, 2015)

Pickers, not everyone living or working in London is capable of paying this sort of price, so what is your problem with the OP? Yes, there are people having the shit bombed out of them, there are people homeless and dying of cold and there are people dying from Ebola. There are horrors everywhere you look. Meanwhile London is merely failing its workers. In the great scheme of things this may not be a big deal but just because we can't solve the big deal doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve this one. 
/rant. But you know this anyway. Apologies for sounding off. I used to live and work in London. It would be impossible now.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 25, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-47992414.html?premiumA=true
> 
> Yes, looks about what the market pays.



they better have a big slab of unwanted cash slopping about, even at todays rates, they will be pushing it to cover a mortgage. this is all about gambling on capital apprecition to offset the rental loss - would you risk this ?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 25, 2015)

Wouldn't a more accurate description be that, people wanting to push up values of properties for everyone else queue out all night so desperate are they in pursuing their own selfish ends.


----------



## jusali (Jan 25, 2015)

I hope the rental market crashes get these cockroaches, sorry, speculators off our asses.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2015)

RedDragon said:


> Isn't there an over supply of expensive buy-to-let flats for rent?



Or a shortage of people earning enough money to rent them. What's the maximum housing benefit you can get in London for a single person in a one room flat?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Pickers, not everyone living or working in London is capable of paying this sort of price, so what is your problem with the OP? Yes, there are people having the shit bombed out of them, there are people homeless and dying of cold and there are people dying from Ebola. There are horrors everywhere you look. Meanwhile London is merely failing its workers. In the great scheme of things this may not be a big deal but just because we can't solve the big deal doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve this one.
> /rant. But you know this anyway. Apologies for sounding off. I used to live and work in London. It would be impossible now.


bluers, i was thinking in terms of london not ebola or whatnot. what about the bedroom tax which affects more than a few dozen londoners? the destruction of council rstates replsced by yuppie flats?


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

friedaweed said:


> I used to pay £70 a week for a two bedroom flat in the East End. Before the hipsters moved in
> 
> (((((Londoners)))))



Didn't realise you were _that _old!


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> I was in Stratford recently with a mate who'd last been there several years before the Olympics. He was a bit stunned by it all, to be fair.


My mum lived inHackney 35 years ago and rarely goes back...she was at the Westfield shopping centre in Stratford the other day and was impressed by the redevelopment. Ive been knocking around Stratord a little since the Olympics and to me its feels just the same, just with a new ugly shopping centre. The olympic park doesnt affect anyones lives and still feels dumped on industrial ground. Stratford continues to be cut up my major industrial traffic routes. I'm confused that people are impressed by the changes. Its still very much Stratford

what do you reckon of New Stratford stethoscope?


Ming said:


> Didn't realize how expensive London housing had become (i haven't lived there since 1999). Vancouver has a reputation for being pricey but it sounds like London is way more for property/rent.


Hong Kong remains most expensive per square cm, but London is right up there and using other indexes and factors London comes out the most expensive



> A middle-aged couple queuing in shifts to buy a flat told the local newspaper that they lived outside the capital and were buying a second home they could use if they wanted to go to the theatre in London or stay after work.


for that money they should hire a suite at the Dorchester...it'd be cheaper


----------



## maomao (Jan 25, 2015)

ska invita said:


> for that money they should hire a suite at the Dorchester...it'd be cheaper


They wouldn't be able to sell the suite on at a profit to fund their retirement. Property essentially costs nothing (and in fact considerably increases your wealth if current trends continue) if you're rich enough to start with.


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or a shortage of people earning enough money to rent them. What's the maximum housing benefit you can get in London for a single person in a one room flat?


Roughly, if you're under 35 they'll pay £100  a week for a room in shared house and then

From 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015:
*
£258.06* a week if you are estimated to need *one bedroom
£299.34* a week if you are estimated to need *two bedrooms
£350.95* a week if you are estimated to need *three bedrooms
£412.89 *a week if you are estimated to need* four or more bedrooms*


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> bluers, i was thinking in terms of london not ebola or whatnot. what about the bedroom tax which affects more than a few dozen londoners? the destruction of council rstates replsced by yuppie flats?


tbh I was seeing this as part of the same monstrous phenomenon. As I guess you are too.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2015)

Not sure there's any point being cross at individual speculators - property in London atm is a very sensible investment. The problems are structural rather than individual - the only thing that's going to stop it is a crash or legislation.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Hong Kong remains most expensive per square cm, but London is right up there and using other indexes and factors London comes out the most expensive


London overtakes Hong Kong as world’s most expensive city
Report suggests UK capital is twice as pricey as Sydney and four times more than Rio for companies to place staff
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/23/london-overtakes-hong-kong-worlds-most-expensive-city


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

jusali said:


> I hope the rental market crashes get these cockroaches, sorry, speculators off our asses.



Your donkey has cockroaches on its arse?
(((((donkey)))))


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or a shortage of people earning enough money to rent them. What's the maximum housing benefit you can get in London for a single person in a one room flat?



Varies from borough to borough, and if you're under 35, all you get is the price of a room in a house-share, but either way you're mostly topping out at about £250 a week.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> bluers, i was thinking in terms of london not ebola or whatnot. what about the bedroom tax which affects more than a few dozen londoners? the destruction of council rstates replsced by yuppie flats?



Quite. Your neck of the woods has lost 3 or 4 large estates to "redevelopment",IIRC, just over the last 10 years.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Varies from borough to borough, and if you're under 35, all you get is the price of a room in a house-share, but either way you're mostly topping out at about £250 a week.



That's about the most you can claim per _month_ around here 

And yet still none of the austerity advocates will call for rent controls, because heaven forbid _landlords _should have to tighten their belts like everyone else, even though their the biggest welfare parasites of all


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's about the most you can claim per _month_ around here



Doesn't surprise me. London property prices bear no relation to reality (and before some joker bangs on about "the market" setting a "fair" price, that only works to mutual benefit if all other factors are equal, and "the market" isn't loaded or otherwise skewed, which it is), and haven't done for 15-20 years. 



> And yet still none of the austerity advocates will call for rent controls, because heaven forbid _landlords _should have to tighten their belts like everyone else, even though their the biggest welfare parasites of all


Well quite. Turkeys, especially fat Parliamentary turkeys (what with over half of them being property speculators of one sort or another), are vanishingly-unlikely to be stupid enough to vote for Christmas.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Depends on the size of the mortgage, but probably upwards of £1,500 a month.


 £1500 pm on a £400k flat would be a rental yield of about 4.5% p.a. before expenses (such as service costs), wear & tear and tax; (so probably 4% before wear & tear and tax).  Mortgage rates are probably not too far off that, if you want to take those into account.  So I'd say that's a bare minimum rent before it starts looking a bit shaky, like you say.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's about the most you can claim per _month_ around here
> 
> And yet still none of the austerity advocates will call for rent controls, because heaven forbid _landlords _should have to tighten their belts like everyone else, even though their the biggest welfare parasites of all


I had to leave my last place because although the landlord stated on the paperwork that they wanted to sell, it turned out (shocker!) that was a big fat lie and what they actually wanted to do was put the rent up by over 10% a month. They'd already put it up a year previously, which I'd agreed to reluctantly. I'm actually in a nicer flat now but at the time it was very painful to be at the mercy of someone that greedy when I'd done nothing wrong as a tenant other than report what needed fixing (the landlord hadn't done a stroke of maintenance in 5 years)

Plus it doesn't make sense as a landlord to keep putting rents up, certainly I've not asked my tenant for anything more in 4 years - he's a student who's moved onto postgrad study now. I'd rather he stayed put for longer.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 25, 2015)

kabbes said:


> £1500 pm on a £400k flat would be a rental yield of about 4.5% p.a. before expenses (such as service costs), wear & tear and tax; (so probably 4% before wear & tear and tax).  Mortgage rates are probably not too far off that, if you want to take those into account.  So I'd say that's a bare minimum rent before it starts looking a bit shaky, like you say.


Wear and tear is a flat rate 10% of rental income, so (0.1 x 1500 x 12) = 1800 per annum. I'd reckon 4% before tax, 2.4% after tax assuming a 40% tax rate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 25, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Plus it doesn't make sense as a landlord to keep putting rents up



You don't have to be clever to be a landlord though, you don't have to be a shrewd businessman, you don't need a head for figures, you don't need people skills and you don't need qualifications. All you need is money.

I can see the argument that private enterprise generally encourages people to be better at what they do, I don't believe it by I can see that it makes some sense in the abstract at least. When it comes to housing though there is no motivation to provide people with a good service, or value for money. Landlords can demand references from prospective tennants but they don't provide references themselves, even though the tennant is putting a lot more on the line when they sign a contract.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2015)

considered torching a place as I left once, thats how much of a cock the landlord was. In the end though, he's ensured, e place was terraced and didn't fancy a 12 stretch

on the subject of rent caps and mysterious fires, didn't that convenient plague of fire afflict new york in the 70s when rent caps were introduced


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> considered torching a place as I left once, thats how much of a cock the landlord was. In the end though, he's ensured, e place was terraced and didn't fancy a 12 stretch
> 
> on the subject of rent caps and mysterious fires, didn't that convenient plague of fire afflict new york in the 70s when rent caps were introduced



AIUI, rent controls were introduced in NY back in the 40s, to help soldiers coming back from the war. So the landlord arsonists were just being cunts.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> You don't have to be clever to be a landlord though, you don't have to be a shrewd businessman, you don't need a head for figures, you don't need people skills and you don't need qualifications. All you need is money.
> 
> I can see the argument that private enterprise generally encourages people to be better at what they do, I don't believe it by I can see that it makes some sense in the abstract at least. When it comes to housing though there is no motivation to provide people with a good service, or value for money. Landlords can demand references from prospective tennants but they don't provide references themselves, even though the tennant is putting a lot more on the line when they sign a contract.


It's improving in Scotland with the registration scheme as various criteria have to be met- which reminds me, I have a letter to write to the registration people about my former landlord.


----------



## JTG (Jan 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your donkey has cockroaches on its arse?
> (((((donkey)))))


jusali is from Bristol and has the pronunciation of the slang for one's posterior correct


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 25, 2015)

The growth of property as an 'investment vehicle' has brought us that other nest of cuntery - the letting agents/'property management' folks. Whereas back in my days as a student you'd generally be letting directly off the property owner who'd usually come round and see that stuff was fixed themselves and be easily accountable for problems, now there's no need for investors to ever dirty their hands in the game, a new set of middlemen with fees and rules and inflexibility, who fix stuff in the cheapest dirtiest way because it isn't their property (but charge the owner through the nose), tax the tenants for anything they can get away with and sit in shiny shitty shops with names like 'homez4U' when they're not out driving their dickhead Range Rover with personal plates.


----------



## salem (Jan 25, 2015)

kabbes said:


> £1500 pm on a £400k flat would be a rental yield of about 4.5% p.a. before expenses (such as service costs), wear & tear and tax; (so probably 4% before wear & tear and tax).  Mortgage rates are probably not too far off that, if you want to take those into account.  So I'd say that's a bare minimum rent before it starts looking a bit shaky, like you say.


Good point but these guys will be assuming some silly property price rises on top of the rental yield.

I think (hope?) that the market will correct itself or at least stagnate because those rental prices are even less sustainable then the property prices.


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 25, 2015)

In the short-term the buy-to-let market will be boosted by those who get early access to their pension pot thus putting more pressure on first-time buyers.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 25, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Wear and tear is a flat rate 10% of rental income, so (0.1 x 1500 x 12) = 1800 per annum. I'd reckon 4% before tax, 2.4% after tax assuming a 40% tax rate.


No, that's what HMRC allow you for tax purposes, not what wear and tear actually costs you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2015)

JTG said:


> jusali is from Bristol and has the pronunciation of the slang for one's posterior correct



From Bristol?
(((((jusali)))))


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The growth of property as an 'investment vehicle' has brought us that other nest of cuntery - the letting agents/'property management' folks. Whereas back in my days as a student you'd generally be letting directly off the property owner who'd usually come round and see that stuff was fixed themselves and be easily accountable for problems, now there's no need for investors to ever dirty their hands in the game, a new set of middlemen with fees and rules and inflexibility, who fix stuff in the cheapest dirtiest way because it isn't their property (but charge the owner through the nose), tax the tenants for anything they can get away with and sit in shiny shitty shops with names like 'homez4U' when they're not out driving their dickhead Range Rover with personal plates.



I take it that you don't approve of these parasitic fungi on the arse of humanity?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I take it that you don't approve of these parasitic fungi on the arse of humanity?



That's with only limited experience, before the days when they started bringing in 'signing fees' and 're-signing fees' and shit like that.  Even then (late 90s) the fuckers still stole a deposit from me, claiming a month's rent hadn't been paid when it had, didn't do the legally required gas safety checks leaving us without heating over Christmas, turned up drunk banging on the door in the early hours on a school night because they thought we should have moved out that day when we'd agreed another couple of months etc...

To be boiled in their own juices come the revolution. Slowly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> That's with only limited experience, before the days when they started bringing in 'signing fees' and 're-signing fees' and shit like that.  Even then (late 90s) the fuckers still stole a deposit from me, claiming a month's rent hadn't been paid when it had, didn't do the legally required gas safety checks leaving us without heating over Christmas, turned up drunk banging on the door in the early hours on a school night because they thought we should have moved out that day when we'd agreed another couple of months etc...
> 
> To be boiled in their own juices come the revolution. Slowly.



Sounds like my old cunt of a landlord (he managed his own "estate" of about 100 properties) in Streatham. Everything skimped, all repairs done badly and at the last minute. Expected the rent on the dot, though, or he'd come knocking like you'd nicked food from his mouth, the whiny pegleg cunt.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 26, 2015)

Fuck paying £400k for a flat.... My 3 bed house was nearly half that.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 26, 2015)

Four bedrooms and one-seventh of the cost here! 

I'm fucked if I want to live anywhere else mind.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 26, 2015)

kabbes said:


> No, that's what HMRC allow you for tax purposes, not what wear and tear actually costs you!


Depends on the property but I've not found that.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 26, 2015)

You've not found what?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 26, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You've not found what?


I 've not found that wear and tear in a property costs more than a normal the tax allowance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Depends on the property but I've not found that.


you still haven't found what you're looking for?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 26, 2015)

editor said:


> _"Dozens of Londoners queued overnight in sub-zero temperatures last night to buy a one bedroom flat in East London for £400,000."_



400 grand for a one bed flat in Stratford! Everyone's losing their fucking marbles whilst the developers are shipping out the profits that they've stolen.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2015)

I am curious as to what proportion will be bought up by bemused overseas Bard fans


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> Wouldn't a more accurate description be that, people wanting to push up values of properties for everyone else queue out all night so desperate are they in pursuing their own selfish ends.



Wow.

That is the most stupid comment that I have seen on urban in many a year.

When you entered into an agreement to rent or take on a mortgage to buy your property, did you consider the wider, local social implications because, if not (and certainly you were not nor should have been an under obligation to do so), you fell foul of your own tentative rule?  Is that what you suggest?

Truly ludicrous.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm afraid I'm too angry to put together a coherent comment here, but take a deep breath and read on:



Too angry sounds a hell of a lot like too lazy IMO.

There are good arguments to be made in favour of your opinion. 

None are tremendously straightforward and all require a lot of hard work to be shown but the "throw your hands up in despair", "shaking of heads" and general "tutting" school of thought is extremely moronic and tends to characterise your attitude to London more and more.

Perhaps you are just getting old [edit: no real names, thanks] but it seems as if you are also getting more and more intolerant and resentful as you do so.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Too angry sounds a hell of a lot like too lazy IMO.
> 
> There are good arguments to be made in favour of your opinion.
> 
> ...


I do a lot of work elsewhere to get across my opinions and beliefs but I'm afraid I'm not always able to find the time to post up a considered response to every single story that breaks. But seeing as you're being so critical here and accusing me of being 'lazy', may I ask what you're offering? What's your opinion?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Too angry sounds a hell of a lot like too lazy IMO.
> 
> There are good arguments to be made in favour of your opinion.
> 
> ...



e2a - apologies on the names front - didn't realise that the policy had categorically changed but will respond in due course accordingly.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I do a lot of work elsewhere to get across my opinions and beliefs but I'm afraid I'm not always able to find the time to post up a considered response to every single story that breaks. But seeing as you're being so critical here and accusing me of being 'lazy', may I ask what you're offering? What's your opinion?



I really do need to snatch a few hours of sleep now but look forwards to "jousting" further on the morrow.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I really do need to snatch a few hours of sleep now but look forwards to "jousting" further on the morrow.


I've no interest in 'jousting', but I can't say I like the tone of what you've written. I do what I can and think I put in a pretty good effort. How about you?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> e2a - apologies on the names front - didn't realise that the policy had categorically changed but will respond in due course accordingly.


The policy on posting up real names has been in place for over a decade!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 27, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I 've not found that wear and tear in a property costs more than a normal the tax allowance.


I didn't say it does. I just said that 10% of rent is the HMRC figure, not reality.

In reality, it will depend on age and build quality.  It could be a lot more than 10%, it could be a lot less.  That's why I left it separate.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wow.
> 
> That is the most stupid comment that I have seen on urban in many a year.
> 
> ...


The fuck are you wittering on about?

Both sets of people mentioned in the article, were buying additional properties. One a buy to let, the other a weekend home in London for theatre trips ffs.

How does that not have an effect on those simply wanting to be able to afford a place to live?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 27, 2015)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> The fuck are you wittering on about?
> 
> Both sets of people mentioned in the article, were buying additional properties. One a buy to let, the other a weekend home in London for theatre trips ffs.
> 
> How does that not have an effect on those simply wanting to be able to afford a place to live?



Is there any evidence to suggest (apart from the article) that none of the flats have been bought by first time buyers?

At the cost they were being sold at I doubt there was, but without knowing, it does undermine the discussion a little bit.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 27, 2015)

The discussion used the article as a starting point though.

How many people have a spare 400K to drop on a second house? Or even a first house?


----------



## maomao (Jan 27, 2015)

400k is not going to be a first time buy unless the household salaries are 90k+ or the buyer has some serious capital (savings/parental help) in place so even if they are 'first time' buyers we're not talking about your average families.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 27, 2015)

maomao said:


> 400k is not going to be a first time buy unless the household salaries are 90k+ or the buyer has some serious capital (savings/parental help) in place so even if they are 'first time' buyers we're not talking about your average families.



I don't think many "average" families could afford to live in some of the surrounding counties of london, let alone london itself.


----------



## maomao (Jan 27, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I don't think many "average" families could afford to live in some of the surrounding counties of london, let alone london itself.


Exactly. So the presence of first time buyers or otherwise is a red-herring.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

I think talk of cackling BTL landlords is a bit of red herring as well tbh. The problem isn't caused by evil bastards trying to squeeze every possible penny out of hard-working families (although there's certainly some of that involved) - The problem is caused by homes in London (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) being a high yeild but safe investment vehicle. 

Getting outraged about the people who're buying these flats & the people building them is pointless and misses the target - they may be soulless scum, but they're just soulless scum who've seen a low risk, legal opportunity to make a shitload of money, and taken it. These people will always be with us, until the market changes - through economics or law - to make it less attractive to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wow.
> 
> That is the most stupid comment that I have seen on urban in many a year.



Ah, so you never review your own posts. Fair enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think talk of cackling BTL landlords is a bit of red herring as well tbh. The problem isn't caused by evil bastards trying to squeeze every possible penny out of hard-working families (although there's certainly some of that involved) - The problem is caused by homes in London (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) being a high yeild but safe investment vehicle.



Perceived as safe, anyway.



> Getting outraged about the people who're buying these flats & the people building them is pointless and misses the target - they may be soulless scum, but they're just soulless scum who've seen a low risk, legal opportunity to make a shitload of money, and taken it. These people will always be with us, until the market changes - through economics or law - to make it less attractive to them.


So effectively they'll *always* be with us, 'cos none of the contesting parties will do more than tinker around the edges when in power.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

This side of the revolution, at least.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I've no interest in 'jousting', but I can't say I like the tone of what you've written. I do what I can and think I put in a pretty good effort. How about you?



Yes, I also do what I can and that amounts to a pretty damn substantial amount of pro bono housing law work in Lambeth FYI, with some, although not nearly enough, successes for tenants.

But the idea that you should restrict the market economy because you don't like who gets what - that direct interference is the way forwards because someone might want to buy something who you don't particurlarly you like, which you don't particularly approve of and which doesn't sit right with your broader prejudices is tyranically dumb, especially when you show zero appetite for proving your arguments, such as they are, in practice.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

"People queue to buy something" should have been the thread title.

The fact that it was not demonstrates how lacking in analysis the OP was.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But the idea that you should restrict the market economy because you don't like who gets what - that direct interference is the way forwards because someone might want to buy something who you don't particurlarly you like, which you don't particularly approve of and which doesn't sit right with your broader prejudices is tyranically dumb, especially when you show zero appetite for proving your arguments, such as they are, in practice.


My 'arguments' can be seen every single day presented on two hugely popular, non-profit websites which I set up. My political opinions and beliefs and underlined by the absence of adverts on those websites, and what money that does come in (via the beer we make and distribute for no profit) goes towards local good causes. 

And you call me lazy?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "People queue to buy something" should have been the thread title.
> 
> The fact that it was not demonstrates how lacking in analysis the OP was.


It was a quick post on a thread not a fucking dissertation.

But greedy? Yes. 



> K Chiu, 37, a restaurant owner from Hong Kong, told the _Evening Standard_ that he hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket even further in London so he could make more money.
> 
> “I’m buying this as an investment in London, a buy-to-let. It will be amazing after it’s completed and I think the area around it will have developed really nicely.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> My 'arguments' can be seen every single day presented on two hugely popular, non-profit websites which I set up. My political opinions and beliefs and underlined by the absence of adverts on those websites, and what money that does come in (via the beer we make and distribute for no profit) goes towards local good causes.
> 
> And you call me lazy?



But they are not concise enough to be summarised on this thread in a sentence or two?

Generally, arguments that require greater exposition or that rely simply on reference are poor ones...


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But they are not concise enough to be summarised on this thread in a sentence or two?
> 
> Generally, arguments that require greater exposition or that rely simply on reference are poor ones...


I'll be sure to check through all your previous posts to see if they match up to the gold standard for posts you've just unilaterally declared for the forum. 

Sometimes a post is just there to serve as a spark for debate. To get the conversation going. To share a piece of news that needs discussion.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> It was a quick post on a thread not a fucking dissertation.
> 
> But greedy? Yes.



How is that greed?

Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?

What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I'll be sure to check through all your previous posts to see if they match up to the gold standard for posts you've just unilaterally declared for the forum.
> 
> Sometimes a post is just there to serve as a spark for debate. To get the conversation going. To share a piece of news that needs discussion.



Sure, it's sparked a debate and to that extent, it was highly efficient.

The problem was that it also implied, although notably declined to develop, an argument which I am now calling you on - hence the developments.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How is that greed?
> 
> Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?
> 
> What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?


He's wishing "skyrocketing rents" on everyone else so he can make more lots more lovely lolly for himself. I'd call that greed.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Is every investment a manifestation of greed?


bingo.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> He's wishing "skyrocketing rents" on everyone else so he can make more lots more lovely lolly for himself. I'd call that greed.



What he actually said was this - "hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit"

So he's expecting a return on his investment.

What is wrong with that?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> bingo.


How do you feel about someone wishing for rents to 'skyrocket' so he can make more money on his buy to let investment? 

Is that the kind of thing you endorse?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What he actually said was this - "hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit"
> 
> So he's expecting a return on his investment.
> 
> What is wrong with that?


He... "told the _Evening Standard_ that he *hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket* even further in London so he could make more money."


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> How do you feel about someone wishing for rents to 'skyrocket' so he can make more money on his buy to let investment?
> 
> Is that the kind of thing you endorse?


How did you come to the conclusion that I might do? Have you read any of my posts on this thread?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> He... "told the _Evening Standard_ that he *hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket* even further in London so he could make more money."



Can you point me to a source which quotes him verbatim as saying that as the ones you have linked to date do not appear to demonstrate that.

Secondly, what is an acceptable rate of return on an investment - or more to the point, what level should acceptable investment income be morally capped at between (i) go up quite a bit, and (ii) skyrocket, and why?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

The simple answer to house prices in London though is to build more bloody housing.

Simple supply and demand stuff.  Supply is rock bottom, demand is sky high - address the first and go from there.

The problem is a lack of supply and a surfeit of NIMBYs who don't want their local area to change because it upsets their sentimental idea of where they live.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can you point me to a source which quotes him verbatim as saying that as the ones you have linked to date do not appear to demonstrate that.


I'm just going by was quoted in the press, and that is what I reacted to. If you're saying he didn't say that then my opinion may well be different.

What evidence have you got that the Standard made up the quote?


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

While I'm loath to pitch in on this bellend's side, it isn't a quote.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm just going by was quoted in the press, and that is what I reacted to. If you're saying he didn't say that then my opinion may well be different.
> 
> What evidence have you got that the Standard made up the quote?



Perhaps the fact that the Standard didn't dare to quote him directly...

I'm not in any way saying that you were to blame for their slightly mendacious reporting but the fact that you were so keen to seize upon it demonstrates, again, your lack of analysis.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> While I'm loath to pitch in on this bellend's side, it isn't a quote.



It is an indirect quote. It should be based on what he actually said; reporters do make stuff up sometimes, but I wouldn't assume every indirect quote is completely fabricated.

I'm not sure the problem in London is a lack of property building, actually. East London in particular is using every single available patch of land to build new flats (and occasionally houses) on. Very few are social housing and the prices are out of most Londoners' reach, but the building isn't a problem.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

I've responded to the quote but I'm really not going to waste time trying to find out if the Standard made up the exact words or not.

However, back to greed. I'd say cash-in landlords increasing rents by at least triple the rate of inflation look pretty greedy to me.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Perhaps the fact that the Standard didn't dare to quote him directly....


So where is your 'analysis' to support this totally unsupported claim that the Standard didn't "dare" to quote him directly? 

What would they be scared of? Please elaborate.


----------



## maomao (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The simple answer to house prices in London though is to build more bloody housing.
> 
> Simple supply and demand stuff.  Supply is rock bottom, demand is sky high - address the first and go from there.
> 
> The problem is a lack of supply and a surfeit of NIMBYs who don't want their local area to change because it upsets their sentimental idea of where they live.


Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:


> The question of who buys new homes in London is a matter of ongoing speculation in the media. The activity of investors, particularly from overseas, has become the subject of intense interest – and sometimes criticism. This study aims to identify who buys new homes in London and why. Having reconciled disparate sources of information on the subject, the following picture emerges of who bought new homes in London in 2013:
> • Buy to Let investors: 48%
> • Buy to Sell investors (speculators): 5%
> • Build to Let investors: 8%
> ...


http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf

So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

maomao said:


> Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:
> 
> http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf
> 
> So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.



That is not an argument against further supply and I suspect you know that already.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 27, 2015)

maomao said:


> Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:
> 
> http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf
> 
> So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.



For the sake of clarity, it's 61%, not 68.

However, those people buying a second home for their theatre trips would count as owner-occupiers too. It would be interesting to know how many of new owner-occupiers in 2013 were living there as their only home.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> So where is your 'analysis' to support this totally unsupported claim that the Standard didn't "dare" to quote him directly?
> 
> What would they be scared of? Please elaborate.



Their professional reputation - making up directly attributed quotations does not tend to make for a successful journal.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Their professional reputation - making up directly attributed quotations does not tend to make for a successful journal.


For someone that was giving lectures about the supposed lack of analysis shown in my posts, this really is piss weak stuff. You've got no evidence at all to back up your assertion that a journalist didn't "dare" attribute a quote. You're just making shit up.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That is not an argument against further supply and I suspect you know that already.



Where do you expect further supply to come from? Everything's being used right now.

Compulsory purchasing empty homes would help; funnily enough, that would include quite a few of those new builds - at least 5%, the buy to sell investors.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> For someone that was giving lectures about the supposed lack of analysis shown in my posts, this really is piss weak stuff. You've got no evidence at all to back up your assertion that a journalist didn't "dare" attribute a quote. You're just making shit up.



Whereas you fell for a journalist "making shit up" because it fitted your confirmation bias...

Again, demonstrate to me that the individual in question used the phrase "skyrocket".

Any chance of that happening or are you just "making shit up"?


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

scifisam said:


> It is an indirect quote. It should be based on what he actually said; reporters do make stuff up sometimes, but I wouldn't assume every indirect quote is completely fabricated.


It doesn't even appear in the original article in the standard, only in the indie article which quotes it. 

No-one outside newspapers uses the word 'skyrocket' in the context that journalist used it - certainly not chinese investors.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Where do you expect further supply to come from? Everything's being used right now.
> 
> Compulsory purchasing empty homes would help; funnily enough, that would include quite a few of those new builds - at least 5%, the buy to sell investors.



Get rid of the Green Belt to start with.

Beyond that, stop making it so ridiculously difficult to redevelop land within the M25.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Whereas you fell for a journalist "making shit up" because it fitted your confirmation bias...


Hold on. What evidence have you got that the journalist made the quote up or that I "fell" for anything? Please back up this bizarre claim.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> No-one outside newspapers uses the word 'skyrocket' in the context that journalist used it - certainly not chinese investors.


Wow. There's another wild assumption, right there.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Hold on. What evidence have you got that the journalist made the quote up or that I "fell" for anything? Please back up this bizarre claim.



Your line of reasoning is as unstructured as it is clouded.

What do you specifically require clarity on?


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Wow. There's another wild assumption, right there.


here's the standard article - which the indie article you began the thread is entirely based on. no_ skyrocket_ in the entire piece.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...droom-flat-9998005.html?origin=internalSearch


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your line of reasoning is as unstructured as it is clouded.
> 
> What do you specifically require clarity on?


1. You suggested that the Standard "didn't dare" to quote the investor directly. Why would a journalist be in such fear?


----------



## scifisam (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b: yeah, it might well be made up. But it is a quote, and it shouldn't, legally, be made up. Try it out by changing it to "he said he wanted the flat so that he could use it as a site for buggering kittens" and wondering if that would count as misattribution. 



Diamond said:


> Get rid of the Green Belt to start with.
> 
> Beyond that, stop making it so ridiculously difficult to redevelop land within the M25.



The green belt isn't in London. And if it's hard to redevelop land then it doesn't seem to be stopping people.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> here's the standard article - which the indie article you began the thread is entirely based on. no_ skyrocket_ in the entire piece.
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...droom-flat-9998005.html?origin=internalSearch


"*hopefully* the rental and selling price will go up *quite a bit*"

Nice.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

There's something of a difference in tone between the actual quote and the journalese summary in the indie don't you think?


----------



## maomao (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That is not an argument against further supply and I suspect you know that already.


It does in fact prove that it's not a supply side issue.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> There's something of a difference in tone between the actual quote and the journalese summary in the indie don't you think?



There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> No-one outside newspapers uses the word 'skyrocket' in the context that journalist used it - certainly not chinese investors.



http://www.chinese-forums.com/index...b4&app=googlecse#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=skyrocketing

Chinese people, on an English-language forum, using the word "skyrocketing". Perhaps they are citizen journalists.


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2015)

I am undone.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 27, 2015)

editor said:


> "*hopefully* the rental and selling price will go up *quite a bit*"
> 
> Nice.



People will make money.

How horrendous.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2015)

Diamond said:


> People will make money.
> 
> How horrendous.


It is when they're making their money by destroying communities, displacing long term residents and making neighbourhoods unaffordable while all the time wishing for yet higher rents to be inflicted on tenants.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

scifisam said:


> There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.


It's reasonable to react uncritically to a newspaper story?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 28, 2015)

scifisam said:


> There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.


Yeah I mean it's not as if journalists just make a whole load of crap up.


----------



## coley (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> While I'm loath to pitch in on this bellend's side, it isn't a quote.


But, said bellend seems to think profit is more important than people, irrespective of any "quote"


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

coley said:


> But, said bellend seems to think profit is more important than people, irrespective of any "quote"


He’s been sold the idea as a sensible investment – which tbf it probably is. The human cost of investments like this isn’t always obvious to the investor, especially if they don’t live in the country, let alone the city they’re buying in. Is this much different from, say, buying shares in a far-eastern tech company? Or any company that makes their products in sweatshops in India or China?

As I’ve said above, focusing your ire on the individual buyer is pointless – as long as housing remains a decent investment opportunity, there’ll always be people who’re amoral or ignorant enough to take it.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

There is a whole category of financial behaviours, which include non-ethical investments and ultra-efficient tax arrangements, that I have always been ambivalent about.  It should ideally be that nobody undertakes such things.  But is it reasonable to think that people will spontaneously choose to act against their best interests in a society that is almost entirely unaffected by their personal, specific acts?

It's really very similar in that regard to acting in any other "tragedy of the commons" ways, such as anti-environmentalism or buying from non-compassionate farming.  Ideally, we'd all always choose the most alturistic path.  And there is good evidence that when the effect of that alturism is personalised and direct, we do.  But when the beneficiaries are indirect and our personal impact is minute, we often don't.

The answer, surely, is that this is exactly what the legislature is for.  If a behaviour harms society, legislate against it.  In this specific case: either don't allow multiple home ownership or impose incredibly strict rent controls and tenants' rights.  Then you aren't relying on the good-will of the rest of the world.

In the meantime, I find it hard to condemn _as a class_ those who have to survive within the system we have from making the choices that allow them the easiest ride, even if I can easily condemn specific manifestations of that behaviour.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

I’m of the view stories like this are a sort of mirror of the benefit scum stories the tabloids run. Two-minute hates for liberals.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> The answer, surely, is that this is exactly what the legislature is for.  If a behaviour harms society, legislate against it.  In this specific case: either don't allow multiple home ownership or impose incredibly strict rent controls and tenants' rights.  Then you aren't relying on the good-will of the rest of the world.
> 
> In the meantime, I find it hard to condemn _as a class_ those who have to survive within the system we have from making the choices that allow them the easiest ride, even if I can easily condemn specific manifestations of that behaviour.



When people who undertake this behaviour have essentially captured the legislative process, how can you hold out hope for any change to occur?  Many MPs profit from buy-to-let investments, sometimes with homes originally funded by the taxpayer.  Nothing will change whilst those writing the rules are those with the capital to play a system that oppresses and denies others.  Are MPs also blameless, are they just taking the easiest path by designing a system that works in their favour?  Where does the buck stop in terms of personal responsibility?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> When people who undertake this behaviour have essentially captured the legislative process, how can you hold out hope for any change to occur?  Many MPs profit from buy-to-let investments, sometimes with homes originally funded by the taxpayer.  Nothing will change whilst those writing the rules are those with the capital to play a system that oppresses and denies others.  Are MPs also blameless, are they just taking the easiest path by designing a system that works in their favour?  Where does the buck stop in terms of personal responsibility?


I don't hold out much hope for any legislative improvements unless the ideas behind them gain sufficient momentum so as to overcome the entrenched positions of self-interest in the establishment.  And that is a hell of a lot of momentum needed, undoubtedly.

That's a different question though.  I also certainly don't hold out much hope that people will spontaneously act against their interests due to nebulous goals that they personally have almost no influence towards.

If society is broken, the fix won't be to tut at the latter.  It will be to somehow force the former.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If society is broken, the fix won't be to tut at the latter. It will be to somehow force the former.


And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> I’m of the view stories like this are a sort of mirror of the benefit scum stories the tabloids run. Two-minute hates for liberals.



Given the amount of liberals with their finger in the buy-to-let pie it's more likely to be a case of '_at least I'm not as bad as those guys, I have an ethical attitude to my small portfolio of properties, I'd never be so vulgar as to crow about rising prices'._


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.


But benefit cheat stories are built on lies and distortions. Is that how we counter the scum? Our own lies and distortions?


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> But benefit cheat stories are built on lies and distortions. Is that how we counter the scum? Our own lies and distortions?


There's no need to lie or distort but how do you push for a legislative change without having a popular reason for it?


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

I'm not totally sure - but I do know that making villains out of Mr Chiu and his ilk isn't the way to go about it. That's using the poisonous tactics of those we claim to be against.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.


There is a case there.  But a lot of the damage to the housing sector is done not by individuals with one buy-to-let down the road but by companies that have a hundred properties in their portfolio, a ruthless approach to rent collection and a policy of spending as little as possible on maintenance.  If a few of the small-scale private landlords exit the market, you won't suddenly get cheap housing.  You'll just get the big companies hoovering up even more properties.

Focusing on these buyers is mistargetting, I think.  The primary problem is a lack of tenants rights and rent controls.  Hating on Mr Chiu isn't going to fix that one jot.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> There is a whole category of financial behaviours, which include non-ethical investments and ultra-efficient tax arrangements, that I have always been ambivalent about.  It should ideally be that nobody undertakes such things.  But is it reasonable to think that people will spontaneously choose to act against their best interests in a society that is almost entirely unaffected by their personal, specific acts?
> 
> It's really very similar in that regard to acting in any other "tragedy of the commons" ways, such as anti-environmentalism or buying from non-compassionate farming.  Ideally, we'd all always choose the most alturistic path.  And there is good evidence that when the effect of that alturism is personalised and direct, we do.  But when the beneficiaries are indirect and our personal impact is minute, we often don't.
> 
> ...



I have no idea at all why I seem to be on this thread at this point, and quoting a post. I was on the phone, not online, for most of the past hour. Maybe I leaned on something?


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm not totally sure - but I do know that making villains out of Mr Chiu and his ilk isn't the way to go about it. That's using the poisonous tactics of those we claim to be against.


Anyone wishing higher rents on others just so they can pocket even more cash for themselves can go fuck themselves, whether they're an individual or a corporate.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

When I bought my house 10 years ago, there was at least some hope in my mind that when I came to sell it, it would have risen in value. I've revised my opinion on that since (it also hasn't happened, because I don't live in London or another popular metropolitan area), but I recognise that the expectation to make a profit out of buying, selling and renting out property is almost an unquestioned truth for many people. And overwhelmingly, the public discourse is that it is a good thing for the economy and therefore the country. 

I don't think there's any point of making villains out of individuals who've bought into this - and certainly not on the basis of a couple of sentences in a heavily biased newspaper report.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How is that greed?
> 
> Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?
> 
> What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?



He makes his "livelihood" from his restaurant. What he makes from a buy-to-let property isn't necessary for his livelihood, it's simply something to satisfy his desire to accumulate wealth - a desire that has nothing to do with earning a living.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

I think the problem I have with this kind of stuff is that - like benefit scum stories - it re-casts a systemic problem as a personal moral failure. And that lets the true culprits off the hook.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think the problem I have with this kind of stuff is that - like benefit scum stories - it re-casts a systemic problem as a personal moral failure. And that lets the true culprits off the hook.


I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

editor said:


> I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

editor said:


> I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?


You're hanging someone on the basis of a single sentence in a biased newspaper article.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

I think the article, and this thread, particularly the manner in which it has developed, is a vehicle for inherent frustrations and the politics of envy, some or maybe all of which may be justified.  The problem is that most of it is incoherent.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

The politics of envy? Did you really type that?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

And also, on using legislation to try and adjust market failures - one needs to be very careful there.

The major reason for London house prices and rents being off the scale is (i) a lack of supply and (ii) an excess of demand.

If you can somehow persuade (i) the government to get rid of London's green belt and (ii) businesses and people to relocate to the rest of the UK, then you go a long way to sorting that problem out.

It is the centralisation of the UK's politics, economy and culture in a constricted London that is the major problem.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



Fuck off with that shit.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

no it doesn't 
it sounds like you scraping your dirty barrel


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> no it doesn't
> it sounds like you scraping your dirty barrel


 
I take it you have read the source material then?


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And also, on using legislation to try and adjust market failures - one needs to be very careful there.
> 
> The major reason for London house prices and rents being off the scale is (i) a lack of supply and (ii) an excess of demand.
> 
> ...


Well you've been shown pretty clear evidence that it's not a straightforward supply and demand situation but you just replied that it proves that it's a supply problem which means you're a dense cunt and not worth bothering with really. But do you really think that the destruction of green belt land is called for when there are hundreds of thousands of empty properties being held as investments?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I take it you have read the source material then?


which source material?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> which source material?


 
The articles linked to in the OP - do keep up...


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> Well you've been shown pretty clear evidence that it's not a straightforward supply and demand situation but you just replied that it proves that it's a supply problem which means you're a dense cunt and not worth bothering with really. But do you really think that the destruction of green belt land is called for when there are hundreds of thousands of empty properties being held as investments?


 
No, I said it was a demand and supply problem - as very clearly demonstrated in the post that you chose to quote.

But beyond that, all properties are held as investments - that's not difficult to understand, surely?


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/15/foreign-investors-buy-80-per-cent-developments

Do you think it's not reasonable to think that if there's a housing shortage in London then some sort of priority should be made to provide them for people who actually live in London, regardless of country of origin?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

And as a supplementary point - why is green belt land such a sacred cow and why would building on it be "destroying it"?


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But beyond that, all properties are held as investments - that's not difficult to understand, surely?


Mine isn't, I fucking live in it and hope my kids will too.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> Mine isn't, I fucking live in it and hope my kids will too.


 
If you own it, you are invested in it.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The articles linked to in the OP - do keep up...


seemed you were implying that it was editor's meaning not the shit standard


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/15/foreign-investors-buy-80-per-cent-developments
> 
> Do you think it's not reasonable to think that if there's a housing shortage in London then some sort of priority should be made to provide them for people who actually live in London, regardless of country of origin?


 
No, I don't think that's reasonable.  In fact, that sounds like a pretty bad way of managing the market.  If you are going to seek a legislative solution, then restricting freedom of movement, which is essentially what you are proposing, is a very blunt solution that is likely to backfire spectacularly.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you own it, you are invested in it.


And you're saying there's no difference between my family buying a house to live in and an investor buying a house to leave empty in the knowledge that the political system in this country is committed to propping up house prices. And this has no effect on an average families ability to buy a house to live in which is purely down to 'supply and demand'. You're stretching the meaning of the word 'investment' to the point of it doesn't mean anything. In your dictionary I just invested in a chicken and salad wrap for lunch.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, I don't think that's reasonable.  In fact, that sounds like a pretty bad way of managing the market.  If you are going to seek a legislative solution, then restricting freedom of movement, which is essentially what you are proposing, is a very blunt solution that is likely to backfire spectacularly.




How the fuck do you get to restricting freedom of movement from there?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> How the fuck do you get to restricting freedom of movement from there?


 
If you deny the ability for someone to come from abroad and buy a house in London, then you are denying them the right to live in London.  That is a restriction on freedom of movement in the same way that attempts to curb benefits for people from other EU member states is a restriction on freedom of movement.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you deny the ability for someone to come from abroad and buy a house in London, then you are denying them the right to live in London.  That is a restriction on freedom of movement in the same way that attempts to curb benefits for people from other EU member states is a restriction on freedom of movement.


You don't restrict  their right to do that, you put rent caps in place so it's not massively profitable to be a landlord from abroad and tax the fuck out of anyone who leaves a house empty or has multiple homes.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And as a supplementary point - why is green belt land such a sacred cow and why would building on it be "destroying it"?


It's nice.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> You don't restrict  their right to do that, you put rent caps in place so it's not massively profitable to be a landlord from abroad and tax the fuck out of anyone who leaves a house empty or has multiple homes.


 
I'd wager that the landlords are investing more out of the underlying security of the asset value of the property rather than any rental income, although the latter is obviously a nice earner on the side.  Rent caps don't address the central demand/supply tension that makes the asset value so secure.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's nice.


 
Nice enough to justify London's housing problem then?


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'd wager that the landlords are investing more out of the underlying security of the asset value of the property rather than any rental income, although the latter is obviously a nice earner on the side. Rent caps don't address the central demand/supply tension that makes the asset value so secure.


That's why you do both.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Loads of sites are sat empty with planning permission in place.  The 'supply side' isn't constrained by planning permission (as some guy from the NHBC or whoever was making out on the news yesterday).  Land itself is being used as an 'investment vehicle' before anything is even built on it.  I think many have been holding out until such time as they're able to renegotiate the 'affordable'/social quotient, and perhaps see the prospect of another tory-led government as a situation where such requirements are scrapped altogether, giving the go-ahead for boot-filling on a grand scale.  The fact that developers in an overheated part of the country have been allowed to renegotiate these targets already when there is demonstrably no justification in a city of rapidly rising prices is obscene.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Nice enough to justify London's housing problem then?


You mean the housing problem where we have ample housing but no access to it?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Plenty of space for new homes in the declining industrial areas of London, lots of dilapidated warehouses sprawled over large plots of land.  Get a train out in any direction and look out of the window, London has tons of space without the need for green belt development.  The only reason there is a desire to build on green belt is because it's cheaper and more profitable.  That's not a reason IMO.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> You mean the housing problem where we have ample housing but no access to it?


 
That's not the case.  We don't have enough housing in London.

http://londonist.com/2013/06/what-are-the-solutions-to-londons-housing-crisis.php


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Plenty of space for new homes in the declining industrial areas of London, lots of dilapidated warehouses sprawled over large plots of land.  Get a train out in any direction and look out of the window, London has tons of space without the need for green belt development.  The only reason there is a desire to build on green belt is because it's cheaper and more profitable.  That's not a reason IMO.


 
It can be very difficult to develop brownfield land.  I'm certainly not against it and think it should be encouraged but it can entail massive complications.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's not the case.  We don't have enough housing in London.
> 
> http://londonist.com/2013/06/what-are-the-solutions-to-londons-housing-crisis.php


http://england.shelter.org.uk/campa...ousing_crisis/building_more_homes/empty_homes
Click on London. Add on all the developers sitting on land to ensure they can charge top whack for what they do build and there's no fucking reason to build on the green belt at all.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



It implies that people are concerned about properties in London, and handful of other world cities, becoming some kind of internationally traded commodity akin to gold bars, which goes directly against the interests of just about everybody who lives there and doesn't own property.

If Mr. Chiu actually exists, he will be very familiar with these issues from Hong Kong, where the housing shortage is contributing to social unrest and non-residents pay an extra 15% when buying property.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Yossarian said:


> If Mr. Chiu actually exists, he will be very familiar with these issues from Hong Kong, where the housing shortage is contributing to social unrest and non-residents pay an extra 15% when buying property.


Unlike this country where they actually get let off the stamp duty.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

maomao said:


> http://england.shelter.org.uk/campa...ousing_crisis/building_more_homes/empty_homes
> Click on London. Add on all the developers sitting on land to ensure they can charge top whack for what they do build and there's no fucking reason to build on the green belt at all.


 
Your own link says the following:



> However, with demand for homes reaching more than one million over the next five years, and many empty homes being in a different part of the country to where they are most needed, it’s clear that we must build new homes as well.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It can be very difficult to develop brownfield land.  I'm certainly not against it and think it should be encouraged but it can entail massive complications.



Depends on the nature of development.  Flats are easy, residential properties with gardens less so, but nothing is that hard, access, services are usually there.  Chelsea gasworks was filthy but that went up OK.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your own link says the following:


See Dogsauce's posts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And as a supplementary point - why is green belt land such a sacred cow and why would building on it be "destroying it"?



Because the rich cunts who are driving everyone out of London need their golf courses.

FWIW I'm all for the idea of a green belt, but it only makes sense if the green belt land can be accessed and used by everyone, and if there are enough houses in the city itself for the people who live and work there.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

There is an argument that the green belt just exists to keep the riff-raff out of the countryside, but that's not the one currently being made on behalf of developers, it's more about the right to build executive homes over vast areas without having to provide any associated amenity apart from maybe a harvester pub near the motorway junction.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 28, 2015)

Its also to provide some element of green area surrounding the capital.

I lived literally on the edge of the green belt in south london and from there it was solid town/city right up to north london.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

Greenwich park? Blackheath?, Clapham Common? Hyde Park?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Greenwich park? Blackheath?, Clapham Common? Hyde Park?



Parks and green belt is very different.

There's livestock on green belt


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

ai indeed! but you said solid town/city! 

also i raise you Richmond park with their deer


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond, you are quoting supply and demand arguments and then concentrating only on the supply-side as the issue.  Actually, it's the demand that needs to be reined in.  When the value of tulips exploded in Holland, would you have said that the problem was that not enough tulips were being grown?  

Set rent controls and rules on ownership so that property doesn't offer such attractive returns as a pure investment and then demand will be controlled.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> ai indeed! but you said solid town/city!
> 
> also i raise you Richmond park with their deer



Deer are not livestock.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Deer are not livestock.


Can be.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Diamond, you are quoting supply and demand arguments and then concentrating only on the supply-side as the issue.  Actually, it's the demand that needs to be reined in.  When the value of tulips exploded in Holland, would you have said that the problem was that not enough tulips were being grown?
> 
> Set rent controls and rules on ownership so that property doesn't offer such attractive returns as a pure investment and then demand will be controlled.



Relocating government out of London to some northern place would be a good start.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Can be.



Can be, but the ones in Richmond Park are not.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

Maybe they should be...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Maybe they should be...



If I take our new dog there they probably will be. Fucking evil killer whippet.


----------



## coley (Jan 28, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Relocating government out of London to some northern place would be a good start.


Might be a rush of developers trying to get their mitts on the P of W though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Relocating government out of London to some northern place would be a good start.


five miles off rockall would suit me


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2015)

coley said:


> Might be a rush of developers trying to get their mitts on the P of W though?



They'll be welcome to it, poxy place is falling down anyway.


----------



## coley (Jan 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> five miles off rockall would suit me



Have you no regard for the seagulls suffering?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

coley said:


> Have you no regard for the seagulls suffering?


they'd do well once the politicos ran out of puff and drowned.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Diamond, you are quoting supply and demand arguments and then concentrating only on the supply-side as the issue.  Actually, it's the demand that needs to be reined in.  When the value of tulips exploded in Holland, would you have said that the problem was that not enough tulips were being grown?
> 
> Set rent controls and rules on ownership so that property doesn't offer such attractive returns as a pure investment and then demand will be controlled.


 
I don't think rent controls are a fantastic solution as they involve so much direct market distortion.

A better demand-side solution, that you appear to be reasonably keen on as well, is, as Bahnohoff Strasse recommends, to try and diversify things like government, and all the business and the demand that is associated with it away into other areas of the country.

The problem is that we have such a London-centric structure that the idea of selling moves Northwards or Westwards to most Londoners is unpalatable.


----------



## coley (Jan 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they'd do well once the politicos ran out of puff and drowned.


You underestimate politicians,they would waft themselves back to London on a self sustaining cushion of hot air within hours, just in time to spoil the celebrations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

coley said:


> You underestimate politicians,they would waft themselves back to London on a self sustaining cushion of hot air within hours, just in time to spoil the celebrations.


i'll put a score on 90% of them dying within minutes of being dumped out of the aircraft.


----------



## maomao (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't think rent controls are a fantastic solution as they involve so much direct market distortion.


If the market isn't providing roofs over heads then the market needs distorting back to a position where houses are built for people to live in rather than safety deposit boxes for the uber-rich.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't think rent controls are a fantastic solution as they involve so much direct market distortion.
> 
> A better demand-side solution, that you appear to be reasonably keen on as well, is, as Bahnohoff Strasse recommends, to try and diversify things like government, and all the business and the demand that is associated with it away into other areas of the country.
> 
> The problem is that we have such a London-centric structure that the idea of selling moves Northwards or Westwards to most Londoners is unpalatable.


That's still supply-side to some degree, because it is still focussed on the idea that the problem is caused by a restriction in supply rather than out of control demand.  It helps, but it doesn't stop runaway demand gathering its own momentum.

Market controls are absolutely the norm across lots of industries.  We have OffWat, OffGen, the FCA, you name it.  The unfettered market is not a great mechanism for setting prices wherever there is a power imbalance and one side has the absolute need for a good.

Set rent controls and a new market price will establish.  One that has prices in the fact that you can't charge what you want when you want.  There is no reason that should cause harmful distortions whatsoever.  In fact, it will stop the distortion caused by bubble-like demand surge.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 28, 2015)

Stamp duty increasing with number of properties is among the solutions I reckon would help, (free on first, 5% on second, 20% on third etc). Would stop the building of empires, plus if it only becomes economic to own say two or three properties the investment types would target more expensive properties to maximise money invested and free up the cheaper ones.  Revenues from stamp duty invested in social house building. 

I don't want an influx of government business up here if it puts the price of property out of reach of even more people.  When they sent the DHSS offices up here in the 90s it caused some distortion to prices in the leafier bits.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Stamp duty increasing with number of properties is among the solutions I reckon would help, (free on first, 5% on second, 20% on third etc)



You'd very much need to police people signing over houses in other peoples names (spouses, children, etc) to make it work effectively.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 28, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If I take our new dog there they probably will be. Fucking evil killer whippet.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

The market needs to be distorted you fucking freak.


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2015)

Or more accurately, burned to the fucking ground.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think the article, and this thread, particularly the manner in which it has developed, is a vehicle for inherent frustrations and the politics of envy, some or maybe all of which may be justified.  The problem is that most of it is incoherent.



Unlike your posts,eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> The politics of envy? Did you really type that?



Of course he did, the naughty little anarcho-capitalist!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And also, on using legislation to try and adjust market failures - one needs to be very careful there.
> 
> The major reason for London house prices and rents being off the scale is (i) a lack of supply and (ii) an excess of demand.
> 
> ...



What a load of sweaty ballbags.
The problem is that of a covert *policy* of lack of supply a minimisation of *affordable and social* development in London and the south,in order to sustain a property price bubble that's one of the few reasons that we're not still in recession.
State bureaucracy has been diversifying outside of London (and even the south) for 40 years now, and the concentration of culture (outside of some historical venues and a handful of culture-related NGOs and quangoes) has been diluted year on year too. As for the economy, that's a historical quirk (i.e. the location of "the City") that can't be gotten around as long as companies believe that they require bricks-and-mortar places of work for their employees and/or the "prestige" of a physical City address.

Stop deriving your opinions from reading _The Economist_, or you'll continue to come across as a dolt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



That you're the sort of eejit whose first recourse is to insinuations of racism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?


that you're a cunt of the first water


----------



## mentalchik (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't think rent controls are a fantastic solution as they involve so much direct market distortion.
> 
> A better demand-side solution, that you appear to be reasonably keen on as well, is, as Bahnohoff Strasse recommends, to try and diversify things like government, and all the business and the demand that is associated with it away into other areas of the country.
> 
> The problem is that we have such a London-centric structure that the idea of selling moves Northwards or Westwards to most Londoners is unpalatable.




and do you not realise that there is a housing issue in places outside of that there London ? Buy to let has distorted the market and needs to be reigned in.............."politics of envy"................jesus


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you own it, you are invested in it.



Which is an entirely different thing, as your investment would be (as in maomao 's case) emotional, rather than financially-speculative. To pretend that the two things are either the same or even similar is a nadir, even for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Relocating government out of London to some northern place would be a good start.



TBF, a lot of the state's bureaucracy is already there, and I can't see them taking it well if we try to palm Parliament off on them too!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Can be.



Not once they're in my freezer!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

mentalchik said:


> and do you not realise that there is a housing issue in places outside of that there London ? Buy to let has distorted the market and needs to be reigned in.............."politics of envy"................jesus



Yup. My younger brother and his wife live in Kent, and with a joint income of £40,000 they can't afford to buy locally (and haven't been able to for 10 years), all because it became a B-t-L "hotspot" back then, due to Eurostar.


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?


0/10. Barrel truly scraped.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 28, 2015)

editor said:


> 0/10. Barrel truly scraped.



Bugger off.

You've made literally no effort on the original content front, as admitted in your OP, so you can get packing until you merit greater credibility.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> That's still supply-side to some degree, because it is still focussed on the idea that the problem is caused by a restriction in supply rather than out of control demand.  It helps, but it doesn't stop runaway demand gathering its own momentum.
> 
> Market controls are absolutely the norm across lots of industries.  We have OffWat, OffGen, the FCA, you name it.  The unfettered market is not a great mechanism for setting prices wherever there is a power imbalance and one side has the absolute need for a good.
> 
> Set rent controls and a new market price will establish.  One that has prices in the fact that you can't charge what you want when you want.  There is no reason that should cause harmful distortions whatsoever.  In fact, it will stop the distortion caused by bubble-like demand surge.



No, that is a demand-side solution - to pretend otherwise is to misunderstand the definition between supply and demand - something that I am highly surprised that you don't get Kabbes, which brings me to the conclusion that you are being disingenous.

OFGEM, OFWAT, OFCOM - these are all regulators that are trying to introduce competition to what was a previously state owned monopoly.  There is literally no read across to private property markets.  And why you think that the FCA has any relevance at all is a total mystery to me...

But finally, I don't think you understand how badly market distortions, like rent controls, tend to play out.

If you want a recent example, read about the Swiss Central Bank's recent decision to unpeg from the Euro (although I suspect you are probably aware of it in any event).


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Stamp duty increasing with number of properties is among the solutions I reckon would help, (free on first, 5% on second, 20% on third etc). Would stop the building of empires, plus if it only becomes economic to own say two or three properties the investment types would target more expensive properties to maximise money invested and free up the cheaper ones.  Revenues from stamp duty invested in social house building.
> 
> I don't want an influx of government business up here if it puts the price of property out of reach of even more people.  When they sent the DHSS offices up here in the 90s it caused some distortion to prices in the leafier bits.



Interesting idea on stamp duty there, I have to say.

It would have to be probably a bit more carefully calibrated to make sure it was optimally progressive but a really interesting idea nonetheless....


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

Just as a final point - investment in London property, as far as I understand it, is to realise capital returns way over and above income returns - _i.e. _the proposition is a secure value that will tend to rise as opposed to an income stream.

You may not like this on either basis but it is an important point to make because any criticism of the current system on the demand side must recognise it.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bugger off.
> 
> You've made literally no effort on the original content front, as admitted in your OP, so you can get packing until you merit greater credibility.


No, you can fuck right off with your dirty, deceitful and underhand attempt to drag some kind of racist undertone to this. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond is increasingly reminding me of Patrick Bateman


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, that is a demand-side solution - to pretend otherwise is to misunderstand the definition between supply and demand - something that I am highly surprised that you don't get Kabbes, which brings me to the conclusion that you are being disingenous.
> 
> OFGEM, OFWAT, OFCOM - these are all regulators that are trying to introduce competition to what was a previously state owned monopoly.  There is literally no read across to private property markets.  And why you think that the FCA has any relevance at all is a total mystery to me...
> 
> ...


You criticise a comparison to other market regulation and then try to say it would be like the fixing of a whole exchange rate?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Diamond is increasingly reminding me of Patrick Bateman



TBF, Bateman was good at his job, and didn't garner his understanding of the world from reading _The Economist_, whereas Diamond...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

I bet his business cards look fan fucking tastic though


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> No, you can fuck right off with your dirty, deceitful and underhand attempt to drag some kind of racist undertone to this. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.


 
Ok, we're going to have to do this the hard way then.

You linked to two articles about the same development that you find so deliciously outrageous.

The first article was an Evening Standard report that directly quotes *3 people* who were applying for the properties.  For ease of reference I set out those quotations below:

*Punter 1 - William Smith from Stratford, United Kingdom*



> First in line was William Smith, 29, from Stratford, who is hoping to buy a two-bedroom flat where he can start a family with his fiancée.
> Mr Smith, who works in law, said: “It’s such a good area, spacious but central enough that you can see the city, and what with demand around here you can only hope it goes up in value.
> “I am buying for the future. Hopefully by the time it’s ready I’ll be married and we’ll be thinking of starting a family.”


 
*Punter 2 - Jo Cullen from Folkestone, United Kingdom*



> Jo Cullen, 43, a fitness instructor from Folkestone in Kent, had been queuing in shifts with her brother and husband to buy a one-bedroom crashpad. She said: “My husband commutes into London so we want the flat in case he wants to stay over, or if we go the theatre we can stay and it’s not a long train journey back. By the time it’s built my eldest will be 16 or 17 so he might be able to use it if he comes up to London.
> “I keep getting nervous phone calls from them to see if I’ve got it. I think people have been queuing to try and get the best views across the park.”


 
*Punter 3 - K Chiu from Hong Kong, SAR of the People's Republic of China*



> K Chiu, 37, a restaurant owner from Hong Kong, said: “I’m buying this as an investment in London, a buy-to-let. It will be amazing after it’s completed and I think the area around it will have developed really nicely.
> “With Crossrail coming here and the number of students from nearby universities looking for accommodation, hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit.”


 
Article 2 was an Independent report on Article 1 that paraphrased Punter 3's words - who is the the foreign man from Hong Kong remember - of _"hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit_" as:



> "K Chiu, 37, a restaurant owner from Hong Kong, told the _Evening Standard_ that he hoped house prices and rents would *skyrocket* even further in London so he could make more money.”


 
It doesn't really matter whether you want to call it racism or xenophobia but it appears that Mr Chiu makes quite a convenient "bogeyman" for both you and the factually dodgy Independent hacks.

Personally, I just don't think you read the articles critically and that you made a simple mistake but there it is set out above.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You criticise a comparison to other market regulation and then try to say it would be like the fixing of a whole exchange rate?


 
No, what I'm saying is that sectoral regulators don't read across to the regulation of private property for very good reasons that revolve around their very specific and narrow remits.  Further currency manipulation demonstrates why crude, very direct attempts to manipulate prices are usually very bad ideas - they don't end well, as the Swiss are now finding out to their cost.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

Point of order, though: tenancy rights are not an attempt to manipulate prices, they are (or should be) part of the system of governance that guarantees social cohesion.  They are part of the infrastructure that allows the smooth functioning of everything else.  The fact that they impact prices is a side-effect.  

This means that any so-called "distortions" (which is a very one-sided way of looking at the world, since every decision, including inactivity, creates a distortion) can be welcomed with open arms as a sustainable and positive consequence of something you should do anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

Whilst I'm on the subject: pretty much every other country in Western Europe has extensive rent controls and tenancy rights.  Why is it us, then, that has the housing price crisis, if they are the ones with the problematic distortions?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Point of order, though: tenancy rights are not an attempt to manipulate prices, they are (or should be) part of the system of governance that guarantees social cohesion.  They are part of the infrastructure that allows the smooth functioning of everything else.  The fact that they impact prices is a side-effect.
> 
> This means that any so-called "distortions" (which is a very one-sided way of looking at the world, since every decision, including inactivity, creates a distortion) can be welcomed with open arms as a sustainable and positive consequence of something you should do anyway.



Of course they are an attempt to manipulate prices - that is literally _exactly _what they are.  That doesn't stop you making your argument about social cohesion though, it's just that you have to at the very least admit that the policy does involve the manipulation of prices...  You can of course argue that that leads to efficiency gains that justify the policy but you haven't bothered doing that and have instead tried to have your cake and eat it, which, rather like price manipulation, does not work.

And your final point about all economic activity being a "distortion", while arguably easier to defend, is risible.



kabbes said:


> Whilst I'm on the subject: pretty much every other country in Western Europe has extensive rent controls and tenancy rights.  Why is it us, then, that has the housing price crisis, if they are the ones with the problematic distortions?



When you say "pretty much ever other country in Western Europe", I guess you mean places like Germany where there is a notable lack of individual home ownership and a correspondingly notable high level of pension-fund landlords - it's a completely different culture that has developed under different market conditions.  Tangentially - one of the reasons for the Eurozone crisis is the assumption that all European countries have the potential and/or likelihood to go the same way under the same conditions, which is a basic fallacy.

But one of the real problems I have with all of this, and I touched on it _in extremis_, with Mr Chiu's example and, what I view as being his prejudicial treatment, is that who determines who is entitled to homes in London, even amongst common British citizens?

A lot of people have said stuff along the lines of - the local residents should be prioritised but does this mean at the expense of non-locals and then where do you draw the boundary - within the M25, within the South-East, do English people get priority over Scots for example?

What is the proposed test because it sounds awfully vague and a good deal like wishful thinking?

And for those who point to our enlightened European friends, replete with their fantastic rent controls and tenancy rights, did you know that Stockholm has an even more severe housing crisis than London?  If not, read on:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/t...rtage-threatens-to-stifle-start-ups.html?_r=0


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2015)

am i allowed to be critical of white british buy-to-let landlords or is that racist too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> am i allowed to be critical of white british buy-to-let landlords or is that racist too?


no


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> am i allowed to be critical of white british buy-to-let landlords or is that racist too?


you are a leftie, so in diamond world that means you are basically a member of the Black Hundreds


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2015)

i think i saw them live once.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

el-ahrairah said:


> am i allowed to be critical of white british buy-to-let landlords or is that racist too?



That's sort of the point - thanks for nailing it.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

What test?  Tenancy controls are things like the absolute right to remain as a sitting tenant, restrictions on rent raises, restrictions on rents and restrictions on a landlord's ability to turn a tenant away.  That should all happen for the social good.  But do all that and the rental stream becomes massively less profitable too as a side-show, which will make property less valuable as an investment.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's sort of the point - thanks for nailing it.



i wasn't making a point, but you know, easy come easy go.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> What test?  Tenancy controls are things like the absolute right to remain as a sitting tenant, restrictions on rent raises, restrictions on rents and restrictions on a landlord's ability to turn a tenant away.  That should all happen for the social good.  But do all that and the rental stream becomes massively less profitable too as a side-show, which will make property less valuable as an investment.



So pretty much like Stockholm then.


----------



## maomao (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/t...rtage-threatens-to-stifle-start-ups.html?_r=0





> “Rents going up will only force people to move out of their homes,” said Marie Linder, chairwoman of the Swedish Union of Tenants, which represents the rights of existing renters, many of whom live in low-cost government housing. “People will have to leave their apartments, but where will they go?”



Stockholm refuses to let gentrifiers push up prices. Good for them.


----------



## maomao (Jan 29, 2015)

All those fucking Swedes, insisting on affordable housing no matter how much money rich tech workers wave at them. Disgusting market distortion!


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> All those fucking Swedes, insisting on affordable housing no matter how much money rich tech workers wave at them. Disgusting market distortion!



So this is fine then:



> “I want to live close to where I work. I don’t want to commute very far,” said Lovisa Nilsson, who traveled from Uppsala, a city roughly an hour north of Stockholm, to her tech job in the Swedish capital for more than a year before finally securing a short-term contract for a small apartment here that she now shares with her boyfriend.
> 
> “I was lucky to find somewhere to live,” Ms. Nilsson said. “I wanted to move a lot earlier, but had almost given up.”



Lock the market into existing residents and let it fester.  Especially if those residents object to new developments, either on brownfield sites or on the equivalent of greenbelts.

Sounds like a fusty, zombified, stagnant approach that prioritises the old and their sentimental attachments at the expense of the young.  And I think that's categorically wrong and deeply unprogressive.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ok, we're going to have to do this the hard way then.
> 
> You linked to two articles about the same development that you find so deliciously outrageous.
> 
> ...



Punter one was planning to live in the flat full time. Punter two was planning to live in it part time. Punter three was buying it to let out with the hope that rents would rise. 

You don't have to be a racist to be more annoyed at punter three. 

As for the rest, you're just not as clever as you think you are and it's kind of embarrassing to watch, like you're in The Office or something.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 29, 2015)

I initially thought ViolentPanda 's _Economist _jibe was a little unfair, but it was bang on the money, wasn't it?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Punter one was planning to live in the flat full time. Punter two was planning to live in it part time. Punter three was buying it to let out with the hope that rents would rise.
> 
> You don't have to be a racist to be more annoyed at punter three.
> 
> As for the rest, you're just not as clever as you think you are and it's kind of embarrassing to watch, like you're in The Office or something.



I never said that the rationale for the false, selective quotation that was seized upon with such glee by the OP was directly racist - I rather pointed out that it was likely to be "other-ism" of some kind.  Do keep up.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Punter one was planning to live in the flat full time. Punter two was planning to live in it part time. Punter three was buying it to let out with the hope that rents would rise.
> 
> You don't have to be a racist to be more annoyed at punter three..


Indeed. It's actually quite embarrassing watching him attempt to construct such pitifully weak ad hominems.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

I want to re-iterate - who determines and on what basis, who can live in London and why?


----------



## The Boy (Jan 29, 2015)

I want to reiterate - your strawman isn't even very good.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Indeed. It's actually quite embarrassing watching him attempt to construct such pitifully weak ad hominems.



It's not an ad hominem - I've been fair to you.

I genuinely have no confidence in the idea that you share the convictions that lie behind the Independent journalist(s)' highly cynical populist misrepresentation, however I think it is very interesting that you were prepared to place faith in it without reading the underlying material critically.

Are you as prejudiced as the construction implies?  No, almost certainly not.

Does it say something about you that you were prepared to place faith in it without looking at the evidence?  Yes.

That is not an ad hominem attack.  It is merely pointing out your failure.  Is that clear?

(And everyone balls up from time to time but far fewer people are prepared to admit to that, generally for reasons of ego)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Indeed. It's actually quite embarrassing watching him attempt to construct such pitifully weak ad hominems.


its not even ad homs- hat implies a deliberate smear. He really is just this thick. I never realised till I saw him attempt to back up his 'The left are all jew haters' schtick, and then be actually so dumb as to come up with a dodgy occupy leader. I could do better than that and I didn't go to fancy lawyer school


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It's not an ad hominem - I've been fair to you.
> 
> I genuinely have no confidence in the idea that you share the convictions that lie behind the Independent journalist(s)' highly cynical populist misrepresentation, however I think it is very interesting that you were prepared to place faith in it without reading the underlying material critically.
> 
> ...


And I think you're a hypocritical blustering fool who is prepared to stoop as low as to manufacture a twisted accusation of racism based on nothing but pure thin air. As for 'failure', maybe you should perhaps take a long hard look at how your 'arguments' are being received here.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> And I think you're a hypocritical blustering fool who is prepared to stoop as low as to manufacture a twisted accusation of racism based on nothing but pure thin air. As for 'failure', maybe you should perhaps take a long hard look at how your 'arguments' are being received here.



Care to spell out the hypocrisy or are you going to lean on the ad hominems, as DC seems keen to venture forth with as well?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> And I think you're a hypocritical blustering fool who is prepared to stoop as low as to manufacture a twisted accusation of racism based on nothing but pure thin air. As for 'failure', maybe you should perhaps take a long hard look at how your 'arguments' are being received here.



And to put a marker down - *I made no accusation of racism*.

If you can show otherwise, please provide the evidence.


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Care to spell out the hypocrisy or are you going to lean on the ad hominems, as DC seems keen to venture forth with as well?


No thanks as I fear you're too far gone to accept the truth, even when it's patiently explained to you.

I've no interest in entertaining your rants any further, but just so I know what kind of person you are: are you going to apologise for your disgusting racism slur?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

insinuation. You certainly did. Same as the left are jew haters. Same as the victims of abuse by an organised clique in power are fantasists and liars. Scifisam had it right, your one of those who genuinely is ignorant of his own transparency


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

editor said:


> No thanks as I fear you're too far gone to accept the truth, even when it's patiently explained to you.
> 
> I've no interest in entertaining your rants any further, but just so I know what kind of person you are: are you going to apologise for your disgusting racism slur?



I didn't make a bloody accusation of racism for heaven's sake!

How often do I have to make that clear?

I asked why the one foreign guy got so severly misquoted and that is a valid question.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

And following on from the above that made me also cast doubt on why editor was so prepared to run with the original story, notably self-edited to make it even more of a pseudo-scandal... 

My suspicion is that this was because editor was largely being _lazy_, not racist, although maybe xenophobic, and certainly localist.

Editor saw something that chimed with his views, failed to check it and became utterly and lazily *outraged(!)*.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

> “I want to live close to where I work. I don’t want to commute very far,” said Lovisa Nilsson, who traveled from Uppsala, a city roughly an hour north of Stockholm, to her tech job in the Swedish capital for more than a year


Yes, I'll certainly be thinking of poor old hour-commuting Lovisa on my 90 minute commute tomorrow morning.


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is an entirely different thing, as your investment would be (as in maomao 's case) emotional, rather than financially-speculative. To pretend that the two things are either the same or even similar is a nadir, even for you.


I don't know London,but for Londoners to be forced from their homes and neighbourhoods so bastard speculators can get even richer burns me piss, 
But mebbes a lesson from the past can be applied to the present?

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/a/alan_price/jarrow_song.html
Need any help and yer marras from the North will be there like a shot.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I'll certainly be thinking of poor old hour-commuting Lovisa on my 90 minute commute tomorrow morning.



But if I remember correctly, you _choose_ to live that far away because you don't like living in the city and prefer living in a more rural environment.

Where do you commute from?  I seem to remember that it was somewhere near Brighton or South-East of London?

Not exactly like commuting from a London satellite town to get to London...


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I want to re-iterate - who determines and on what basis, who can live in London and why?


Londoners?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

coley said:


> Londoners?



So you ring-fence London for the current occupants then?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But if I remember correctly, you _choose_ to live that far away because you don't like living in the city and prefer living in a more rural environment.
> 
> Where do you commute from?  I seem to remember that it was somewhere near Brighton or South-East of London?
> 
> Not exactly like commuting from a London satellite town to get to London...


How do you know what her choices entail?  Or those of the hundreds of thousands of people that commute over an hour to get into London each day?


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you ring-fence London for the current occupants then?


No, I would suggest that affordable housing is provided for the indigenous population of the area before, and hopefully financed by the development, of those areas not needed by the aforesaid indigenous population.
In a nutshell the people who live and work in an area(any area) are given first priority over speculators.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How do you know what her choices entail?  Or those of the hundreds of thousands of people that commute over an hour to get into London each day?



Maybe because she is quoted as saying the following:



> “I wanted to move a lot earlier, but had almost given up.”



Care to comment about that or any other of the salient issues that I have brought up and that you have chosen to so carefully ignore?


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/23/housing-march-lack-affordable-homes-london

Apparently there is a 'March for Homes' protest this Saturday in South London


----------



## Diamond (Jan 29, 2015)

coley said:


> No, I would suggest that affordable housing is provided for the indigenous population of the area before, and hopefully financed by the development, of those areas not needed by the aforesaid indigenous population.
> In a nutshell the people who live and work in an area(any area) are given first priority over speculators.



OK, I've got a problem with indigenous population as a basic idea - quite simply I don't think it works and as a result I think that any policy based on it is not workable.

However, I do agree with the basic proposition of build, build, build.  Then if you have restrictions on right to supply, that can make sense latterly if properly managed - it's just that one needs to think carefully about how to roll it out.

What I find nauseating is the combination of (i) our area's changing beyond recognition!, (ii) new developments are sprouting up!, and finally (iii) this changes how I feel about where I live and that is really very important to me and you should be very concerned to too!.

If you want to live in a timewarp, fine, but don't try and force it on others.


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, I've got a problem with indigenous population as a basic idea - quite simply I don't think it works and as a result I think that any policy based on it is not workable.
> 
> However, I do agree with the basic proposition of build, build, build.  Then if you have restrictions on right to supply, that can make sense latterly if properly managed - it's just that one needs to think carefully about how to roll it out.
> 
> ...



Are you for real? Can agree with you on nimbyism but the focus of this thread is on local inhabitants being forced out of their neighbourhoods/localities by speculators wanting to cash in on the speculative property values of London.
People being turfed out of their homes so speculators can make massive profits, you think this is acceptable?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

coley said:


> Are you for real? Can agree with you on nimbyism but the focus of this thread is on local inhabitants being forced out of their neighbourhoods/localities by speculators wanting to cash in on the speculative property values of London.
> People being turfed out of their homes so speculators can make massive profits, you think this is acceptable?



No, it's not.  The OP is about an off-plan new-build, not evictions.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> My suspicion is that this was because editor was largely being _lazy_, not racist, although maybe xenophobic, and certainly localist.


And there you go again. Lazy, insulting, inaccurate drivel from a blazing, arrogant hypocrite.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> And there you go again. Lazy, insulting, inaccurate drivel from a blazing, arrogant hypocrite.



Going to ignore your more facile character assassination attempts - but why am I hypocrite?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet his business cards look fan fucking tastic though



High white laid high rag content card, embossed logo, hand-printed lettering.

All that to say "look at me, I'm a cunt".


----------



## coley (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, it's not.  The OP is about an off-plan new-build, not evictions.


Ok, I don't know London, but can you, or people familiar with the development, let me know if this development didn't disadvantage Londoners wanting to remain in their neighbourhoods?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> High white laid high rag content card, embossed logo, hand-printed lettering.
> 
> All that to say "look at me, I'm a cunt".



Ha!  You are quite good at what you do, I have to admit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

The Boy said:


> I initially thought ViolentPanda 's _Economist _jibe was a little unfair, but it was bang on the money, wasn't it?



I thought so. Reading Diamond's arguments on any subject is exactly like reading an _Economist_ article on the same subject - market-centric to a fault, lacking any engagement with social realities, and still praying at the shrine of a couple of dead Austrians whose economics were proven wanting over and again in the last quarter of the 20th century.


----------



## coley (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> And there you go again. Lazy, insulting, inaccurate drivel from a blazing, arrogant hypocrite.


Before you permabann him (and I can understand the temptation) let him/her explain why London should be handed over to speculators and the population be driven out?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 30, 2015)

Is localist even a thing???

And it's clearly not fair that people are priced out of their neighbourhoods because property speculators/buy-to-let landlords/greedy scumlords have pushed the housing prices up out of people's price ranges. 

It's not just London that's been affected by this, Edinburgh has similar issues too.


----------



## coley (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought so. Reading Diamond's arguments on any subject is exactly like reading an _Economist_ article on the same subject - market-centric to a fault, lacking any engagement with social realities, and still praying at the shrine of a couple of dead Austrians whose economics were proven wanting over and again in the last quarter of the 20th century.


Name names, why don't you


----------



## coley (Jan 30, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Is localist even a thing???
> 
> And it's clearly not fair that people are priced out of their neighbourhoods because property speculators/buy-to-let landlords/greedy scumlords have pushed the housing prices up out of people's price ranges.
> 
> It's not just London that's been affected by this, Edinburgh has similar issues too.


True, but let's be fair, it seems to be a bigger issue there, it's happening in most big cities but it's absolutely rank in London.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I want to re-iterate - who determines and on what basis, who can live in London and why?



Currently, the finance-biased entity known as "the market".
Who *should* determine it, is what matters, and unless "the market" realises the socio-economic necessity of affordable and social-rent housing, then "it" (and consequently those exploiting it) is going to make the same mistake that was made in Rome 1800 years ago, and in every city since - that a city necessarily requires decent housing for the manual workers and clerks and bog-cleaners as well as for the professional classes and the ruling class, and that attempting (whether directly or indirectly) to confine the plebs to ghettoes often goes horribly wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

coley said:


> Name names, why don't you



Von Mises and von Hayek. Worth a read if only to marvel at their wishful thinking and avoidance of social realities.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought so. Reading Diamond's arguments on any subject is exactly like reading an _Economist_ article on the same subject - market-centric to a fault, lacking any engagement with social realities, and still praying at the shrine of a couple of dead Austrians whose economics were proven wanting over and again in the last quarter of the 20th century.



Wonderful.  So I am simply from the Austrian school then?  Quite remarkable stuff from someone who appears to know very little about what he refers to.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Von Mises and von Hayek. Worth a read if only to marvel at their wishful thinking and avoidance of social realities.



If you are inquiring by the way, the most impressive economist that I have recently seen present is David S. Evans.

I'm not sure whether he falls within the "Austrian School" but perhaps you have an opinion on that which you would like to share?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And to put a marker down - *I made no accusation of racism*.
> 
> If you can show otherwise, please provide the evidence.



You made an insinuation - aka an implicit accusation.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

coley said:


> Before you permabann him (and I can understand the temptation) let him/her explain why London should be handed over to speculators and the population be driven out?



On what basis would a permaban work?  Because I'm inconvenient...?


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2015)

I don't think there's a problem with population movement. It's social cleansing I've got an issue with.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You made an insinuation - aka an implicit accusation.



No, it is others who read that how they wanted to.

My point was clear - one person was singled out from three, their words were exaggerated to make a divisive point and they happened to be foreign/other.

To understand the point more directly you can work step by step back through the previous sentence (starting at the end).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wonderful.  So I am simply from the Austrian school then?  Quite remarkable stuff from someone who appears to know very little about what he refers to.



You haven't bothered to read my post properly, have you? If you had, you'd have noted that I didn't either say or imply that you're "simply from the Austrian school".
Quite remarkable inaccuracy (at best) or misrepresentation (at worst) from someone who claims to be a lawyer.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2015)

Are you qualified now, then, Diamond?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You haven't bothered to read my post properly, have you? If you had, you'd have noted that I didn't either say or imply that you're "simply from the Austrian school".
> Quite remarkable inaccuracy (at best) or misrepresentation (at worst) from someone who claims to be a lawyer.



So what is your position then, if you mind pinning it down more precisely?

Because, forgive me if I got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought you were making a play at a neo-liberal caricature?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, it is others who read that how they wanted to.
> 
> My point was clear - one person was singled out from three, their words were exaggerated to make a divisive point and they happened to be foreign/other.
> 
> To understand the point more directly you can work step by step back through the previous sentence (starting at the end).



Weasel words.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

cesare said:


> Are you qualified now, then, Diamond?



Not really sure why this is relevant to this conversation or any conversation on these boards to be frank but, yes, I have been qualified for around 2.5 years now.

And you and why do you ask?


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not really sure why this is relevant to this conversation or any conversation on these boards to be frank but, yes, I have been qualified for around 2.5 years now.
> 
> And you and why do you ask?


People keep referring to you as a lawyer so I was interested in whether you actually were yet. I dont know if it's relevant or not, what's your practice?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

cesare said:


> People keep referring to you as a lawyer so I was interested in whether you actually were yet. I dont know if it's relevant or not, what's your practice?



I'm pretty sure that I've set this out before but my main practice area at work is competition, antitrust and trade regulation.

But I also do quite a lot of work in IP (mainly hard IP stuff around telecoms/standards and pharma) and am now getting increasingly involved in financial regulation but coming at it from a concurrent antitrust pov.

Pro bono wise my main stuff is, in contrast, employment (unfair dismissal etc) and housing.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm pretty sure that I've set this out before but my main practice area at work is competition, antitrust and trade regulation.
> 
> But I also do quite a lot of work in IP (mainly hard IP stuff around telecoms/standards and pharma) and am now getting increasingly involved in financial regulation but coming at it from a concurrent antitrust pov.
> 
> Pro bono wise my main stuff is, in contrast, employment (unfair dismissal etc) and housing.


Band?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On what basis would a permaban work?  Because I'm inconvenient...?


Not 'inconvenient. ' More deceitful and dishonest with your sloppy, groundless racist/xenophobe slurs.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

cesare said:


> Band?



C&P, you mean?


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> C&P, you mean?


Yes


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

cesare said:


> Yes



We're band 3 for antitrust last time I checked.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> Not 'inconvenient. ' More deceitful and dishonest with your sloppy, groundless racist/xenophobe slurs.



I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out.  You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.

If you want to permaban me as a result, that is entirely your choice.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out.  You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.
> 
> If you want to permaban me as a result, that is entirely your choice.



I don't want to see you banned. But why should people be at risk in their housing by wealthy 'property' speculators. How is that a good thing?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think the "slurs" such as you choose them to be were rather well made out.  You have notably failed to address the underlying issues.


There is no 'underlying issue'. The suggestion of racism was entirely in your twisted and apparently easily confused noggin, as has been explained to you by several posters.

However, I would advise caution if you intend to make a habit of peppering these boards with any further groundless and offensive slurs.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> There is no 'underlying issue'. The suggestion of racism was entirely in your twisted and apparently easily confused noggin, as has been explained to you by several posters.
> 
> However, I would advise caution if you intend to make a habit of peppering these boards with any further groundless and offensive slurs.



Bugger off.

You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.

If you want to ban me, go ahead and get it over and done with.

If not, shut up.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.


If you actually took the time to read the thread you'll see that several other posters have also made it abundantly clear that they saw through your cheap and deceitful racist slur. However, I can't help you if your arrogance or reading comprehension problems prevents you from actually acknowledging this fact.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

Humberto said:


> I don't want to see you banned. But why should people be at risk in their housing by wealthy 'property' speculators. How is that a good thing?



To clarify - I don't think this is a good thing.  Not at all.  However the solution, for me, is to build more accommodation to satisfy demand (supply-side), not to restrict further access to housing in specific areas (demand-side).


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> If you actually took the time to read the thread you'll see that several other posters have also made it abundantly clear that they saw through your cheap and deceitful your racist slur. However, I can't help you if your arrogance or reading comprehension problems prevents you from actually acknowledging this fact.



So you're not going to make an argument and say "look over there", "others make the running for me..."

Pathetic.

Address the issues I have raised directly or retreat from your position.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> To clarify - I don't think this is a good thing.  Not at all.  However the solution, for me, is to build more accommodation to satisfy demand (supply-side), not to restrict further access to housing in specific areas (demand-side).



Build more accomodation where? In London?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you're not going to make an argument and say "look over there", "others make the running for me..."


I see no point in repeating what others have already told you, so sssssscch now.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Build more accomodation where? In London?



Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).


What if those people in public sector jobs don't want to be removed from their friends and families and shunted off to some far flung new work place?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> What if those people in public sector jobs don't want to be removed from their friends and families and shunted off to some far flung new work place?



Then I'm sure that there will be others in the intended destinations more than happy to fill them.

Having a job in a specific place is not a kind of birthright.

Moreover what is so terrible about moving out of London?

(And maybe that last point gets to the heart of the problem about how Londoners find the prospect of leaving as a fate worse than death when nothing can be farther from the case...)


----------



## Humberto (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Both within London and on the green belt around it coupled with a demand-side programme to try and decentralise the country's obsession with living in London (shift public sector jobs elsewhere would be a start at the very least).



Nah I appreciate where your coming from but the government will never build on the green belt. Public sector jobs have been spread around the UK but are now being minimised.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Nah I appreciate where your coming from but the government will never build on the green belt. Public sector jobs have been spread around the UK but are now being minimised.



Building on the Green Belt is a quick fix, admittedly, but I don't see why you can't have wider programmes that try and tug up areas that have had a rough time for decades, like Cornwall, by virtue of the fact that a lot of work can be geographically isolated now.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 30, 2015)

Practically whole regions of the UK have struggled for jobs for decades. As have more relevantly, millions of Londoners. You are right, its easily possible, but the government are not going to countenence it.

Anyway building on green belt is not going to happen, and devolving public services has already happened and is being reversed.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Then I'm sure that there will be others in the intended destinations more than happy to fill them.
> 
> Having a job in a specific place is not a kind of birthright.
> 
> Moreover what is so terrible about moving out of London?


It's called being part of a community and belonging to a real-life social network. It may mean little to you, but to some people, their family and their friends form an important part of their lives, and asking them to leave it all behind may have a dramatically negative impact on them.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Building on the Green Belt is a quick fix, admittedly, but I don't see why you can't have wider programmes that try and tug up areas that have had a rough time for decades, like Cornwall, by virtue of the fact that a lot of work can be geographically isolated now.


Who's going to pay for the billions needed to being their transport infrastructure up to scratch? And who's going to pay for all the relocation costs of all these people you want to uproot>?


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bugger off.
> 
> You have not made out the "racism slur" point, nor have you even remotely attempted to - that is clear for all to see.
> 
> ...


Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:


Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?





Diamond said:


> It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Maybe because she is quoted as saying the following:



So? Now you're the one who wants to take one single translated attributed quote with no context and use that to devine an entire attitude.  And there are many thousands of people who commute for over an hour into London who would like to live closer but can't, so why does this help your point in any way?



> Care to comment about that or any other of the salient issues that I have brought up and that you have chosen to so carefully ignore?


Ah, but you haven't made any salient issues.  At all.  You've just insisted that the free market is king and any interference is disastrous.  Everything you've said has been a microcosm of this fundamentalist belief. But that's a long-since discredited credo.  I'm waiting for a robust defence of your unfettered free-marketism, but you've given us nothing but restatements of the same axioms, relying on isolated anecdotal, Ill-considered and irrelevant examples to make your case for you.

That's fine, but I'm not rehashing the last 20 years of economics for your benefit.  If you want to cling on to free-market fundamentalism, go for it.  Everybody else will continue to roll their eyes, though, and you should at least try to understand why.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:


 
No, it's not.  I think we've exhausted this now but to be clear, the point I was making is that someone from "outside" was coming "in" and therefore was the target of the newspaper and the editor's ire.  Pretty straightforward...


----------



## ddraig (Jan 30, 2015)

look, nearly everyone but you can see it was an insinuation/out of order claim
wind it in and apologise or fuck off, your wriggling is not working and your intellect not what you think it is


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Build more accomodation where? In London?



Wherever it is needed. It's not like every town and city in the land doesn't have plenty of brown-field sites that can be developed, despite developers whinging about doing so.
The crux is that accommodation is built to accommodate, not to used primarily as a mechanism for wealth accumulation.


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, it's not.  I think we've exhausted this now but to be clear, the point I was making is that someone from "outside" was coming "in" and therefore was the target of the newspaper and the editor's ire.  Pretty straightforward...


I quoted directly and said which page it was on so that readers could judge for themselves. I've stated my opinion. It was a smear.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> So? Now you're the one who wants to take one single translated attributed quote with no context and use that to devine an entire attitude.  And there are many thousands of people who commute for over an hour into London who would like to live closer but can't, so why does this help your point in any way?
> 
> 
> Ah, but you haven't made any salient issues.  At all.  You've just insisted that the free market is king and any interference is disastrous.  Everything you've said has been a microcosm of this fundamentalist belief. But that's a long-since discredited credo.  I'm waiting for a robust defence of your unfettered free-marketism, but you've given us nothing but restatements of the same axioms, relying on isolated anecdotal, Ill-considered and irrelevant examples to make your case for you.
> ...


 
You have not dealt with even half the points that I have put to you, mainly through the use of selective quotation.

If I was minded to do so, I'd level that you are a hypocrite of the highest order.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:



He's never going to cop to it, though. His self-image won't let him.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

I'd also be interested to know what Kabbes felt about the prospect of more homes being built for badly needed supply in his patch of this green and pleasant land.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> I quoted directly and said which page it was on so that readers could judge for themselves. I've stated my opinion. It was a smear.


 
It's not an accusation of racism - the key angles are "foreign" and "British".  If you think that's racist, then you probably need to get up to speed on what those terms mean in the modern world.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 30, 2015)

Christ, it's like listening to those dull cunts who give it the whole "islam isn't a race, lolz" bollocks.   You accused others of bigotry, you were called on it and are now trying to wriggle out of said accusation.  It's rather sad, tbh


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Christ, it's like listening to those dull cunts who give it the whole "islam isn't a race, lolz" bollocks.   You accused others of bigotry, you were called on it and are now trying to wriggle out of said accusation.  It's rather sad, tbh


 
Yes, I called others on bigotry and I stand by that.

I think the singling out of the _one _foreign buyer and the misrepresentation of his words is bigotry, admittedly probably by error on the editor's part through relying on a cynical journalist.

But, yes, that is bigotry.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Pretty straightforward insinuations of racism on page 5 of this thread:


Indeed it does, but he seems strangely unable to comprehend the meaning behind his own words.


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It's not an accusation of racism - the key angles are "foreign" and "British".  If you think that's racist, then you probably need to get up to speed on what those terms mean in the modern world.


You stated clearly that his motivation for picking on the interviewee who clearly identified as a landlord rather than the two who were going to live in the flats, on a thread about landlords, was motivated by said landlord's foreignness. You implied prejudice to smear his position. I don't know who you think you're talking to because you're persuading no-one except yourself. You should apologise.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

ddraig said:


> look, nearly everyone but you can see it was an insinuation/out of order claim
> wind it in and apologise or fuck off, your wriggling is not working and your intellect not what you think it is


Repeated in the hope the penny will drop for The Diamond In Denial.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> I don't know who you think you're talking to because you're persuading no-one except yourself. You should apologise.


Indeed he should. It was a deeply insulting insinuation and one that remains absolutely groundless. It's to his shame that he's too puffed up and stubborn to admit to his mistake.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

Christ.  It's like an echo-chamber on urban sometimes these days.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But, yes, that is bigotry.



No it isn't.  You want it to be, because you have nothing else beyond your mis-rembered snippets from _The Economist, _but it really, really isn't.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 30, 2015)

The nice thing about rent controls is that there is enough data on Zoopla and elsewhere now to establish a workable set of fair rental values per property size and postcode, meaning that you wouldn't need that many rent officers or an overly complex rent tribunal system. It's all quite doable. Capita would probably bid for it and annoy both landlords and tenants.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Christ.  It's like an echo-chamber on urban sometimes these days.


Perhaps you should finally listen and absorb what's been said because it's being repeated for your benefit.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> Perhaps you should finally listen and absorb what's been said because it's being repeated for your benefit.


 
Ha!

I rather think it's being repeated for your benefit instead...


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ha!
> 
> I rather think it's being repeated for your benefit instead...



So you honestly think that if Mr Chiu was the one seeking a pied à terre for his jaunts to Europe and the 'middle aged couple queueing in shifts' were after their first BTL property editor would have still picked on the Chinese fella?


----------



## ffsear (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> - property in London atm is a very sensible investment. The problems are structural rather than individual -



I think family housing is the best investment now.  3 beds + garden.  Or basically Space.	I can't see the 1 bedroom flat market growing much further. Its already insane


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> So you honestly think that if Mr Chiu was the one seeking a pied à terre for his jaunts to Europe and the 'middle aged couple queueing in shifts' were after their first BTL property editor would have still picked on the Chinese fella?


 
I've made my position clear - he quoted from the one article the most incendiary part of the piece, probably because it chimed with his views.

The simple fact that that was a misrepresentation by the journalist of the one person likely to cause most offence (the foreign chap buying up property in London) meant that he smuggled in the exclusionary views that the article's logic relies upon.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 30, 2015)

'smuggled in' 
god your a joke


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've made my position clear - he quoted from the one article the most incendiary part of the piece, probably because it chimed with his views.
> 
> The simple fact that that was a misrepresentation by the journalist of the one person likely to cause most offence (the foreign chap buying up property in London) meant that he smuggled in the exclusionary views that the article's logic relies upon.


So you're not going to answer the question?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've made my position clear - he quoted from the one article the most incendiary part of the piece, probably because it chimed with his views.


What views are they then?


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> What views are they then?


Your racist ones. You're probably planning to vote UKIP to stop Chinese people buying up properties.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

For reference - and to remind folks of just how unhinged Diamond's racism slurs are -here's the full quote I posted in the OP.


> Dozens of Londoners queued overnight in sub-zero temperatures last night to buy a one bedroom flat in East London for £400,000.
> 
> The house-hunters wanted to buy homes at the Chobham Manor development near Stratford’s Olympic Park, the _Evening Standard_ newspaper reports.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

ffsear said:


> I think family housing is the best investment now.  3 beds + garden.  Or basically Space.	I can't see the 1 bedroom flat market growing much further. Its already insane


People have been saying that for 20 years.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> What views are they then?


 
I'm not sure because you haven't made them clear.

Perhaps we can start with this question - what do you think about foreigners buying property in London?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm not sure because you haven't made them clear.
> 
> Perhaps we can start with this question - what do you think about foreigners buying property in London?


"We" aren't playing this ludicrous game until you apologise for your racism slurs.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> "We" aren't playing this ludicrous game until you apologise for your racism slurs.


 
OK. So we're at loggerheads - I didn't make any racism slurs and you're not prepared to answer a perfectly reasonable question.


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm not sure because you haven't made them clear.
> 
> Perhaps we can start with this question - what do you think about foreigners buying property in London?


Personally, nothing at all if they're going to live here and be part of their local community in any way at all.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK. So we're at loggerheads - I didn't make any racism slurs and you're not prepared to answer a perfectly reasonable question.


Why do you think so many people did and keep telling you so?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Personally, nothing at all if they're going to live here and be part of their local community in any way at all.


Agreed. I value the contribution made by people of all backgrounds.


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

editor said:


> Why do you think so many people did and keep telling you so?


Personally, I was worried about my standing in the monothought clique.


----------



## ffsear (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> People have been saying that for 20 years.




Well its wrong to dismiss it.   So many family homes ended up being split into in several flats.   Now theres a shortage


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> People have been saying that for 20 years.



And why have they been wrong? Genuine question.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You have not dealt with even half the points that I have put to you, mainly through the use of selective quotation.


If you mean that I haven't micro-quoted, opening up an epileptic tree of conversation then yes, guilty as charged.  I'm happy, however, that I have responded to the substantive points at issue.  It's not like you've created a whole line of argument that has gone ignored.  You effectively only have one drum you are banging -- that of free market fundamentalism -- and responding to that doesn't require any great depth, frankly



> If I was minded to do so, I'd level that you are a hypocrite of the highest order.


good thing you aren't minded to then, eh?  Because you would never make baseless accusations and then deny you'd ever made them.



Diamond said:


> I'd also be interested to know what Kabbes felt about the prospect of more homes being built for badly needed supply in his patch of this green and pleasant land.


Would you really be interested?  What do you think I feel about it?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Christ.  It's like an echo-chamber on urban sometimes these days.


You mean that there is a host of people from different backgrounds and different opinions that are nevertheless united in telling you that you are talking bollocks?  Yes, funny that.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If you mean that I haven't micro-quoted, opening up an epileptic tree of conversation then yes, guilty as charged.  I'm happy, however, that I have responded to the substantive points at issue.  It's not like you've created a whole line of argument that has gone ignored.  You effectively only have one drum you are managing -- that of free market fundamentalism -- and responding to that doesn't require any great depth, frankly
> 
> good thing you aren't minded to then, eh?  Because you would never make baseless accusations and then deny you'd ever made them.
> 
> ...


 
"Epileptic tree of conversation"  

Do my arguments somehow promote seizures in you?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "Epileptic tree of conversation"
> 
> Do my arguments somehow promote seizures in you?


Epileptic tree

If you are going to mock language, at least try to understand its meaning first.


----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2015)

Induces diarrhea, more like.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Epileptic tree
> 
> If you are going to mock language, at least try to understand its meaning first.


 
As someone who suffers from epilepsy, that's a fairly offensive phrase.

But go ahead, do carry on...


----------



## The Boy (Jan 30, 2015)

kabbes is racist against epileptics


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> As someone who suffers from epilepsy, that's a fairly offensive phrase.
> 
> But go ahead, do carry on...


Odd you don't have a problem using it in a pejorative sense yourself then:


Diamond said:


> Fair play, they were better than us in the second half. But are you honestly denying that Arsenal haven't played divine football for the vast majority of this season?
> 
> But then again why should I take note of your comments anyway, you're arguing from that modern perennial position of inferiority: the Liverpool fan.
> 
> You've still got Emily I suppose and that young French lad with the epileptic hairdresser.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...nother-arsenal-thread.4407/page-2#post-229591

Is that like black people being allowed to use the n-word or are you just a fucking liar?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> As someone who suffers from epilepsy, that's a fairly offensive phrase.
> 
> But go ahead, do carry on...


Nice swerve away from your failed attempt to mock me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2015)

i know which my money's on


----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Odd you don't have a problem using it in a pejorative sense yourself then:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...nother-arsenal-thread.4407/page-2#post-229591
> 
> Is that like black people being allowed to use the n-word or are you just a fucking liar?


 
That's from over a decade ago.  Long before I developed the condition.  Do you want some bloody proof of life photograph of my anti-epilepsy medication that I have to take every day?


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's from over a decade ago.  Long before I developed the condition.  Do you want some bloody proof of life photograph of my anti-epilepsy medication that I have to take every day?


Yes.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Of course, there is nothing offensive about the term "epileptic tree" anyway, as it is using the word "epileptic" purely as a descriptor.  The trees referred to quite literally have epilepsy.  It's no more pejorative than "blackboard".

But, again, nice attempt to deflect away from your own backfiring ignorance.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Odd you don't have a problem using it in a pejorative sense yourself then:


Wham bam total pwnage!


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's from over a decade ago.  Long before I developed the condition.  Do you want some bloody proof of life photograph of my anti-epilepsy medication that I have to take every day?


Ah so it was OK to use the word in that manner but only _before_ you developed the condition yourself. Nice.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2015)

Any London posters going on the March for Homes this Saturday?, a worthwhile event


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Any London posters going on the March for Homes this Saturday?, a worthwhile event


I'm hoping to make it and then hotfoot it over to Dulwich Hamlet for the foodbank day.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2015)




----------



## Diamond (Jan 30, 2015)

[Bloody hell, that was a struggle]

It's Keppra/levetiracetam btw Kabbes.  I'm sure that you can read about all its wonderful effects at your leisure.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 30, 2015)

Why me?  It wasn't me doubting anything.  Or is that just another insinuation you are not minded to make?


----------



## maomao (Jan 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> [Bloody hell, that was a struggle]
> 
> It's Keppra/levetiracetam btw Kabbes.  I'm sure that you can read about all its wonderful effects at your leisure.



I apologise for calling you a liar but a) still retrospectively hypocritical (it was ok before you got it) b) not particularly offensive if you actually understood what the phrase meant (unlike your use) and c) you're still an ignorant prick.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 30, 2015)

maomao said:


> Personally, nothing at all if they're going to live here and be part of their local community in any way at all.



Yes. It really doesn't matter to be in the tiniest bit where someone's from when they buy a home. What matters is that they're buying a home, not just an investment opportunity. And regardless of the possibly misattributed quote, Buyer #3 did say he was looking forward to increasing rents and house prices. He was not buying a home; he was buying an investment.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Yes. It really doesn't matter to be in the tiniest bit where someone's from when they buy a home. What matters is that they're buying a home, not just an investment opportunity. And regardless of the possibly misattributed quote, Buyer #3 did say he was looking forward to increasing rents and house prices. He was not buying a home; he was buying an investment.


Exactly.


----------



## campanula (Jan 30, 2015)

At the most elemental level, I have to wonder at the failure of empathy here - that dislocation of a home as shelter, a basic human need as opposed to a financial instrument...and although I know nothing about the complicated economics of market distortions, I do know, most immediately, the horrible fear and insecurity of being homeless, for myself, my family....and on that most basic level, there feels something really quite abhorrent that property is empty while people are living on the streets (regardless of anyone's fucking race, nationality or origin). We need a 'market distortion, most essentially, at the level of my life (and everyone else I know).


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> I apologise for calling you a liar but a) still retrospectively hypocritical (it was ok before you got it) b) not particularly offensive if you actually understood what the phrase meant (unlike your use) and c) you're still an ignorant prick.



You're too kind and I thoroughly forgive you and, latterly, kabbes, for (i) using my condition as a point of argument and (ii) using my condition as a point of humour.

Admittedly, you weren't properly to know at the time, given your prior ignorance/lack of proof, but you do know now and make characteristically measured responses.

Real stand-up guys.

Neurological health deserves this kind of scrutiny, I'm sure.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> (i) using my condition as a point of argument


He accused you of using it to obscure the argument which is quite different. The reference was not offensive, unless you consider the word 'epileptic' offensive in itself. Massive irony here of course is your refusal to recognise your own smears of racism which _were_ offensive.



Diamond said:


> (ii) using my condition as a point of humour.


Where's it been used as a point of humour? Quote the humour.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 31, 2015)

Here's just one of many stories of those displaced by this kind of crap, if you need to humanise the situation:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ase-says-homeless-single-mother-10014053.html

I mean, if even the fucking Standard which has a strong tradition of cock-gobbling developers and talking up the 'vibrancy' of depressed areas for their benefit is telling these stories then you know something is very majorly wrong. It'll break, it has to break.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Of course, there is nothing offensive about the term "epileptic tree" anyway, as it is using the word "epileptic" purely as a descriptor.  The trees referred to quite literally have epilepsy.  It's no more pejorative than "blackboard".
> 
> But, again, nice attempt to deflect away from your own backfiring ignorance.



Can I just flag up this bullshit for a moment having proven that I suffer from epilepsy (which I am mightily surprised was demanded of me but was happy to discharge).

Your term "an epileptic tree of conversation", as far as I understand it, is a metaphor that associates epileptic seizures with thinking that is incoherent and irrational, perhaps even inherently instable.

For some reason, you think that is acceptable because you've manipulated a phrase that was first coined by a well recognised tv show and has apparently fallen into common parlance among a limited (and I use that adjective in every possible sense of the term) subset of society. 

That is not a sound argument for associating limited cognitive ability with epilepsy.

I wasn't massively offended or really even that offended because I could immediately recognise the pompous idiocy at play.

Other people, with more severe degrees of epilepsy than me might well get mightily offended though so I advise you to generally avoid such language.

e2a - as I do now, I should add, having changed my opinion on the matter in the intervening period between 2004 (when maomao quoted me on using the term) and now, having developed the condition.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 31, 2015)

Is there a thread about the march today or is this it, some stuff about epilepsy?


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 31, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Here's just one of many stories of those displaced by this kind of crap, if you need to humanise the situation:
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ase-says-homeless-single-mother-10014053.html
> 
> I mean, if even the fucking Standard which has a strong tradition of cock-gobbling developers and talking up the 'vibrancy' of depressed areas for their benefit is telling these stories then you know something is very majorly wrong. It'll break, it has to break.



Nothing wrong with sleeping in a suitcase. Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can I just flag up this bullshit for a moment having proven that I suffer from epilepsy (which I am mightily surprised was demanded of me but was happy to discharge).
> 
> Your term "an epileptic tree of conversation", as far as I understand it, is a metaphor that associates epileptic seizures with thinking that is incoherent and irrational, perhaps even inherently instable.
> 
> ...


just to get this straight, you think that people with a more severe condition might get offended but people with the same as you or less might not. there straightaway is an example of the incoherent sort of thinking kabbes was talking about. i don't myself give much of a fuck one way or another but you might as well acknowledge when your thinking's all over the fucking shop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Nothing wrong with sleeping in a suitcase. Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes.


and now and again you'll find a spy locking themselves into a bag to be sure of a good night's sleep


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your term "an epileptic tree of conversation", as far as I understand it, is a metaphor that associates epileptic seizures with thinking that is incoherent and irrational, perhaps even inherently instable.


Well it doesn't mean that at all as you would know if you had read _and understood_ the link Kabbes provided to explain the phrase which was almost a day ago. So you've just spent ten minutes writing a post to make yourself look like an ignorant wanker when you could have saved yourself the trouble and looked it up in 30 seconds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Well it doesn't mean that at all as you would know if you had read _and understood_ the link Kabbes provided to explain the phrase which was almost a day ago. So you've just spent ten minutes writing a post to make yourself look like an ignorant wanker when you could have saved yourself the trouble and looked it up in 30 seconds.


to be fair, Diamond's always come across as an ignorant, muddle-headed wanker so it's not as though the post's out of character.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> to be fair, Diamond's always come across as an ignorant, muddle-headed wanker so it's not as though the post's out of character.


I just like the feeling of banging my head against a brick wall. Keeps me awake at work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2015)

diamond is desperately trying to claim some dignity out of a performance where he's lost the arguments and insinuated that everyone else is a racist


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> diamond is desperately trying to claim some dignity out of a performance where he's lost the arguments and insinuated that everyone else is a racist


Diamond will, as ever, fail miserably.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

epileptist


----------



## kabbes (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can I just flag up this bullshit for a moment having proven that I suffer from epilepsy (which I am mightily surprised was demanded of me but was happy to discharge).
> 
> Your term "an epileptic tree of conversation", as far as I understand it, is a metaphor that associates epileptic seizures with thinking that is incoherent and irrational, perhaps even inherently instable.
> 
> ...


Oh dear.  You didn't understand the link at all, did you?

In short: no, that's not what it means. Read and absorb the information therein.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 31, 2015)

having read the link provided by kabbes I can categorically state that the word epileptic is not being linked to being crazy.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

The gang's all here I see.

Didn't someone mention something about _ad hominem_ reasoning a few posts back...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> You stated clearly that his motivation for picking on the interviewee who clearly identified as a landlord rather than the two who were going to live in the flats, on a thread about landlords, was motivated by said landlord's foreignness. You implied prejudice to smear his position. I don't know who you think you're talking to because you're persuading no-one except yourself. You should apologise.



He's a lawyer. He's obliged to believe the guff he proffers, or at least project a sense of belief.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The gang's all here I see.
> 
> Didn't someone mention something about _ad hominem_ reasoning a few posts back...?


my point was you have not been reasoning. and not only do i see no reason to adjust my opinion, your every post justifies it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ha!
> 
> I rather think it's being repeated for your benefit instead...



Is diddums the victim of a monothought clique, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is diddums the victim of a monothought clique, then?


i don't think Diamond's yet managed a monothought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2015)

campanula said:


> At the most elemental level, I have to wonder at the failure of empathy here - that dislocation of a home as shelter, a basic human need as opposed to a financial instrument...and although I know nothing about the complicated economics of market distortions, I do know, most immediately, the horrible fear and insecurity of being homeless, for myself, my family....and on that most basic level, there feels something really quite abhorrent that property is empty while people are living on the streets (regardless of anyone's fucking race, nationality or origin). We need a 'market distortion, most essentially, at the level of my life (and everyone else I know).



Yes, and that "market distortion" needs to be social housing with social rents and properly-integrated services, because otherwise we're still on the road to a neo-Victorian scene of "the underclass" (which, thanks to political rhetoric and supine academia, is now taken to include "the working poor" who claim benefits, as well as sponging disabled scum such as myself) living in squalid rookeries, while the _bourgeoisie_ and the ruling class continue to accumulate wealth through exploiting us through our most basic human needs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Nothing wrong with sleeping in a suitcase. Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes.



Cardboard boxes? I'd have given my eye-teeth to have had a cardboard box as a cradle! All I got was shoved in a brown paper carrier bag!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cardboard boxes? I'd have given my eye-teeth to have had a cardboard box as a cradle! All I got was shoved in a brown paper carrier bag!


not even a handbag


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> not even a handbag



*A HANDDDDDBAGGGGG???????????*


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The gang's all here I see.
> 
> Didn't someone mention something about _ad hominem_ reasoning a few posts back...?


The gang? First time I've been accused of that.

It doesn't mean everybody's ganging up on you if you're talking shite and you're being called on it. Which you are.

Epileptic trees = an off-the-wall, unbelieveable theory (as in 'why are those tree periodically shaking like that?' 'Because they have epilepsy', from a LOST storyline).

The tree weren't crazy. But the survivors of the plan crash were on an island where the unexplainable happened frequently, therefore, trees having epilepsy wasn't an impossible occurence. It didn't mean they were being derogatory to anyone with epilepsy.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> just to get this straight, you think that people with a more severe condition might get offended but people with the same as you or less might not. there straightaway is an example of the incoherent sort of thinking kabbes was talking about. i don't myself give much of a fuck one way or another but you might as well acknowledge when your thinking's all over the fucking shop.



Let me explain the following to you:

I have had one seizure, which was tonic-clonic in nature and occured in June of last year.  That is my only witnessed seizure to date.  It caused me to dislocate both shoulders, fracture my shoulder capsules and cause shearing fractures to the top of both of my arms.  That damage required four operations to rectify, after which I had to spend over two months with both shoulders immobilised 24 hours per day.  After that followed another two months of rehabilitation before I could return to work.  My case is unusual in that under most diagnostic criteria I don't meet the definition of epilepsy (_i.e. _two separate witnessed seizures at materially different points in time), however, given the seriousness of my injuries as a result of my seizure, they are, probably quite righly, taking the safe option in treating it as epilepsy.

As a result, my experience of a seizure is mostly to do with recovery from physical injury - I have no experience of regular seizures at all, however I do know what it is to live with the side-effects of anti-convulsant drugs, which are unpleasant.

Other people are far less fortunate.  Some will have multiple seizures per week or per day (although very rarely do they directly lead to the physical damage that occured to me).  Often, at the extreme end, they will be on more than one anti-convulsant, and perhaps other drugs such as anti-depressants as well (epilepsy has a very high co-morbidity with depression).  These will cause a host of nasty side-effects and, more worryingly, probably because of neuro-plasticity, the clinical effects of the anti-convulsants are often "solved" by whatever causes the seizures, rendering the drugs useless.

At the far end of the spectrum are people constantly trying different cocktails of drugs to try and stop their seizures, people who can never drive, for whom cycling and other such sports offer a high risk and whose general quality of life is severely impaired.

So to finish - I have mild epilepsy (if it even indeed is defined as that) but it lead to very severe consequences on one occasion which ruined pretty much the whole of the second half of last year for me, which provoked my reaction to kabbes' obscure, crude and thoughtless metaphor, however there are others for whom such a reference might well hit home more directly to their everyday existence and coping mechanisms and I would speculate that they would not be too pleased to read those words.

[anyways...this is all massively off topic...]


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Let me explain the following to you:
> 
> I have had one seizure, which was tonic-clonic in nature and occured in June of last year.  That is my only witnessed seizure to date.  It caused me to dislocate both shoulders, fracture my shoulder capsules and cause shearing fractures to the top of both of my arms.  That damage required four operations to rectify, after which I had to spend over two months with both shoulders immobilised 24 hours per day.  After that followed another two months of rehabilitation before I could return to work.  My case is unusual in that under most diagnostic criteria I don't meet the definition of epilepsy (_i.e. _two separate witnessed seizures at materially different points in time), however, given the seriousness of my injuries as a result of my seizure, they are, probably quite righly, taking the safe option in treating it as epilepsy.
> 
> ...


i don't care whether you have epilepsy, whether it's serious or not, that's not my point. my point is that you said people who had a more serious case than you could find what was said insulting with no thought about what other people with less serious cases might think. it's your muddled thinking which aroused my ire, not your health issues.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> there are others for whom such a reference might well hit home more directly to their everyday existence and coping mechanisms and I would speculate that they would not be too pleased to read those words.


Hopefully they'd mastered basic reading comprehension so wouldn't be a prob.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Hopefully they'd mastered basic reading comprehension so wouldn't be a prob.



WTF?  Seriously...?

I think I know what you mean but are you so dumb as to imply what you don't?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't care whether you have epilepsy, whether it's serious or not, that's not my point. my point is that you said people who had a more serious case than you could find what was said insulting with no thought about what other people with less serious cases might think. it's your muddled thinking which aroused my ire, not your health issues.



I have a less serious case.  I am a member of that population.  I set out what I thought.

You seem to have basic issues with reasoning here Pickman's.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> WTF?  Seriously...?
> 
> I think I know what you mean but are you so dumb as to imply what you don't?



You've just written 2 or 300 words on epilepsy, which I for one can't be arsed to read the whole of and haven't managed to address in what way 'epileptic tree' might be offensive to someone with epilepsy. You've got your head up your arse.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Maybe I should report your post as it uses the word epilepsy several times and that's obviously offensive to you.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> Maybe I should report your post as it uses the word epilepsy several times and that's obviously offensive to you.


----------



## maomao (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


>


Well seeing as the phrase 'epileptic tree' doesn't use the word 'epileptic' in a way that is at all pejorative I'm struggling to see what the difference is from your perspective.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't care whether you have epilepsy, whether it's serious or not, that's not my point. my point is that you said people who had a more serious case than you could find what was said insulting with no thought about what other people with less serious cases might think. it's your muddled thinking which aroused my ire, not your health issues.



Just thinking about this - maybe the problem is that you like to define groups with having bright line boundaries and thoroughly integrated interests and responses.

Maybe that's why when I suggest that someone with a _lesser _degree of a condition (or characteristic) might find a comment relating to that condition (or characteristic) _less _offensive than a person possessing a _higher _degree of that condition (or characteristic) finding the same comment _more _offensive, you run in to difficulties.

It's a fine point but you'll probably get it, if you bother to give it any thought.


----------



## campanula (Jan 31, 2015)

I think, Diamond, you lost me when you defended people's 'right' to make money regardless of the less easily quantified costs to us all. This is entirely your choice but you cannot be offended when others have different priorities. My view is predicated on a personal anxiety but still has repercussions for the wider society.And, going along with your own tribulations, you are perfectly able to see how the personal is the political - talking in an abstract manner about investments and market fundamentals does not lessen the impact on us as individuals. Even I can understand how property bubbles have distorted the economy for the past 2 decades but getting irate about perceived racism is a weaselly response - you should be able to defend your views without being sneery about other posters who disagree with your position. I am not convinced that a simple building programme on greenbelt  really has any utility to address the fundamental problem...when house prices are rising hugely faster than wages, there is a deep problem which needs addressing.
What, incidentally, is your situation regarding housing? Do you have children unable to afford a home? Have you ever been insecurely housed? Can you imagine being homeless? Do you think these questions might have more bearing on your thinking than worrying about the fortunes of some investor?
I ask because it seems inconceivable to me that right now, in a freezing January, there are people sleeping in doorways while a whole industry servicing these homeless people has been as exploitative, in many ways, as the most Dickensian employer/landlord. Yes, there are many, many things wrong with this market economy, where everything can be monetised but the imaginary insults directed at investors (regardless of nationality) seem to come very far down the list to me.
Of course, I admit to a certain naivety...but I can imagine the horrors of homelessness and the deep grinding worry of life in a rapacious private rental sector very clearly indeed.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2015)

Are you using this train of argument at work, Diamond?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I have a less serious case.  I am a member of that population.  I set out what I thought.
> 
> You seem to have basic issues with reasoning here Pickman's.


you're a member of that group who has declared offence to what was said in proportion to severity of affliction, on no evidence: YOUR ignorant muddleheaded fuckwittery there for all to see above. before you have a pop at anyone else's reasoning


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

... sort your own out Diamond


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

cesare said:


> Are you using this train of argument at work, Diamond?



I don't have a real estate practice.

I made that clear to you several pages back but you seem to have forgetten.

My only professional interest in the area is pro bono housing matters, which is admittedly fiendishly difficult and which I wish I could generate better results from.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Just thinking about this - maybe the problem is that you like to define groups with having bright line boundaries and thoroughly integrated interests and responses.
> 
> Maybe that's why when I suggest that someone with a _lesser _degree of a condition (or characteristic) might find a comment relating to that condition (or characteristic) _less _offensive than a person possessing a _higher _degree of that condition (or characteristic) finding the same comment _more _offensive, you run in to difficulties.
> 
> It's a fine point but you'll probably get it, if you bother to give it any thought.


let me put it this way. i work in a hospital nd see people with a wide range of afflictions, at a range of severities. it is not slways the worst afflicted who are the most sensitive.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you're a member of that group who has declared offence to what was said in proportion to severity of affliction, on no evidence: YOUR ignorant muddleheaded fuckwittery there for all to see above. before you have a pop at anyone else's reasoning



This is so incoherent that I am having real difficulty trying to decipher what any of it means.  Can you set your points out with a little more clarity please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is so incoherent that I am having real difficulty trying to decipher what any of it means.  Can you set your points out with a little more clarity please?


it is very simple. you said above people more severely afflicted may take more umbrage than you. you do not know this. you have no grounds for your assertion. you are having difficulties because you are, as i said above, ignorant and muddleheaded.


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> let me put it this way. i work in a hospital nd see people with a wide range of afflictions, at a range of severities. it is not slways the worst afflicted who are the most sensitive.



I didn't say that was always the case - my point was that if you have (1) a person who has had one seizure over the course of their life and (2) a person who has suffered them on a far more regular basis, then person 2 may feel more aggrieved about casual, offhand, dismissive, pretentious and ultimately offensive turns of phrase such as was used by kabbes.

Of course, anyone is entitled to take that view anyway, but I would suggest, in lukewarm debate with a companion who makes, unwittingly, a point that indirectly exploits that person's disability, the one targeted has reasonable grounds for grievance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I didn't say that was always the case - my point was that if you have (1) a person who has had one seizure over the course of their life and (2) a person who has suffered them on a far more regular basis, then person 2 may feel more aggrieved about casual, offhand, dismissive, pretentious and ultimately offensive turns of phrase such as was used by kabbes.
> 
> Of course, anyone is entitled to take that view anyway, but I would suggest, in lukewarm debate with a companion who makes, unwittingly, a point that indirectly exploits that person's disability, the one targeted has reasonable grounds for grievance.


you don't want to stop digging?


----------



## Diamond (Jan 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't want to stop digging?



Do you view all discussion as a contest?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you view all discussion as a contest?


i don't view your inventions as helpful to any discussion eg your 'always' nonsense


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I didn't say that was always the case - my point was that if you have (1) a person who has had one seizure over the course of their life and (2) a person who has suffered them on a far more regular basis, then person 2 may feel more aggrieved about casual, offhand, dismissive, pretentious and ultimately offensive turns of phrase such as was used by kabbes.
> 
> Of course, anyone is entitled to take that view anyway, but I would suggest, in lukewarm debate with a companion who makes, unwittingly, a point that indirectly exploits that person's disability, the one targeted has reasonable grounds for grievance.


That is utter rubbish, on both points.


----------



## lambro (Feb 1, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm afraid I'm too angry to put together a coherent comment here, but take a deep breath and read on:



One bedroom flat for £400,000!!!!

I would say fuck that but what other options to home buyers really have in the London house market?

Maybe stop non residents from buying which would cut out overseas investors ramping up prices all the time


----------



## Diamond (Feb 1, 2015)

I know people are extremely unpleasent on urban very often - mainly because of the online disinhibition effect - but reading back over these last few pages, I think people need to maybe reflect a little.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I know people are extremely unpleasent on urban very often - mainly because of the online disinhibition effect - but reading back over these last few pages, I think people need to maybe reflect a little.


Especially anyone that has thrown around deeply unpleasant and utterly groundless insinuations of racism, and refused to apologise when challenged by multiple posters about their conduct.


----------



## coley (Feb 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you view all discussion as a contest?


Can we move on from you and your medical problems and back to the issue in hand?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> Especially anyone that has thrown around deeply unpleasant and utterly groundless insinuations of racism, and refused to apologise when challenged by multiple posters about their conduct.



Show that racism.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Show that racism.


It's been repeatedly and patiently pointed out to you by several posters now, but sadly you're too ignorant/stupid/arrogant/puffed up* to see it/admit it. 

(*choose whichever is applicable)


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> It's been repeatedly and patiently pointed out to you by several posters now, but sadly you're too ignorant/stupid/arrogant/puffed up* to see it/admit it.
> 
> (*choose whichever is applicable)



You can insult me all you want but it is plain that your curses are surrogates for your lack of argument.

That is clear.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You can insult me all you want but it is plain that your curses are surrogates for your lack of argument.
> 
> That is clear.


You're not going to bluff your way out of this, sunshine. You've been caught out and called out. Repeatedly.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You can insult me all you want but it is plain that your curses are surrogates for your lack of argument.
> 
> That is clear.



I swear you are looking for an argument. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> You're not going to bluff your way out of this, sunshine. You've been caught out and called out. Repeatedly.



OK pal, you carry on with you and your fans. I'm sure that they provide you with sufficient succour for your lazy thinking.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK pal, you carry on with you and your fans. I'm sure that they provide you with sufficient succour for your lazy thinking.



Back up. You have accused people of racism, when the objection was clearly that the person was property speculating on high rents. You haven't answered that crticism so you end up looking like an idiot who doesn't read others posts.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

I haven't accused anyone of racism at any point in time.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

If you can demonstrate to the counter I would be interested to know.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Instead, some people who are rather lazy with their thinking and keen with their keyboards have decided that I am flinging mud.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

None of them can conclusively show it, and that's why all of them use the shield of "slur" when they try and make their terribly weak, almost laughable points.  It's like coming against a propaganda machine...


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you can demonstrate to the counter I would be interested to know.


What's the point? You just ignore everything that is posted, such is your pig headed stubbornness and inability to admit defeat.

But let's try putting it another way in the hope that it might sink in. Why do you think that so many people in this thread keep telling you that what you posted was clearly an insinuation of racism? Why do you think they would do that?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



Speaks for itself


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> What's the point? You just ignore everything that is posted, such is your pig headed stubbornness and inability to admit defeat.
> 
> But let's try putting it another way in the hope that it might sink in. Why do you think that so many people in this thread keep telling you that what you posted was clearly an insinuation of racism? Why do you think they would do that?



There have been maybe four or five people supporting your groundless arguments.

Are they your lackeys - maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the definition.

But I know that if I were in your position, I would not rely on the following proposition to found my arguments:

"all my mates think the same"

And then - most importantly - *where is your evidence?*


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Speaks for itself



Yes, it does.  You are entirely correct.  The operative word in that sentence being "foreign".

Do you have difficulty in understanding how that definition interelates with (i) xenophobia and (ii) racism because I can explain if that is required?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yes, it does.  You are entirely correct.  The operative word in that sentence being "foreign".
> 
> Do you have difficulty in understanding how that definition interelates with (i) xenophobia and (ii) racism because I can explain if that is required?



Fuck off. Your the one with the problem.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Fuck off. Your the one with the problem.



So you don't get it do you.

The main point is that the person in the article was being highlighted because he came from the "outside" and there is supposed to be an "inside" which the article helps to construct.  And anyone from the "outside" that enters the "inside" has to either pay some kind of sanction, suffer from some degree of opprobium and/or alter their behaviour.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> There have been maybe four or five people supporting your groundless arguments.


How many have supported your claims? 





Diamond said:


> Are they your lackeys - maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the definition


So you're now trying to defend your position by attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you by way of yet another piece of tacky and groundless finger pointing. 

Stay classy.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


> How many have supported your claims? So you're now trying to defend your position by attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you by way of yet another piece of tacky and groundless finger pointing.
> 
> Stay classy.



I don't care how many people support my claims because they stand on their own logic.

I don't need an army of supporters.

I stand alone in that respect and am all the stronger for it.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

I don't take sides for the fun of it but the post you made clearly invokes racism. That you arrogantly dismiss this is proof that on this thread you have behaved like an idiot.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Humberto said:


> I don't take sides for the fun of it but the post you made clearly invokes racism. That you arrogantly dismiss this is proof that on this thread you have behaved like an idiot.



Nonsense.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



Go on then genius. Explain this. Objecting to someone because they are foreign _implys_ what?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Go on then genius. Explain this. Objecting to someone because they are foreign _implys_ what?



That you don't like them because they are from "outside".


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That you don't like them because they are from "outside".



'is it maybe because they are _foreign_ and _what does this imply_'

Simply put you made an accusation of racism even if that was not your intention.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

God, this is tiresome.  You can make many more intelligent/interesting arguments if you want, although all incorrect.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> God, this is tiresome.  You can make many more intelligent/interesting arguments if you want, although all incorrect.



Well you are a pathetic drama queen. But I wish all the best. Don't be a bellend is my advice.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Well you are a pathetic drama queen. But I wish all the best. Don't be a bellend is my advice.



And to you too.  Right, to bed.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And to you too.  Right, to bed.



I'm sure you have a future in bullshitting


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you view all discussion as a contest?





Diamond said:


> I really do need to snatch a few hours of sleep now but look forwards to "jousting" further on the morrow.



Oops.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oops.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> There have been maybe four or five people supporting your groundless arguments.
> 
> Are they your lackeys - maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the definition.
> 
> ...


As you're now making a formal plea for other posters to come forward and say yes, you clearly did insinuate that the editor was motivated by racist feelings, well here i am say that yes you clearly did insinuate that the editor was motivated by racist feelings.

Does Diamond lack all sense of personal honour, has Diamond been utterly caught out by they those he considers his intellectual inferior, has he been writing pompous crap easily dismantled? Maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the various definitions. If i was minded to do so i'd suggest he's helpfully put all his failings on public display in one thread. If i was minded to - but clearly i'm above such things.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't care how many people support my claims because they stand on their own logic.
> 
> I don't need an army of supporters.
> 
> I stand alone in that respect and am all the stronger for it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> None of them can *conclusively* show it..



No, of course they can't, as you were very careful to only insinuate, as opposed to speaking plainly.

That doesn't change the fact that you made insinuations of racism.


----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


>



You could argue that the guy on the left is pwning the guy on the right by biting his foot.

Then reality sets in and you realize that the guy on the left is just getting hard kicked in the face of it.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> The gang? First time I've been accused of that.



No it isn't.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

I'm abroad in Slovenia this week so you lot will be spared my presence. I trust that you'll take advantage to conduct an appropriate love in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

off he goes, head held high


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't care how many people support my claims because they stand on their own logic.
> 
> I don't need an army of supporters.
> 
> I stand alone in that respect and am all the stronger for it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm abroad in Slovenia this week so you lot will be spared my presence. I trust that you'll take advantage to conduct an appropriate love in.



Ljubljana Property Investment Expo? Is it that time already?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Maybe it's just me, but the last few pages had more than a whiff of an Awesome Wells argument about them


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2015)

it was about as boring.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

editor said:


>



Either your point is mis-placed or you do not understand the tale of King Cnut and the tide.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Either your point is mis-placed or you do not understand the tale of King Cnut and the tide.


i thought he was making a punning point about you being something of a cnut.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>




"So What?" would have been just as appropriate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "So What?" would have been just as appropriate.


i used 'so what' not so long ago


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Either your point is mis-placed or you do not understand the tale of King Cnut and the tide.


It's King Canute.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought he was making a punning point about you being something of a cnut.



Oh I see.

That did cross my mind but I credit editor with more perspicacity than that.

Perhaps I am wrong on that front and should categorise him as belonging to your serried ranks of keyboard bound hard men with little courage but much vibrant insults,  hurled from as far a distance as possible in the crudest of terms.

A slingshot army of the lame.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> It's King Canute.



There's no categorical conclusion on that but he is usually referred to in academic circles, especially when I studied him, as King Cnut.

But good point, well made and valuable contribution etc...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> That did cross my mind but I credit editor with more perspicacity than that.
> 
> ...


i see you believe Apryl's claim that i am leader of these boards


----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)

This thread feels like its going to kick off again


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you believe Apryl's claim that i am leader of these boards



Not going to even bother with that.

If you have a point, make it.

Being cryptic is not big or clever, it means thst you are, at best, being a dick and treating your correspondent with arrogant contempt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not going to even bother with that.
> 
> If you have a point, make it.
> 
> Being cryptic is not big or clever, it means thst you are, at best, being a dick and treating your correspondent with arrogant contempt.


i have yet to see any reason why i should not treat you with anything but 'arrogant contempt' - or any other sort of contempt, for that matter.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> There's no categorical conclusion on that but he is usually referred to in academic circles, especially when I studied him, as King Cnut.
> 
> But good point, well made and valuable contribution etc...




We're all still waiting for you to apologise for the racism accusations, by the way.

And the reason the third guy in the OP is being held up as an example of all that is wrong in this is because he's the only one that talks about watching his investment skyrocket. He's blatantly in it for the money, not as a home for himself or his family. Not because he's from outside the UK.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not going to even bother with that.
> 
> If you have a point, make it.
> 
> Being cryptic is not big or clever, it means thst you are, at best, being a dick and treating your correspondent with arrogant contempt.


And you'd know, that's how you seem to be treating anyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i have yet to see any reason why i should not treat you with anything but 'arrogant contempt' - or any other sort of contempt, for that matter.



But that's your default setting in any event.

Trying to persuade you down from your high horse is more or less impossible.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> We're all still waiting for you to apologise for the racism accusations, by the way.
> 
> And the reason the third guy in the OP is being held up as an example of all that is wrong in this is because he's the only one that talks about watching his investment skyrocket. He's blatantly in it for the money, not as a home for himself or his family. Not because he's from outside the UK.



But he does not say "skyrocket"!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that's your default setting in any event.
> 
> Trying to persuade you down from your high horse is more or less impossible.


that'd be fine, only it's a load of auld bollocks. you've earned my 'arrogant contempt' through your lying and questionable posts.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

I've shown that already, quite meticulously!

But it seems to have become an article of faith for you.

You should ask yourself why that is the case.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

And from the wikipedia page (probably not highbrow enough for you academic types):



> *Cnut the Great*[2] (Old Norse: _Knútr inn ríki_;[3] c. 985 or 995 – 12 November 1035), more commonly known as *Canute*, was a king of Denmark, England, Norway, and parts of Sweden, together often referred to as the Anglo-Scandinavian or North Sea Empire. After his death, the deaths of his heirs within a decade, and the Norman conquest of England in 1066, his legacy was largely lost to history. Historian Norman Cantor has made the statement that he was "the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history", despite not being Anglo-Saxon.[4]



So either name is correct.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've shown that already, quite meticulously!


yes, you have shown your mendacity quite meticulously. but in your place it's not the sort of thing i'd boast of.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> That did cross my mind but I credit editor with more perspicacity than that.
> 
> ...




the lame you say. Isn't that rather insulting to those who have limited mobility. etc.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But he does not say "skyrocket"!


It wasn't a literal quote, that being obvious as it wasn't in quote form or "in quotes". I thought you had studied such things with academics?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> It wasn't a literal quote, that being obvious as it wasn't in quote form or "in quotes". I thought you had studied such things with academics?


it's been established above that yer man's an ignorant muddleheaded wanker. so i don't think it's entirely fair to take him to task for this.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> And from the wikipedia page (probably not highbrow enough for you academic types):
> 
> 
> 
> So either name is correct.



That's what I said - there's no categorical conclusion...

Bleddy hell....


----------



## maomao (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the lame you say. Isn't that rather insulting to those who have limited mobility. etc.


I have sciatica so find it quite offensive but not as offensive as someone with a serious leg injury obviously.


----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> It wasn't a literal quote, that being obvious as it wasn't in quote form or "in quotes". I thought you had studied such things with academics?



But that is key to how this whole affair has been brought to people's attention on this website.

The thread title is a misrepresentation of what the man said and that's suspicious, as any misrepresentation should be.


----------



## maomao (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The thread title is a misrepresentation of what the man said and that's suspicious, as any misrepresentation should be.



An argument that was made quite reasonably on about page four or five without attracting torrents of abuse because the posters who made the argument weren't ignorant cocks. If you're going to bend over with your trousers down you can't really complain when people queue up to give you a kick.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the lame you say. Isn't that rather insulting to those who have limited mobility. etc.


As someone with a physical disability I do find use of the word 'lame' as a perjorative on the boards quite offensive to be honest. Sometimes I pick people up on it, sometimes I don't, depending on if I can be arsed with the backlash.

But it's a bit rich of Diamond to complain about 'epileptic trees' being offensive to epileptics notably himself when he's happy to mock others with disabilities.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

maomao said:


> I have sciatica so find it quite offensive but not as offensive as someone with a serious leg injury obviously.


I recall that before getting sciatica you were openly mocking the disabled, even unto the point of pretending to lick a window. Once you got sciatica however, you changed your tune


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

maomao said:


> I have sciatica so find it quite offensive but not as offensive as someone with a serious leg injury obviously.


I have arthritis in four verterbrae, meaning limited movement sometimes. 

In disability top trumps should you be more offended than me at the use of 'lame' or is it the other way round?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I have arthritis in four verterbrae, meaning limited movement sometimes.
> 
> In disability top trumps should you be more offended than me at the use of 'lame' or is it the other way round?


i think you can each be equally offended.


----------



## maomao (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I have arthritis in four verterbrae, meaning limited movement sometimes.
> 
> In disability top trumps should you be more offended than me at the use of 'lame' or is it the other way round?


I was mocking an earlier argument of Diamond's and you win because I only have it in two to my knowledge.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that is key to how this whole affair has been brought to people's attention on this website.
> 
> The thread title is a misrepresentation of what the man said and that's suspicious, as any misrepresentation should be.


Suspicious? Really?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

Oh, for god's sake!

I have a disability. I was disabled for most of last year in a most profound fashion, as I have already set out so I know what it is to talk of it...


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

maomao said:


> I was mocking an earlier argument of Diamond's and you win because I only have it in two to my knowledge.


I know you were, I was merely extending the argument 

I am now OUTRAGED that I had to explain this. OUTRAGED I tell you


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh, for god's sake!
> 
> I have a disability. I was disabled for most of last year in a most profound fashion, as I have already set out so I know what it is to talk of it...


but you think it's a grand laugh to describe people as lame. why is that?


----------



## maomao (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh, for god's sake!
> 
> I have a disability. I was disabled for most of last year in a most profound fashion, as I have already set out so I know what it is to talk of it...


A fair proportion of people who spend their time arguing on the internet have mobility problems of one sort or another. I think me and equationgirl were both trying to point out that it's either offensive or it isn't, the existence or extent of mobility problems doesn't come into it. As well as flagging you as a particularly dumb hypocrite for making a storm in a teacup about a phrase you quite clearly didn't understand while being quite happy to use 'lame' in a pejorative sense.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh, for god's sake!
> 
> I have a disability. I was disabled for most of last year in a most profound fashion, as I have already set out so I know what it is to talk of it...


So why did you use the word 'lame' as a perjorative against those with physical disabilities, then?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 2, 2015)

But that's beside the point - there is a clear sense of posters closing ranks here. Finding any excuse to cosh the one so targeted

It's pretty weird to be honest and would be scary if this were not occuring at such a distance, which in turn is presumably the underlying disassociative logic that allows people to come up with such hateful content.

Very odd but know this, I won't back down, I have no interest in complying with the general body of opinion and every interest in independently defending my own, even if that is alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that's beside the point - there is a clear sense of posters closing ranks here. Finding any excuse to cosh the one so targeted
> 
> It's pretty weird to be honest and would be scary if this were not occuring at such a distance, which in turn is presumably the underlying disassociative logic that allows people to come up with such hateful content.
> 
> Very odd but know this, I won't back down, I have no interest in complying with the general body of opinion and every interest in independently defending my own, even if that is alone.


why did you use the word 'lame' when, as someone with experience of a disability, you knew people would find it offensive?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that's beside the point - there is a clear sense of posters closing ranks here. Finding any excuse to cosh the one so targeted.
> 
> It's pretty weird to be honest and would be scary if this were not occuring at such a distance, which in turn is presumably the underlying disassociative logic that allows people to come up with such hateful content.
> 
> Very odd but know this, I won't back down, I have no interest in complying with the general body of opinion and every interest in independently defending my own, even if that is alone.


It's not besides the point at all, in fact it's very much right on point.

No-one is being hateful. You've been asked to explain why it's ok for you to use 'lame' in a perjorative context, which once again you seem to be failing to do.

It's not about compliance or being bullied, know that. Know that disablism is a thing used to mock many people no matter what their disability, and know that you have shown yourself to be one of those doing the mocking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that's beside the point - there is a clear sense of posters closing ranks here. Finding any excuse to cosh the one so targeted
> 
> It's pretty weird to be honest and would be scary if this were not occuring at such a distance, which in turn is presumably the underlying disassociative logic that allows people to come up with such hateful content.
> 
> Very odd but know this, I won't back down, I have no interest in complying with the general body of opinion and every interest in independently defending my own, even if that is alone.


why did you use the word 'lame' when, as someone with experience of a disability, you knew people would find it offensive?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Know that disablism is a thing used to mock many people no matter what their disability, and know that you have shown yourself to be one of those doing the mocking.


diabolism also often used to mock people.


----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)

It's obvious that opposed parties in this current argument aren't going to back down so,


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)




----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>



How dare you find a better illustration than me!!!!

Prepare your defense forthwith!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

lambro said:


> How dare you find a better illustration than me!!!!
> 
> Prepare your defense forthwith!!!!


welcome aboard


----------



## xenon (Feb 2, 2015)

Insiuates xenophobia, gets jumped on. Face saving board sidetrackimg insues. Standard. Meanwhile trickle up economics continues.


----------



## pesh (Feb 2, 2015)

lambro said:


> It's obvious that opposed parties in this current argument aren't going to back down so,


If there was ever a time to post strobing gifs


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

I don't need or want Rhinestone Cowboy to back down. He by way of an insinuation called me an anti-semite on another thread. So fck him, he's done the same on this thread. I did wonder if this is how he conducts himself in court, being dragged out by the plod while shouting 'I never ACTUALLY said that did I!' into the ether


----------



## xenon (Feb 2, 2015)

Meh if you will. Give me a gun. Alright a mode of practicle counterance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

xenon said:


> a mode of practicle counterance.


practicle counterance?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2015)

Diamond the thread is still waiting for two things:

1) Your apology for the accusations you made, which were incorrect

2) Your explanation for using 'lame' as a perjorative.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2015)

Oh god.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god.


eloquent as ever


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god.


he has forsaken us. 
Last seen in slovenia I heard


----------



## lambro (Feb 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god.


----------



## xenon (Feb 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> practicle counterance?


A neologism perhaps but  method of practically countering the prevailing mode of trickle up acquisitive property ownership.


----------



## xenon (Feb 3, 2015)

The first granted, that would have solved a lot of this nonsense derail. The second, I'm not sure too many people really are offended by that common usage. FWIW. 

In response to equationgirl.


----------



## lambro (Feb 3, 2015)

xenon said:


> A neologism perhaps but  method of practically countering the prevailing mode of trickle up acquisitive property ownership.



How would that method work?


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 3, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> And from the wikipedia page (probably not highbrow enough for you academic types):
> 
> 
> 
> So either name is correct.



King Canute sat on the beach/And told the waves 'get out of reach'
Is that a fact?/Is that a fact?

(Dave Benson Phillips TV Show??)


----------



## lambro (Feb 3, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> King Canute sat on the beach/And told the waves 'get out of reach'
> Is that a fact?/Is that a fact?
> 
> (Dave Benson Phillips TV Show??)



Maybe not but the story illustrates how somebody who was self pompous got self pwnd and ended up eating cheezburger.

If I was that king I'd have realized this and made apology to those offended by such a show of obsessive grandeur as though I may or may not have meant to cause offense, offense may well have been taken by others, so to recognize this and when offered the opportunity to make apology, I would simply hope to do so.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

So Diamond thinks it is wrong to use the word "epileptic" to describe something with epilepsy but that it is okay to use the word "lame" to describe something that's shit.

And then he wants to make insinuations of hypocrisy in others.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2015)

Seems legit.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

xenon said:


> Insiuates xenophobia ...



No he didn't. He questioned why the overseas investor was seemingly misquoted to exaggerate the avaricious element of the purchase. And by The Independent rather than the editor, although he challenged ed for quoting the misquote suggesting that it fits with his dislike of buy to let, which it does.

Personally I see no reason why the editor and others are getting worked up about this (well I do; it's an opportunity for a good old U75 tear-up over "insinuations of racism"). If you find the idea of UK based landlords purchasing property that they'll never live in, as investments, galling; isn't the same doubly true of overseas speculators who also inflate prices and exploit UK renters whilst having no intention of even living in the _same country _and who may not even pay tax on the money they rip out of the market?

Diamond has made a load of other shit points but he didn't insinuate racism in the way it's been suggested here.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

ah! Diamond you have a saviour!!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> ah! Diamond you have a saviour!!



Ah, monkey boy!

Where've you been?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> There's no categorical conclusion on that but he is usually referred to in academic circles, especially when I studied him, as King Cnut.
> 
> But good point, well made and valuable contribution etc...



Ah, you studied history in academic circles, did you?
Is this along with economics and law?

Or did you mean that you were fed the story of Canute/Cnut/Knut/Knuta/Knud at school, like everyone else?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No he didn't. He questioned why the overseas investor was seemingly misquoted to exaggerate the avaricious element of the purchase. And by The Independent rather than the editor, although he challenged ed for quoting the misquote suggesting that it fits with his dislike of buy to let, which it does.
> 
> Personally I see no reason why the editor and others are getting worked up about this (well I do; it's an opportunity for a good old U75 tear-up over "insinuations of racism"). If you find the idea of UK based landlords purchasing property that they'll never live in, as investments, galling; isn't the same doubly true of overseas speculators who inflate the market and exploit UK renters whilst having no intention of even living in the _same country?
> _
> Diamond has made a load of other shit points but he didn't insinuate racism in the way it's been suggested here.



I think that you need to read a bit closer than that. Actually, it doesn't take any close reading at all - maybe focused reading is what i meant:




			
				Diamond said:
			
		

> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?



The insinuation is that the editor is picking on the 3rd example because he's foreign. It then asks what doing such a thing implies. It implies that the person doing so is a racist. It's couched in this two faced bollocks speak that diamond uses to abuse and smear without taking responsibility for doing so (_if i was minded to / Are you and they cunts - maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the definition).
_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

maomao said:


> I have sciatica so find it quite offensive but not as offensive as someone with a serious leg injury obviously.



I have a serious leg injury *and* sciatica, so I'm WAYYY more offended than you!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Diamond has made a load of other shit points but he didn't insinuate racism in the way it's been suggested here.



pattern of previous I'm afraid, and for removal of doubt he raised the unholy name of UKIP in a follow up post. Just so it was clear what he was saying out the side of his mouth.


----------



## cesare (Feb 3, 2015)

Weasel words innit


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have a serious leg injury *and* sciatica, so I'm WAYYY more offended than you!


not intersectionality


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But that's beside the point - there is a clear sense of posters closing ranks here. Finding any excuse to cosh the one so targeted.



It's usual for a poster who's talked shite and been called for it to start mumbling about being victimised. Often, if the poster is a total rectum, they even give their imagined persecutors a name such as "the cunt collective".



> It's pretty weird to be honest and would be scary if this were not occuring at such a distance, which in turn is presumably the underlying disassociative logic that allows people to come up with such hateful content.



1) It's "dissociative", not "di*sa*ssociative".
2) The logic isn't dissociative. That would imply your interlocutors avoiding taking responsibility for what they say.



> Very odd but know this, I won't back down, I have no interest in complying with the general body of opinion and every interest in independently defending my own, even if that is alone.



I suspect that "the general body of opinion" has no interest in you complying with it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> diabolism also often used to mock people.



_Vade retro Satanas!_


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, monkey boy!
> 
> Where've you been?


uh? where's that come from? not been nowhere guv


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god.



You called, mortal speck of dirt?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

cesare said:


> Weasel words innit


(((weasels)))


----------



## cesare (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> (((weasels)))


Much maligned


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he has forsaken us.
> Last seen in slovenia I heard



Good slivovitz in Slovenia. G-d is probably pissed as a fart on that evil but lovely-tasting stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Good slivovitz in Slovenia. G-d is probably pissed as a fart on that evil but lovely-tasting stuff.


good call. YHWH must be a spirits spirit, permanently on the calvados and slivovitz.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

xenon said:


> The first granted, that would have solved a lot of this nonsense derail. The second, I'm not sure too many people really are offended by that common usage. FWIW.
> 
> In response to equationgirl.



I tend to react bluntly to deliberate or accidental use of derogatory terms, even if I don't *personally* believe they're particularly insulting. I do this because I know just how easy it can be for society to slide from being somewhat "disability-aware", to being ravening shitbags cussing out disabled people for daring to be disabled.  For me it's not "political correctness", it's about schooling people in the fact that their comment, whatever their intention, might offend others. If they choose to carry on using it, that's their look-out, but they shouldn't be surprised if they continue to get pulled up on it. It's not much of a step from "lame" to "workshy disabled scrounger", as the government has proven.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> good call. YHWH must be a spirits spirit, permanently on the calvados and slivovitz.



I admit to being a sucker for the occasional nip of slivovitz myself. I don't drink a lot of it (I last bought a bottle in 2011, and it's still 1/3 full), but it does have a uniquely-warming flavour and sensation to it!
I avoid calvados, though, ever since I saw someone depth-charging shots of it into Gaymer's Olde English cider, who then became bonelessly, incontinently drunk after 4 pints.
I've no doubt that Jehovah was laughing and calling her a lightweight.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> ah! Diamond you have a saviour!!



Oh no, it's apeman.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no, it's apeman.


 teaming up with Spy now?

Spy and Dwyer, defending the 'underdogs' against the baying mob since 2002!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

cesare said:


> Much maligned



Weasels and ferrets are.
Stoats, on the other hand, are malignant little bastards, passing off their many crimes as being done by weasels and ferrets, shitting on their mustelid brethren for the LOLs.


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No he didn't. He questioned why the overseas investor was seemingly misquoted to exaggerate the avaricious element of the purchase. And by The Independent rather than the editor, although he challenged ed for quoting the misquote suggesting that it fits with his dislike of buy to let, which it does.
> 
> Personally I see no reason why the editor and others are getting worked up about this (well I do; it's an opportunity for a good old U75 tear-up over "insinuations of racism"). If you find the idea of UK based landlords purchasing property that they'll never live in, as investments, galling; isn't the same doubly true of overseas speculators who also inflate prices and exploit UK renters whilst having no intention of even living in the _same country _and who may not even pay tax on the money they rip out of the market?
> 
> Diamond has made a load of other shit points but he didn't insinuate racism in the way it's been suggested here.


Thanks for your opinion. I'll be sure to treat it with the same respect as most of the other opinions you post up here.


----------



## cesare (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Weasels and ferrets are.
> Stoats, on the other hand, are malignant little bastards, passing off their many crimes as being done by weasels and ferrets, shitting on their mustelid brethren for the LOLs.


Putting the v in ermine


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You called, mortal speck of dirt?



I'd have spelled it g-d if I meant you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> teaming up with Spy now?
> 
> Spy and Dwyer, defending the 'underdogs' against the baying mob since 2002!



I don't know about  , it's way more    , and not in a good way!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'd have spelled it g-d if I meant you.



You dial the number, you get whoever picks up the phone, mush.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> teaming up with Spy now?
> 
> Spy and Dwyer, defending the 'underdogs' against the baying mob since 2002!


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

either explain what you mean or don't and do one
ta


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> explain what you mean



Think about it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 3, 2015)

(Why is ddriag 'Monkey Man'??)


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> (Why is ddriag 'Monkey Man'??)


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

whereas you are just the pink slime that comes out of a meat grinder at the back of a dirty old rusting abbatoir?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think that you need to read a bit closer than that. Actually, it doesn't take any close reading at all - maybe focused reading is what i meant:
> 
> 
> 
> The insinuation is that the editor is picking on the 3rd example because he's foreign. It then asks what doing such a thing implies. It implies that the person doing so is a racist. It's couched in this two faced bollocks speak that diamond uses to abuse and smear without taking responsibility for doing so (_if i was minded to / Are you and they cunts - maybe, maybe not - it probably depends on the definition)._



That response was to at least 2 other posters naming "Mr Chiu" in the previous posts. Unless he's got form for shouting "racist" at people he could very reasonably have been commenting on posters potential desires to see the UK housing market protected from foreign speculation.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That response was to at least 2 other posters naming "Mr Chiu" in the previous posts. Unless he's got form for shouting "racist" at people he could very reasonably have been commenting on posters potential desires to see the UK housing market protected from foreign speculation.


Nope. No. Nonsense.

(And he was doing the exact same last week on another thread as it goes)


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> pattern of previous I'm afraid, and for removal of doubt he raised the unholy name of UKIP in a follow up post. Just so it was clear what he was saying out the side of his mouth.



Fair enough. I haven't read him before.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> uh? where's that come from? not been nowhere guv



Just been missing your sapient contributions recently, monkey boy. Thought you may have been giving that brilliant mind a well earned rest.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> (Why is ddriag 'Monkey Man'??)



It was either that or 'Cheerleader' and posting pics of those may be considered salacious.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Just been missing your sapient contributions recently, monkey boy. Thought you may have been giving that brilliant mind a well earned rest.


why are you calling me monkey boy?
have you been swapping pm's with the dire dwyer?


----------



## sim667 (Feb 3, 2015)

I cant be arsed to read the thread, but I want to know who called who racist.

Its been a while since I've had some senseless outrage in my life.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> why are you calling me monkey boy?
> have you been swapping pm's with the dire dwyer?



No, I'm pretty sure I coined the term myself. The only pm's I recall sharing with Phil discussed the best places in Istanbul to get a haircut.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I cant be arsed to read the thread, but I want to know who called who racist.
> 
> Its been a while since I've had some senseless outrage in my life.



Post #147 apparently.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I coined the term myself.



You did.  We reached the same conclusion independently.

There's a certain personality type which automatically gravitates towards what it perceives as the source of power and authority.  It's an essentially feminine trait (NB: "feminine" not "female").  It generally happens quite unconsciously, and appears to be instinctive.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> You did.  We reached the same conclusion independently.
> 
> There's a certain personality type which automatically gravitates towards what it perceives as the source of power and authority.  It's an essentially feminine trait (NB: "feminine" not "female").  It generally happens quite unconsciously, and appears to be instinctive.


 hey bog brush!
you don't even annoy me anymore, just amuse occasionally


----------



## sim667 (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Post #147 apparently.


Well thats a kettle of fish and a half innit.....


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)

RIP this thread. It's been in intensive care for some time.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

It's been a bunfight since page 3.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

it was nursed by the finest grudges in it's final hours and will be laid to rest to the sound of a swannee whistle


----------



## Greebo (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip>I avoid calvados, though, ever since I saw someone depth-charging shots of it into Gaymer's Olde English cider, who then became bonelessly, incontinently drunk after 4 pints.
> I've no doubt that Jehovah was laughing and calling her a lightweight.


(((Texan crystalheaded ditz)))


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it was nursed by the finest grudges in it's final hours and will be laid to rest to the sound of a swannee whistle



Nah, there's still plenty of room for further word policing, and demands for retractions, clarifications, and apologies.


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)




----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

I think the salient term was just 'investment' rather than specifically foreign investment...but, a crude deflection and then a lot of whining - yep - I would say this thread was also on life support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

editor said:


> RIP this thread. It's been in intensive care for some time.


a grand auld band


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

editor said:


>


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

I think diamond needs  a right of reply.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Nah, there's still plenty of room for further word policing, and demands for retractions, clarifications, and apologies.



Such as...



maomao said:


> As well as flagging you as a particularly *dumb* hypocrite



 etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think diamond needs  a right of reply.


i don't think Diamond likely to exercise it. or rather would be wiser to withdraw.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

_I stand alone mind, all the stronger for it ._

Yeah if you're right and everyone is wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> ... would be wiser to withdraw.



Advice that someone should've given ddraigo's dad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Advice that someone should've given ddraigo's dad.


whereas your father would have been better advised to purchase a decent standard of condom i suppose.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Advice that someone should've given ddraigo's dad.


why is that then?

made it up to your long lost boy yet?

e2a - i know you're smarting as you missed out on the earlier bunfight here but you are showing your desperation now


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> why is that then?
> 
> made it up to your long lost boy yet?
> 
> e2a - i know you're smarting as you missed out on the earlier bunfight here but you are showing your desperation now


to be fair to Spymaster it's not only on this thread he shows a certain desperation


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> whereas your father would have been better advised to purchase a decent standard of condom i suppose.



Too small, they split. What can you do?

I've inherited the problem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _I stand alone mind, all the stronger for it ._


that's because everyone else is too sensible to stand in front of a firing squad - Diamond on his own


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Too small, they split. What can you do?
> 
> I've inherited the problem.


probably not the only problem you've inherited.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Too small, they split. What can you do?
> 
> I've inherited the problem.


thought you had a wad or flash car to wave around to make up for the willy


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Too small, they split. What can you do?



Yer mum could have just given dad the blowjob that he wanted in the first place...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> thought you had a wad or flash car to wave around to make up for the willy



No. They're supplementary.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think diamond needs  a right of reply.



I've already made my position clear on multiple occasions regarding the points that you make, which I do not agree with.

The fact that you aren't aware of this implies that, coming late to this particular party, either you (i) have been too lazy to read the thread in any kind of detail or (ii) are being disingenuous.

Spymaster managed to summarise my pov on the original issues pretty neatly a few pages back though if you can't be arsed to sift through all 20 odd pages.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, you studied history in academic circles, did you?
> Is this along with economics and law?
> 
> Or did you mean that you were fed the story of Canute/Cnut/Knut/Knuta/Knud at school, like everyone else?



I studied history at undergraduate level, law at postgraduate and I have to keep abreast of competition/antitrust microeconomics as part of my professional role.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I studied history at undergraduate level, law at postgraduate and I have to keep abreast of competition/antitrust microeconomics as part of my professional role.


a little learning is a dangerous thing


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've already made my position clear on multiple occasions regarding the points that you make, which I do not agree with.
> 
> The fact that you aren't aware of this implies that, coming late to this particular party, either you (i) have been too lazy to read the thread in any kind of detail or (ii) are being disingenuous.
> 
> Spymaster managed to summarise my pov on the original issues pretty neatly a few pages back though if you can't be arsed to sift through all 20 odd pages.


You pm-ed me at 2-40 am. You invited me in. Making your position clear is meaningless. I t means that you have a position. That's all. It doesn't mean anyone buys it. You've lost this massively.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I studied history at undergraduate level, law at postgraduate and I have to keep abreast of competition/antitrust microeconomics as part of my professional role.



So you did a GDL and some form of legal practice course?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a little learning is a dangerous thing



Although no learning at all is even more dangerous.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

That's the one - and a 2 year training contract before qualification.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although no learning at all is even more dangerous.


someone with no learning would be less likely to piss about with chemicals in a laboratory than someone with a basic understanding of what they were up to. so the person with no learning less likely to do something particularly dangerous.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You pm-ed me at 2-40 am. You invited me in. Making your position clear is meaningless. I t means that you have a position. That's all. It doesn't mean anyone buys it. You've lost this massively.



I was interested to know your opinion and was surprised that this topic had not been of interest to you.


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

yes, but your pov seems to rest on a rather specious accusation and does not begin to address the very real issues of speculation on a massively overheated housing market... with an attempt to avoid being called out be making sly insinuations and then (for shame) playing a personal woe is me card.
Apart from standing up for some unknown investors absolute right to make money, you have not really contributed anything of substance. From where I am standing (along with, I suspect, the vast majority of people earning ordinary wages), this position is not particularly admirable and your attempts to bluster look a bit....well, feeble.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

His position is one of absolute free market fundamentalism.  That's all.  Leave it up the market and everything will be taken care of.  There will be no bubbles, no market-cornering, no accumulations of power or wealth, no ignoring of the 80% that only provide 20% of the profit.  It will all just miraculously be cured.  Just like it has worked so well to date, in this industry and so many others.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> His position is one of absolute free market fundamentalism.  That's all.  Leave it up the market and everything will be taken care of.  There will be no bubbles, no market-cornering, no accumulations of power or wealth, no ignoring of the 80% that only provide 20% of the profit.  It will all just miraculously be cured.  Just like it has worked so well to date, in this industry and so many others.



No. It is not. How do you square home-building programmes with "absolute free market fundamentalism? If those programmes require government intervention through dismantling the laws around green belts and/or incentivising building through other interventions, then that's fine - whatever gets the results, regardless as to whether they run counter to your odd straw man of "absolute free market fundamentalism" (whatever that is) or not.

Don't bother trying to play this reductionist game of misrepresnting or second guessing my position or arguments.

I can take all the personal invective that most posters seem to depressingly prefer on this thread to proper argument but I will pull you up consistently every time that you choose that properly and more egregiously cynical route.


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

So is that it, then Diamond? You can only suggest a programme of building on greenbelt? How are you living? Do you earn £100,000 p.a? Have you had your head up your bottom for the last 2 decades while housing has become so unhinged and absolutely divorced from the reality of people being able to afford it? We are not talking about a little difficulty here but a massive disconnect where housing costs upward of 11-13 times an ordinary salary -and not just in London either. Do you have any concept of town planning, agriculture, food production, transport? This is a ridiculous solution given the number of empty properties in our cities. We do not have a housing shortage problem...we have an unbalanced and unsustainable housing bubble and a shortage of AFFORDABLE houses...a few more properties built on green belt does hardly anything to solve the problem where housing has ceased to be a home and is purely a means of profit - this is a deep systemic fail which will not be solved without some radical rebalancing. And personally, although you may shout about the injustices of racism, I have a huge problem with a similar injustice - the huge exclusion of working class people from a property and power party to which they are not invited.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No. It is not. How do you square home-building programmes with "absolute free market fundamentalism? If those programmes require government intervention through dismantling the laws around green belts and/or incentivising building through other interventions, then that's fine - whatever gets the results, regardless as to whether they run counter to your odd straw man of "absolute free market fundamentalism" (whatever that is) or not.
> 
> Don't bother trying to play this reductionist game of misrepresnting or second guessing my position or arguments.
> 
> I can take all the personal invective that most posters seem to depressingly prefer on this thread to proper argument but I will pull you up consistently every time that you choose that properly and more egregiously cynical route.


You got caught. Lifting the rock brought other stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

What happened to the urgent flight to slovenia


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2015)

campanula said:


> - the huge exclusion of working class people from a property and power party to which they are not invited.



It's not a just a working class issue.

The average cost of a property in London is now over 520 grand. To buy one a couple would need a £125k deposit and require a joint income of at least £80k to obtain a mortgage that would cost the best part of £2000 a month.

That excludes most junior-mid level professionals too.


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

Well yes, this illustrates that this is not an issue solved by a bit of tinkering, Spy, but has profound effects on the make-up of our cities and the aspirations and hopes of our children. We are changing from a society where home-owning was the norm to a more European mode of renting, but without any of the social contracts found in Germany, for example. Our economy is falsely, and ridiculously sustained on the back of a fragile and hugely unfair housing bubble - all those people who bought a house in the 80s have been lulled into feeling secure while an entire generation of children are unable to gain any traction in this leveraged economy and are also at the mercy of rapacious landlords. This really is the worst of all solutions for the great majority of people...and being without shelter is not really like having to go without a second holiday or a new sofa - it is fundamental and ought to be regarded as a human right in any civilised society (where the temperature dips below freezing).


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond - I am also interested in how you see this building playing out? Do you see a huge programme of social housing...which would have immense ramifications, inasmuch as it could kickstart a new dawn in the construction industry, creating skilled apprenticeships and so forth...or just executive family houses with large gardens, built by private developers. In theory, I would be happy to subscribe for another round of housebuilding similar to the 1930s-50s, but as far as I can see, practically all the new builds in Cambridge, for example, are advertised abroad and sold abroad, as investments...and given the parlous quality of much of this building, it is clearly evident that these were never meant to be seen as family homes but tend to be small, one and 2bed apartments (bijoux or boutique are 2 favourite appellations) almost entirely for transient tech workers and buy to let landlords and destined to fall apart in 30 years. This is a disaster and only skews the market even further out of reach.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 3, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> There's a certain personality type which automatically gravitates towards what it perceives as the source of power and authority.  It's an essentially feminine trait (NB: "feminine" not "female").




erm


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> What happened to the urgent flight to slovenia



Am in Slovenia now with intermittent internet access and therefore am less able to respond bit when challenged as I have been in the manner that has occurred on this thread, I am.minded to respond as and when I can.

Do you have difficulties with understanding this also?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No. It is not. How do you square home-building programmes with "absolute free market fundamentalism? If those programmes require government intervention through dismantling the laws around green belts and/or incentivising building through other interventions, then that's fine - whatever gets the results, regardless as to whether they run counter to your odd straw man of "absolute free market fundamentalism" (whatever that is) or not.
> 
> Don't bother trying to play this reductionist game of misrepresnting or second guessing my position or arguments.
> 
> I can take all the personal invective that most posters seem to depressingly prefer on this thread to proper argument but I will pull you up consistently every time that you choose that properly and more egregiously cynical route.


Your homebuilding programme _is_ free market fundamentalism.  You want to tear up the planning restrictions, ffs, and just let builders do it where they want.  And what is your funding mechanism?  Is it, by any chance, allowing building companies to decide what they want to build and where, with no regulation and no government direction?

You don't get to say that dismantling regulation is somehow an intervention!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

mentalchik said:


> erm


It's dwyer.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

campanula said:


> Diamond - I am also interested in how you see this building playing out? Do you see a huge programme of social housing...which would have immense ramifications, inasmuch as it could kickstart a new dawn in the construction industry, creating skilled apprenticeships and so forth...or just executive family houses with large gardens, built by private developers. In theory, I would be happy to subscribe for another round of housebuilding similar to the 1930s-50s, but as far as I can see, practically all the new builds in Cambridge, for example, are advertised abroad and sold abroad, as investments...and given the parlous quality of much of this building, it is clearly evident that these were never meant to be seen as family homes but tend to be small, one and 2bed apartments (bijoux or boutique are 2 favourite appellations) almost entirely for transient tech workers and buy to let landlords and destined to fall apart in 30 years. This is a disaster and only skews the market even further out of reach.



I would certainly be in favour of investment in more social housing, what's more I do not think that "affordable housing" or part-ownership solutions are remotely effective substitutes either.  It seems to me that to achieve that investment would require government intervention at a national and regional/council level.

However, I also think that another, equally as important issue, is concentrations of demand in the South-East and London.  This causes a host of problems, not least the compound impact of people looking for a safe investment vehicle competing with those looking to buy or rent in the same area. The answer, it seems to me, is to try and diversify demand away from London.

However, I think that vilifying the investor category, particularly because they are from abroad, and through using sharp journalistic practices, is of no merit whatsoever and that if you're ready to buy such an approach uncritically, that sheds light on one's own views.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Your homebuilding programme _is_ free market fundamentalism.  You want to tear up the planning restrictions, ffs, and just let builders do it where they want.  And what is your funding mechanism?  Is it, by any chance, allowing building companies to decide what they want to build and where, with no regulation and no government direction?
> 
> You don't get to say that dismantling regulation is somehow an intervention!



Stop trying to second guess my point of view.

You are quite evidently not very good at it


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Stop trying to second guess my point of view.
> 
> You are quite evidently not very good at it


You made a massive song and dance about how intervention in a marketplace is bad and leads to "distortions".


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You made a massive song and dance about how intervention in a marketplace is bad and leads to "distortions".



Yes, generally I take that view and particularly when you are trying to crudely control prices in the short term.

When you are looking to encourage supply to meet a profound lack in this instance, I think such interventions make much more sense.

Also, reducing the centrality of London and the South East to the UK is a policy that works in a number of different ways, with a solution to housing being just one of many benefits.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

So Diamond, you see that the answer is to build on the greenbelt? Which bit of it? All of it?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

It's _an_ answer.  It's just a very long way from being the best one.  It's a bit like widening a motorway by another lane.  It eases traffic for a while on the sector that has been widened.  And then more traffic is encouraged onto the lane and that sector is as bad as ever, and the surrounding sectors are even worse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Am in Slovenia now with intermittent internet access and therefore am less able to respond bit when challenged as I have been in the manner that has occurred on this thread, I am.minded to respond as and when I can.
> 
> Do you have difficulties with understanding this also?


It's good of you to keep me entertained on your limited net access, flailing for the highground as you are


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Stop trying to second guess my point of view.
> 
> You are quite evidently not very good at it


Now that is truly priceless hypocrisy. Well done!


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

No, I am vilifying the investors because they are investors. The only reason I mentioned abroad is because this is where these are advertised EVEN BEFORE they come on the UK market. Please stop insinuating racism....although I am bloody angry, regardless of whatever nationality involved - it is about the distortions of capital. Personally, I would definitely like to see house prices tagged to inflation - up until around 1980, it was perfectly possible to take out a mortgage which was around 3-4 x the buyer's salary. Housing costs appreciated largely in line with inflation and wages...and a balance was achieved, with a large social housing sector (which I benefit from)  to plug gaps. Housing was exactly what it was supposed to be - a home, and not an investment opportunity. So yes, I would like to see a return to the fair rents of the late 60s and 70s, a huge programme of govt. funded building and we would all find that the market would stabilise since housing would no longer be such a failsafe investment opportunity, the housing benefit costs would diminish, a new generation would be given hope and aspiration, everyone benefits...except those who merely want to increase their profit margin...so true, I am deeply, hopelessly and bitterly prejudiced...against landlords and profiteers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It's _an_ answer.  I



I'd really like to know where he thinks it's cool to be building? All areas within the M25 fair game? Outside the M25? Where, it's awfully vague.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It's _an_ answer.  It's just a very long way from being the best one.  It's a bit like widening a motorway by another lane.  It eases traffic for a while on the sector that has been widened.  And then more traffic is encouraged onto the lane and that sector is as bad as ever, and the surrounding sectors are even worse.



That's a laughable metaphor - it gets into don't build because it'll only encourage them.

To what I wonder? Want to own a home? Breed perhaps?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's a laughable metaphor - it gets into don't build because it'll only encourage them.
> 
> To what I wonder? Want to own a home? Breed perhaps?



Where on the greenbelt do you propose to build?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Here's a map of it:


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's a laughable metaphor - it gets into don't build because it'll only encourage them.
> 
> To what I wonder? Want to own a home? Breed perhaps?


More insinuations, Diamond?  Want to accuse me of something?

It's an excellent metaphor, actually.  The point is that by taking such a reductionist, simplistic approach to the problem, you discourage a proper structural response.

How come there was previously enough housing in London but now there isn't?  London's housing prices has grown at double digit rates for decades.  Has the population growth been likewise?  Or could it be that there is something else going on?

If you want to see how your unrestricted house building plays out, go and look at Spain.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

campanula said:


> No, I am vilifying the investors because they are investors. The only reason I mentioned abroad is because this is where these are advertised EVEN BEFORE they come on the UK market. Please stop insinuating racism....although I am bloody angry, regardless of whatever nationality involved - it is about the distortions of capital. Personally, I would definitely like to see house prices tagged to inflation - up until around 1980, it was perfectly possible to take out a mortgage which was around 3-4 x the buyer's salary. Housing costs appreciated largely in line with inflation and wages...and a balance was achieved, with a large social housing sector (which I benefit from)  to plug gaps. Housing was exactly what it was supposed to be - a home, and not an investment opportunity. So yes, I would like to see a return to the fair rents of the late 60s and 70s, a huge programme of govt. funded building and we would all find that the market would stabilise since housing would no longer be such a failsafe investment opportunity, the housing benefit costs would diminish, a new generation would be given hope and aspiration, everyone benefits...except those who merely want to increase their profit margin...so true, I am deeply, hopelessly and bitterly prejudiced...against landlords and profiteers.



Can we just get this really exceptionally clear once and for all?

My argument that singling out the one foreign guy in an article because of dodgy reporting practice has nothing, literally nothing, to do with racism.

It is however to do with the otherness of someone from the outside.

Or to put it another way, one of the investors wanted a pied a terre thay would rarely be used.  They weren't from London but were treated more fairly than a non-national.

No-one has made out the racist insinuation argument and no-one will because it is a groundless misrepresentation of my position that does not stand up to any serious scrutiny.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Here you go, Diamond:

London's house price index has grown by 31% since its peak before the financial crisis.

And that peak was already overinflated.

Has London's population grown by 31% in that time?  Or is this, just possibly, more than just a problem of how many people want to live in London?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> More insinuations, Diamond?  Want to accuse me of something?
> 
> It's an excellent metaphor, actually.  The point is that by taking such a reductionist, simplistic approach to the problem, you discourage a proper structural response.
> 
> ...



But there was never the demand In Spain that justified the plan.

That was a glut of supply, unjustified by demand.

Here we have massive restrictions on supplyand roaring demand.

Maybe I give you too much credit but I suspect you knew that already and are pretending otherwise.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2015)

mentalchik said:


> erm



Not sure which bit of my post you disagree with.  I'll be glad to explain if you'll be specific.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But there was never the demand In Spain that justified the plan.
> 
> That was a glut of supply, unjustified by demand.
> 
> ...


The common factor is that both markets were viewed as investment opportunities first and foremost and housing supply second.  Both markets saw astronomical price inflation in that period.  The difference is that London is still seen that way whereas Spain is not.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

As a side point kabbes, how do you expect price controls to impact supply and meet demand when we are dealing with a supply-side problem?

Do you expect price controls to stimulate supply to meed demand?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can we just get this really exceptionally clear once and for all?
> 
> My argument that singling out the one foreign guy in an article because of dodgy reporting practice has nothing, literally nothing, to do with racism.
> 
> It is however to do with the otherness of someone from the outside.



What's the fucking difference?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

More stats:

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/house-price-calculator
Nationwide's house price index.  Since 1985, London prices have grown by 736%, so a £100k house in 1985 is £836k now.  

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tion-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html
Inflation calculator -- general price inflation has been about 180% in that time.

So house prices have risen by a factor of 4 compared with general price inflation.

Has the population of London grown by a factor of 4 in that time?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's a laughable metaphor - it gets into don't build because it'll only encourage them.
> 
> To what I wonder? Want to own a home? Breed perhaps?


he literally can't stop with it- the real joy is he thinks couching it thus will excuse his insinuations. Nobody will have a clue what he means, really, cos he didn't actually say it in black and white.

Thats how thick Diamond thinks everyone else is.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> As a side point kabbes, how do you expect price controls to impact supply and meet demand when we are dealing with a supply-side problem?
> 
> Do you expect price controls to stimulate supply to meed demand?


What makes you think this is a supply side problem?

Has the need for a supply grown by a factor of 4 since 1985?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> As a side point kabbes, how do you expect price controls to impact supply and meet demand when we are dealing with a supply-side problem?
> 
> Do you expect price controls to stimulate supply to meed demand?



For someone who's supposedly had shit loads of education you really are thick as shit.

90% of all new builds to be social housing. Shirley Porter to pay what she owes. Right to buy abolished, proponents head's on spikes on the Dartford Crossing, 

It's not hard, the Candy's would be building council housing if there was still a profit in it added to the chance of 10% posho-cunt places.


----------



## xenon (Feb 3, 2015)

It's not a simple supply / demand problem. There are houses peple can't afford to buy nor rent, sitting empty in areas with over crowding. Houses aren't widgets but they're being treated like diamonds.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

As another side point - how would rent controls deal with the demand for London property as a safe house rather than btl, which, as I understand it is an even greater motive force.


----------



## xenon (Feb 3, 2015)

It doesn't really matter that the price of luxury hand built cars is high in accordance with supply and international demand. Homes, other vital resources being subject to unmitigated international market forces, externalities remaining only locally troublesome , is fucked up. Yes, this holds for Londoners buying holiday homes in Cornwall as it does to Chinese business men buying UK properties purely for investment.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

So many side points.

"As you understand it"?  What evidence do you have for this?  

Once you have a sitting tenant, they would have an absolute right to remain as long as they want at tightly controlled rents.  You think that wouldn't make property a distinctly less attractive investment?

The "safe investment" side only exists because property values go up.  It's contingent on the rest of the market.  Once property ceases to be an attractive investment to the vast majority of the market, this part collapses too.


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

what the fuck is 'the otherness of someone from the outside'?
 and what sort of light is being shed on my views (in your eyes).

As for moving elsewhere - the average house might plausibly be affordable in Tyneside...but there are no jobs. And how is the army of finance and legal workers in London (and Oxford, Winchester, Cambridge, Cornwall (which has its own second home distortions) going to be serviced - a legion of cleaners, bussed in from 100 miles away. Presumably, you have no children, since they don't enter into your equations at all (schools and such). You haven't really thought this out, have you...or, more likely, the most feasible solution is the least palatable one for those already sitting nicely atop a property heap.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

The idea that the solution to housing issues is to build more houses BECAUSE SUPPLY AND DEMAND is probably the most poisonous concept around right now, and universally accepted/parroted by the main parties and most of the mainstream media.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

I actually know a bit about investments.  Shocking to hear, I know.

Property in and of itself is an appalling investment.  The physical structure deteriorates, there are enormous frictional costs, the liquidity is terrible and you can only buy and sell in huge chunks.  On top of that, your investment value is dependent on lots of third party actions; a whole area can drop in value because somebody somewhere decides to do something.

The _only_ reason it works is because the ability to reap rents (a) generates a reasonable running yield; and (b) makes it inflation-linked.  This, in turn, leads to the possibility for large capital gains, which is the other half of the equation and means that some may even be able to forgo the rent and use the property as a value store.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that the value store comes first.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I actually know a bit about investments.  Shocking to hear, I know.
> 
> Property in and of itself is an appalling investment.  The physical structure deteriorates, there are enormous frictional costs, the liquidity is terrible and you can only buy and sell in huge chunks.  On top of that, your investment value is dependent on lots of third party actions; a whole area can drop in value because somebody somewhere decides to do something.
> 
> The _only_ reason it works is because the ability to reap rents (a) generates a reasonable running yield; and (b) makes it inflation-linked.  This, in turn, leads to the possibility for large capital gains, which is the other half of the equation and means that some may even be able to forgo the rent and use the property as a value store.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that the value store comes first.


In the current climate renting isn't a necessity for appreciation and overall profit. Keeping property vacant is a very commonly used strategy.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> In the current climate renting isn't a necessity for appreciation and overall profit. Keeping property vacant is a very commonly used strategy.


Yes, because (a) there is a bubble mentality in effect; and (b) the value of the rental stream keeps the fundamental values of the property high.  Take these away, however, and property is a terrible store of value.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he literally can't stop with it- the real joy is he thinks couching it thus will excuse his insinuations. Nobody will have a clue what he means, really, cos he didn't actually say it in black and white.
> 
> Thats how thick Diamond thinks everyone else is.



What is that insinuation then?

Care to colour in your argument?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What is that insinuation then?
> 
> Care to colour in your argument?


No more side points to make?

Have you had any thoughts about why house prices have quadrupled in real terms in the last 30 years and what that might mean given that the population has been fairly stable?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What is that insinuation then?



That editor and others on this thread are incorrigible racists. You made them, with your uni education I'd have thought you could keep up on a board that has no entry requirements.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, because (a) there is a bubble mentality in effect; and (b) the value of the rental stream keeps the fundamental values of the property high.  Take these away, however, and property is a terrible store of value.


It is a very large and long-running bubble, kept from bursting by successive governments. It is rational investment behaviour to rely on this continuing into the near future at least. If I had money and was a bastard, I'd be buying property, with the intention of getting out of it within two or three years. That's the skill with Ponzi schemes of course; you can make money if they're big enough and you get out at the right time.

One of the first jobs I ever had was secretarial temping for property companies when I was a student. I typed up loads of valuations which had boilerplate text basically saying "this is going to be a good investment because property prices are going up and there's no indication that this will stop". That was twenty years ago. I thought it couldn't carry on back then, but I really hadn't appreciated the level to which the entire political establishment wants to preserve this increase. Now that the bubble is so ludicrously overinflated of course all of their futures are heavily tied to it, so political challenge is even less likely.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, because (a) there is a bubble mentality in effect; and (b) the value of the rental stream keeps the fundamental values of the property high.  Take these away, however, and property is a terrible store of value.



Point one is the main issue with point two being a nice little side-earner but not relevant to the fundamentals in the London market.

Also, I think desribing point one as a bubble mentality is incorrect. London house prices are a massive safe-haven in tricky times, much like the Swiss franc and due to a complex web of high domestic demand, low domestic supply, and the resulting resiliency of prices making them an attractive store of value for people with much less reliable options abroad.

There's not much you can do about the last element unless you propose controls on who can actually buy property but you can try and influence domestic housing stock supply and demand.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is a very large and long-running bubble, kept from bursting by successive governments. It is rational investment behaviour to rely on this continuing into the near future at least. If I had money and was a bastard, I'd be buying property, with the intention of getting out of it within two or three years. That's the skill with Ponzi schemes of course; you can make money if they're big enough and you get out at the right time.
> 
> One of the first jobs I ever had was secretarial temping for property companies when I was a student. I typed up loads of valuations which had boilerplate text basically saying "this is going to be a good investment because property prices are going up and there's no indication that this will stop". That was twenty years ago. I thought it couldn't carry on back then, but I really hadn't appreciated the level to which the entire political establishment wants to preserve this increase. Now that the bubble is so ludicrously overinflated of course all of their futures are heavily tied to it, so political challenge is even less likely.


Yes, but you are conflating two things: the fact that the establishment have a vested interest in keeping it inflated and the fundamental basis for its value.

The point I am making in this thread is to argue that if the establishment _stopped_ having that vested interest, it could control values quite comfortably by controlling the rental values.  Without the clear signal that the government will do its best to prop up values and without the fundamental basis for high values, property would cease to be a good store of value.  It has a _lot_ of disadvantages in that regard as compared with gold, for example.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Anything whose valuation is fundamentally dependent on sentiment alone will deflate pretty damned quickly if that sentiment disappears.  That's exactly what happened in Spain.

Prices aren't sustained by a few people (and yes, it is a few -- something like 5% at most of properties are empty) using property as a store of value.  People use property as a store of value because prices are sustained.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

campanula said:


> what the fuck is 'the otherness of someone from the outside'?
> and what sort of light is being shed on my views (in your eyes).
> 
> As for moving elsewhere - the average house might plausibly be affordable in Tyneside...but there are no jobs. And how is the army of finance and legal workers in London (and Oxford, Winchester, Cambridge, Cornwall (which has its own second home distortions) going to be serviced - a legion of cleaners, bussed in from 100 miles away. Presumably, you have no children, since they don't enter into your equations at all (schools and such). You haven't really thought this out, have you...or, more likely, the most feasible solution is the least palatable one for those already sitting nicely atop a property heap.



London service workers in the sectors you identify should, in theory, be remarkably mobile.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Anything whose valuation is fundamentally dependent on sentiment alone will deflate pretty damned quickly if that sentiment disappears.  That's exactly what happened in Spain.



Do you think the price of London housing is principally a matter of sentiment?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think the price of London housing is principally a matter of sentiment?


Have you read nothing I have written?

No, I think the price of London housing is principally a matter of unrestrained rents combined with the ability of individuals to accumulate power in the form of housing portfolios.

The sentiment is just a nice back-up.

Once again again again, I will remind you of that four-fold increase in real-term house prices over a period in which population was largely level.  Once again again again I will ask you why you think that four-fold increase is a supply issue?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> So many side points.
> 
> "As you understand it"?  What evidence do you have for this?
> 
> ...



Just as a procedural point - the rent controls could not be exempted out of as a matter of law even at the agreement of the parties?

I assume that that would be the case, otherwise with such high demand and at such limited levels of supply, there would be no way to make it work.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, but you are conflating two things: the fact that the establishment have a vested interest in keeping it inflated and the fundamental basis for its value.
> 
> The point I am making in this thread is to argue that if the establishment _stopped_ having that vested interest, it could control values quite comfortably by controlling the rental values.  Without the clear signal that the government will do its best to prop up values and without the fundamental basis for high values, property would cease to be a good store of value.  It has a _lot_ of disadvantages in that regard as compared with gold, for example.


Oh no, I don't mean to imply that property has terrific "fundamental" value (meaning more persistent, value is always socially dependent) just that there is a terrific political movement involved in keeping its value high and increasing that shows no sign of going away. If it _were_ to go away that would be awful for property investors; cue world's smallest violin.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Just as a procedural point - the rent controls could not be exempted out of as a matter of law even at the agreement of the parties?
> 
> I assume that that would be the case, otherwise with such high demand and at such limited levels of supply, there would be no way to make it work.


Assume what you want.

Whilst you're at it, assume that nobody will be allowed to own property portfolios.  See what that does to your assumptions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What is that insinuation then?
> 
> Care to colour in your argument?


you, a lawyer whose stock in trade is the weaponising of language, chose 'breed' as opposed to 'have a family' 

you didn't do so without intent. Because, and this is where you fall down in thinking everyone thicker than you, know exactly what associations the word breed has.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you, a lawyer whose stock in trade is the weaponising of language, chose 'breed' as opposed to 'have a family'
> 
> you didn't do so without intent. Because, and this is where you fall down in thinking everyone thicker than you, know exactly what associations the word breed has.


Indeed, that's why I asked him what he was insinuating.  But he ignored the question, as he has ignored lots of other inconvenient questions.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Have you read nothing I have written?
> 
> No, I think the price of London housing is principally a matter of unrestrained rents combined with the ability of individuals to accumulate power in the form of housing portfolios.
> 
> ...



I haven't looked extensively into the demographic issues, as I suspect neither have you, but I would hazard a guess that two major factors are at play that you might have missed:

(a) first the atomisation of the family unit requiring a greater number of properties for the same number of people, perhaps reducing the real supply of residential property, and two;

(b) the number of young people increasingly living on their own or in small groups, exerting greater demand.

On both points, it would be interesting to know comparative statistics on person per sq foot in London on a longitudinal basis.

Could well be wrong but those would be questions that I'd like to answer if I had the data to hand.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you, a lawyer whose stock in trade is the weaponising of language, chose 'breed' as opposed to 'have a family'
> 
> you didn't do so without intent. Because, and this is where you fall down in thinking everyone thicker than you, know exactly what associations the word breed has.



Overpopulation?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I haven't looked extensively into the demographic issues, as I suspect neither have you, but I would hazard a guess that two major factors are at play that you might have missed:
> 
> (a) first the atomisation of the family unit requiring a greater number of properties for the same number of people, perhaps reducing the real supply of residential property, and two;
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting that there genuinely is a four-fold increase in households?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If I had money *and was a bastard*, I'd be buying property, with the intention of getting out of it within two or three years.


What would you be doing if you had money but weren't?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Are you suggesting that there genuinely is a four-fold increase in households?



No. Where did I say that?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

I've got bad news for you, Diamond, if that's your hypothesis.

It's actually going the other way round.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What would you be doing if you had money but weren't?


Buying a £22 brunch.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Overpopulation?


breed is what animals do. Except when racists like to use it to describe how untermensch have children. You know that, that is why you used it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No. Where did I say that?


It's your response to my question as to why there has been a four-fold increase in house prices in real terms.  Your suggestion is that demographic factors have, in effect, increased the number of households.  But unless the number of households have increased by four-fold, this does not explain it.

Your hypothesis is undersupply, remember, but the number of properties available now is greater than 30 years ago and the population is largely static.  And the number of under-30s living with their parents is at a 20-year high too.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> breed is what animals do. Except when racists like to use it to describe how untermensch have children. You know that, that is why you used it.



Another risible attempt at misrepresentation.

You may dislike my points but it is pathetic that you try and render me a racist one moment having argued in the not so distant past that I have insinuated allegations of racism myself on the same matter.

Is that your sole tactic - your mayflower pole of racist reductionism about which you twirl this way that and this way the other, as and when the feeling takes you?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It's your response to my question as to why there has been a four-fold increase in house prices in real terms.  Your suggestion is that demographic factors have, in effect, increased the number of households.  But unless the number of households have increased by four-fold, this does not explain it.
> 
> Your hypothesis is undersupply, remember, but the number of properties available now is greater than 30 years ago and the population is largely static.  And the number of under-30s living with their parents is at a 20-year high too.



No, my argument  is that the central problem is undersupply within the context of an excess of demand.

The argument is you sort that out by radically boosting supply while discouraging demand in the relevant areas.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

Your argument appears to be price control.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2015)

Jesus.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Another risible attempt at misrepresentation.
> 
> You may dislike my points but it is pathetic that you try and render me a racist one moment having argued in the not so distant past that I have insinuated allegations of racism myself on the same matter.
> 
> Is that your sole tactic - your mayflower pole of racist reductionism about which you twirl this way that and this way the other, as and when the feeling takes you?




nope. I simply described the way yu used a word to imply the racism of others- that word was 'breed'

I've not called you a racist ever, nor have I danced on the maypole. I do keep the fire inside me, burn and burn below.

Nice try though. Its great how you actually think you'll come out of this thread looking good though. I'd sack it off. There is an 'ignore thread' button. That's what I use when I'm on the ropes. Chin up.


----------



## campanula (Feb 3, 2015)

your argument is fundamentally wrong though... opaque waffle beloved of the legal and political class (twirling about on your arsehole).


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your argument appears to be price control.


My argument, for the umpteenth time, is control over the ability of an investor to (a) invest at all, and (b) control his ability to make that investment pay.  Divorce the supply of a fundamental human need from the ability to profiteer from that need.

There is plenty of supply, just as there was 30 years ago.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nope. I simply described the way yu used a word to imply the racism of others- that word was 'breed'
> 
> I've not called you a racist ever, nor have I danced on the maypole. I do keep the fire inside me, burn and burn below.
> 
> Nice try though. Its great how you actually think you'll come out of this thread looking good though. I'd sack it off. There is an 'ignore thread' button. That's what I use when I'm on the ropes. Chin up.



"on the ropes" / ignore - seriously?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

studiously ignore every other point, seriously


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

does this shit work in court Diamond. Have you actually won cases by doing this. You haven't.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> My argument, for the umpteenth time, is control over the ability of an investor to (a) invest at all, and (b) control his ability to make that investment pay.  Divorce the supply of a fundamental human need from the ability to profiteer from that need.
> 
> There is plenty of supply, just as there was 30 years ago.



It's point (a) that I'm really interested in right now because it is the glaring gap in your argument to date and, while I've been getting at it for some time now, I don't see any evidence of you addressing it so far.

How would you restrict the buying of property based on the identity/category of the purchaser in practice?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It's point (a) that I'm really interested in right now because it is the glaring gap in your argument to date and, while I've been getting at it for some time now, I don't see any evidence of you addressing it so far.
> 
> How would you restrict the buying of property based on the identity/category of the purchaser in practice?


I've mentioned it a lot: you base it on whether the buyer already owns a property. I don't care about the exact mechanism.  Have a sliding scale of stamp duty, stop tax relief on mortgage interest payments, outright prevent ownership of more than x properties -- none of these things are particularly difficult. It may not be a perfect mechanism but reducing 80% of multiple-ownership, say, would be a good start.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nope. I simply described the way yu used a word to imply the racism of others- that word was 'breed'
> 
> I've not called you a racist ever, nor have I danced on the maypole. I do keep the fire inside me, burn and burn below.
> 
> Nice try though. Its great how you actually think you'll come out of this thread looking good though. I'd sack it off. There is an 'ignore thread' button. That's what I use when I'm on the ropes. Chin up.


fyi: no one dances on maypoles. it would be stupid and damgerous. they dance around maypoles.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 4, 2015)

DIamond probably does, tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yes, generally I take that view and particularly when you are trying to crudely control prices in the short term.



Anti-evolutionism too. Look at my natural model. There's no humans in it. Isn't it nice and undistorted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No. It is not. How do you square home-building programmes with "absolute free market fundamentalism? If those programmes require government intervention through dismantling the laws around green belts and/or incentivising building through other interventions, then that's fine - whatever gets the results, regardless as to whether they run counter to your odd straw man of "absolute free market fundamentalism" (whatever that is) or not.
> 
> Don't bother trying to play this reductionist game of misrepresnting or second guessing my position or arguments.
> 
> I can take all the personal invective that most posters seem to depressingly prefer on this thread to proper argument but I will pull you up consistently every time that you choose that properly and more egregiously cynical route.



Let's tackle a couple of your points:
1) "Intervention" in the market is *accepted* by the market as long as the intervention is in favour of the market - in fact it's often demanded.
2) The "home-building programmes" that are in effect build very little that intervenes in the market - i.e. social housing is not built - instead "affordable" housing is built, although the metric by which affordability is calculated continues to be opaque. Radio 4 yesterday had an interesting programme called "Clinging On". One couple participating, both full-time GPs in south London, explained that on their joint salaries, they couldn't secure a mortgage for anything larger than a single-bedroom flat - that's the salaries of two supposedly notoriously overpaid GPs.  Seems to me that your supposed interventionist "home-building programmes" feed the market rather than buck it, which the market (_apropos_ my point No. 1) has shown itself to be in favour of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> His position is one of absolute free market fundamentalism.  That's all.  Leave it up the market and everything will be taken care of.  There will be no bubbles, no market-cornering, no accumulations of power or wealth, no ignoring of the 80% that only provide 20% of the profit.  It will all just miraculously be cured.  Just like it has worked so well to date, in this industry and so many others.



Although, of course, the rational among us are aware that an absolute free market isn't just impossible, it'd quite possibly hurt capitalism due to removing all the accumulated layers of protectionism and other market distortions that favour capital.


----------



## lambro (Feb 4, 2015)

editor said:


> RIP this thread. It's been in intensive care for some time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

Still here then then eh?


----------



## lambro (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Still here then then eh?



Bloody misery


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

colin


----------



## lambro (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> colin



Have a cigar Colin and cheer up ffs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I'd really like to know where he thinks it's cool to be building? All areas within the M25 fair game? Outside the M25? Where, it's awfully vague.



Well, he's only really mentioned the Green Belt.
Thing is, London and most other cities and large towns aren't short of developable land. What they're short of is developers willing to invest their profits in remediating that land before building on it. The NFHB and other construction industry puppets keep on proposing that the government pay the full cost of remediation, and then the developers will do people the honour of building private housing on the land.
Bunch of dog-fucking shitcunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can we just get this really exceptionally clear once and for all?
> 
> My argument that singling out the one foreign guy in an article because of dodgy reporting practice has nothing, literally nothing, to do with racism.
> 
> It is however to do with the otherness of someone from the outside.



As any freshman social sciences student will tell you, "othering" is about prejudicially-diminishing another person or ethnic group or religion etc etc etc.
In other words, othering often incorporates racism, whether the racism is explicit or not. Racism can't occur outside of othering.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What's the fucking difference?



Effectively, there is no difference, unless Diamond defines "otherness" and othering differently to the norm (the norm being found in any dictionary of sociology).


----------



## lambro (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> As any freshman social sciences student will tell you, "othering" is about prejudicially-diminishing another person or ethnic group or religion etc etc etc.
> In other words, othering often incorporates racism, whether the racism is explicit or not. Racism can't occur outside of othering.



"*Othering* is a process that identifies those that are thought to be different from oneself or the mainstream, and it can reinforce and reproduce positions of domination and subordination."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> For someone who's supposedly had shit loads of education you really are thick as shit.
> 
> 90% of all new builds to be social housing. Shirley Porter to pay what she owes. Right to buy abolished, proponents head's on spikes on the Dartford Crossing,
> 
> It's not hard, the Candy's would be building council housing if there was still a profit in it added to the chance of 10% posho-cunt places.



Only the heads on spikes?
personally I'd prefer that the proponents of RtB are gibbeted on the Dartford Crossing, then left to die, rot and fertilise the land.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

lambro said:


> "*Othering* is a process that identifies those that are thought to be different from oneself or the mainstream, and it can reinforce and reproduce positions of domination and subordination."



Yes dear, that's what I said.


----------



## lambro (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes dear, that's what I said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The idea that the solution to housing issues is to build more houses BECAUSE SUPPLY AND DEMAND is probably the most poisonous concept around right now, and universally accepted/parroted by the main parties and most of the mainstream media.



As has been made clear over and again, even throughout the UK, building more supply isn't necessary. Bringing back into use empty housing would deal with a minority of demand, and re-purposing existing buildings would deal with another fraction. I know Crispy has made some good points about the expense of piping new/expanded services into an office building that's being retro-fitted as housing, but I don't think that's an absolute reason not to do so.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 4, 2015)

...and the easiest way to deal with demand is to restrict the source of the demand!  If the demand to buy only came from the people living in London, the supply would be plentiful.  If the demand comes from a billion people who each perceive this social good as being a safe investment vehicle, the demand will massively outstrip supply.

That's why the idea of fixing it by building in the green belt is pie in the sky, and it's why the extra lane on the motorway is a good metaphor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is a very large and long-running bubble, kept from bursting by successive governments. It is rational investment behaviour to rely on this continuing into the near future at least. If I had money and was a bastard, I'd be buying property, with the intention of getting out of it within two or three years. That's the skill with Ponzi schemes of course; you can make money if they're big enough and you get out at the right time.
> 
> One of the first jobs I ever had was secretarial temping for property companies when I was a student. I typed up loads of valuations which had boilerplate text basically saying "this is going to be a good investment because property prices are going up and there's no indication that this will stop". That was twenty years ago. I thought it couldn't carry on back then, but I really hadn't appreciated the level to which the entire political establishment wants to preserve this increase. Now that the bubble is so ludicrously overinflated of course all of their futures are heavily tied to it, so political challenge is even less likely.



So much of the "ruling class", including "the political establishment", are financially-invested in the bubble, it's hardly surprising that preservation of the _status quo_ is important to them, and fuck the rest of us!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've got bad news for you, Diamond, if that's your hypothesis.
> 
> It's actually going the other way round.



Yep. While there was an expansion in households from the very late '80s into the early '00s (kickstarted partially by our old friend the Poll Tax leading to hundreds of thousands of adult children in Greater London alone having to leave the home of their parents), the rate of growth for households hasn't been great for the last 15 years or so, despite the overall increase in population, mostly due to people being incorporated/re-incorporated into existing households. The boomtime of actually-affordable owner occupation in London is long dead for anyone on the London average wage, though, let alone those on minimum or near-minimum rates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What would you be doing if you had money but weren't?



Same as FridgeMagnet has always done - buying cameras and photographic paraphernalia he'll hardly use!


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've mentioned it a lot: you base it on whether the buyer already owns a property. I don't care about the exact mechanism.  Have a sliding scale of stamp duty, stop tax relief on mortgage interest payments, outright prevent ownership of more than x properties -- none of these things are particularly difficult. It may not be a perfect mechanism but reducing 80% of multiple-ownership, say, would be a good start.



A property within the jurisdiction or outside of it?


ViolentPanda said:


> As has been made clear over and again, even throughout the UK, building more supply isn't necessary. Bringing back into use empty housing would deal with a minority of demand, and re-purposing existing buildings would deal with another fraction. I know Crispy has made some good points about the expense of piping new/expanded services into an office building that's being retro-fitted as housing, but I don't think that's an absolute reason not to do so.



That is supply.

Or do you think supply means something wholly novel?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> As any freshman social sciences student will tell you, "othering" is about prejudicially-diminishing another person or ethnic group or religion etc etc etc.
> In other words, othering often incorporates racism, whether the racism is explicit or not. Racism can't occur outside of othering.



Your final two sentences form a non-sequitur that characterises this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Youer final two sentences form a non-sequitur that characterises this thread.


no they don't

and no 'e' in your


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:
			
		

> Or do you think supply means something wholly novel?



An increase in housing supply, as meant by  politicians and construction companies, is new-build, so yes, novel in the sense of being absolutely "new". That's why I specifically mentioned refurb - because it's *not* what developers,politicians and construction companies are talking about when they're talking about new supply.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no they don't
> 
> and no 'e' in your



So let me get this "rite".

The arguments are as follows:

1. You misspelt a word: and 

2. You're wrong because I say you are.

Apologies on the first, I am writing from a smartphone keyboard thanks to being many miles away from a more convenient device.

I will correct accordingly.

On the second, I'm not sure - perhaps you have the arrogance and/or gumption to try and dismiss a point by saying simply "I'm right and you are wrong"?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> An increase in housing supply, as meant by  politicians and construction companies, is new-build, so yes, novel in the sense of being absolutely "new". That's why I specifically mentioned refurb - because it's *not* what developers,politicians and construction companies are talking about when they're talking about new supply.



This is a bit difficult to understand.

If you bring new, previously unoccupied homes on line, be they new build or refurbished, do you understand that to form part of the stream of the supply of housing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Youer final two sentences form a non-sequitur that characterises this thread.



They only form a non sequitur if you don't understand what othering is. Othering can exist without racism, but racism depends on the act of othering.  

Still, I'm sure you know better than the late Stuart Hall, part of whose work I paraphrased. He, after all, was only an academic with a worldwide reputation on the subjects of racism and othering.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> ...and the easiest way to deal with demand is to restrict the source of the demand!  If the demand to buy only came from the people living in London, the supply would be plentiful.  If the demand comes from a billion people who each perceive this social good as being a safe investment vehicle, the demand will massively outstrip supply.
> 
> That's why the idea of fixing it by building in the green belt is pie in the sky, and it's why the extra lane on the motorway is a good metaphor.



Do you think there is only one green belt in the UK?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> They only form a neventually.quitur if you don't understand what othering is. Othering can exist without racism, but racism depends on the act of othering.
> 
> Still, I'm sure you know better than the late Stuart Hall, part of whose work I paraphrased. He, after all, was only an academic with a worldwide reputation on the subjects of racism and othering.



Your second sentence basically captures it.

Thank god we got there eventually.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is a bit difficult to understand.
> 
> If you bring new, previously unoccupied homes on line, be they new build or refurbished, do you understand that to form part of the stream of the supply of housing?



Don't condescend unless you've got the moves to pull it off. Otherwise you're left with egg on your face. 
I've differentiated between two separate sources of supply, one of which features in govt and business projections of increased supply and one that doesn't. I've made clear in my posts that this is what I was doing, which makes your condescending nitpicking either irrational or ignorant.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't condescend unless you've got the moves to pull it off. Otherwise you're left with egg on your face.
> I've differentiated between two separate sources of supply, one of which features in govt and business projections of increased supply and one that doesn't. I've made clear in my posts that this is what I was doing, which makes your condescending nitpicking either irrational or ignorant.



Is it part of housing supply?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think there is only one green belt in the UK?



Don't be disingenuous. He was talking about London, and I expect that everyone (except for your pretence) knew it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Is it part of housing supply?



Read my posts.The answer is there.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't be disingenuous. He was talking about London, and I expect that everyone (except for your pretence) knew it.



We were discussing increased housing supply and diversification of demand away from London.

This is not a London thing, and the fact you assumed it was rather underlines the point.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Read my posts.The answer is there.



So, in the absence of any specific objection - yes...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So let me get this "rite".
> 
> The arguments are as follows:
> 
> ...


you're wrong because you don't understand what people say and so respond  like a blundering bear in a glass shop. i've pointed this out before.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you're wrong because you don't understand what people say and so respond  like a blundering bear in a glass shop. i've pointed this out before.



So, to be clear, that's - "you are wrong because I say you are"

With something about a bear thrown in as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So, to be clear, that's - "you are wrong because I say you are"
> 
> With something about a bear thrown in as well.


let's take ViolentPanda's recent posts as an example. you may be unfamiliar with the concept of othering, but to anyone who is familiar with that concept there is no non sequitur in his contributions. so, you make yourself wrong. but among other examples on this thread there is a clear lack of for want of a better word wit apparent in your posts. as i've said before, you have described a continuum of offence about epilepsy where more severely afflicted people would, in your opinion, take greater offence at something that was said than people less afflicted. there are no grounds, and you have presented no grounds, for this to be the case - it remains simply an assertion, nothing more than a breath of wind in evidential terms. but you cannot grasp the probability that things do not run along that sort of simple linear, directly proportional continuum. frankly, i'm glad you're not my lawyer and that you're never likely to be someone i need discuss a sensitive legal matter with.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't be disingenuous. He was talking about London, and I expect that everyone (except for your pretence) knew it.





Diamond said:


> We were discussing increased housing supply and diversification of demand away from London.
> 
> This is not a London thing, and the fact you assumed it was rather underlines the point.



So full of shit...


----------



## peterkro (Feb 5, 2015)

"your mayflower pole of racist reductionism". Jesus fucking wept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your second sentence basically captures it.
> 
> Thank god we got there eventually.



*You* "got there eventually". Everyone else, including the lizard reading this over my shoulder, got there from my first post on the issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Read my posts.The answer is there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So, to be clear, that's - "you are wrong because I say you are"
> 
> With something about a bear thrown in as well.



No, it's a "you're wrong because you pretend to understand ideas that you don't actually comprehend" (reading a wikipedia page doesn't constitute comprehension).
Blagging only works on other blaggers. It doesn't work on anyone who's actually studied those ideas, hence your poor form with regard to othering.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's a "you're wrong because you pretend to understand ideas that you don't actually comprehend" (reading a wikipedia page doesn't constitute comprehension).
> Blagging only works on other blaggers. It doesn't work on anyone who's actually studied those ideas, hence your poor form with regard to othering.



Please inform me how to other better.

You are clearly expert, particularly when in league with your pals.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A property within the jurisdiction or outside of it?



Any chance of a response to this point kabbes?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Any chance of a response to this point kabbes?


You're kidding me, right?  You want to discuss the fine details about something you are fundamentally opposed to on principle?

First of all, you have to have some philosophical common ground.  _Then_ you can nail down the finer points.  I'm not interested in bogging down on a thousand little details with somebody who wants to nitpick at everything because actually he just doesn't like the idea in the first place.  This isn't a marriage.

(There's also a certain irony at ignoring direct questions yourself and then coming back to one rather irrelevant little point.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Any chance of a response to this point kabbes?



Any chance of a response to being called up on your bollocks about green belts?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You're kidding me, right?  You want to discuss the fine details about something you are fundamentally opposed to on principle?
> 
> First of all, you have to have some philosophical common ground.  _Then_ you can nail down the finer points.  I'm not interested in bogging down on a thousand little details with somebody who wants to nitpick at everything because actually he just doesn't like the idea in the first place.  This isn't a marriage.
> 
> (There's also a certain irony at ignoring direct questions yourself and then coming back to one rather irrelevant little point.)



So the central, practical plank of your proposal is not up for discussion?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Any chance of a response to being called up on your bollocks about green belts?



Sorry, what was that?

Something about pointing out that there are multiple green belts was met with evidence of I discussing a single one in a couple of posts. 

And you think this is a valid point, why?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Unbelievable.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Sorry, what was that?
> 
> Something about pointing out that there are multiple green belts was met with evidence of I discussing a single one in a couple of posts.
> 
> And you think this is a valid point, why?



You ain't blustering your way out of this, you were going on about the London green belt, when pwnd on that you try to weasel away suggesting you were actually on about other green belts. I'm calling you a liar in that, so what's your response, Rumpole?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You ain't blustering your way out of this, you were going on about the London green belt, when pwnd on that you try to weasel away suggesting you were actually on about other green belts. I'm calling you a liar in that, so what's your response, Rumpole?



No, I did not suggest that.

The primary focus of the conversation was on London - see the thread title.

I was making wider arguments that solving London's housing crisis involves a wider, nation-wide response.

So when discussing greenbelts in the context of London, I pointed out the wider aperture on that front to kabbes, of which he previously appeared to be ignorant.

And "pwned", really?  What do you think that language achieves or shows?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Unbelievable.



So the owner/investor/property jurisdiction point is not up for discussion?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So the owner/investor/property jurisdiction point is not up for discussion?


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  You have no interest in examining any actual concepts.  You're just desperate to cast about for a single point you can "win" on.  And as you fail again and again and again, you pretend it never happened and look for the next thing.

This so-called point is nothing.  Call it no more than one property within the UK if you're that bothered for an answer.  What does that get you?  Want to pick any more micro-points?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, I did not suggest that.
> 
> The primary focus of the conversation was on London - see the thread title.
> 
> I was making wider arguments that solving London's housing crisis involves a wider, nation-wide response.



So all the time you were talking about building on the green belt you were meaning other, non-London green belts?




			
				Diamond said:
			
		

> So when discussing greenbelts in the context of London, I pointed out the wider aperture on that front to kabbes, of which he previously appeared to be ignorant.



I know for 100% fact that kabbes is fully aware of the way the countryside of the UK is protected. And am pretty sure that the action committee of which he is the big cheese will be forever grateful that they did not engage you as their legal representative.




			
				Diamond said:
			
		

> And "pwned", really?  What do you think that language achieves or shows?



Shows we're on the internet and that, for the umpteenth time in ONE THREAD you have outed yourself as a complete twat.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

One further, serious issue has been raised here by Diamond; people who claim to be qualified lawyers usually don't allow themselves to get in to a situation whereby their ignorance on a topic is self-evident even to those of us who were only educated to GCSE level. Further, I would have thought that a qualified lawyer who then lies to support his position should not really be a lawyer, an honest character should be surely be displayed by such people? cesare ?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  You have no interest in examining any actual concepts.  You're just desperate to cast about for a single point you can "win" on.  And as you fail again and again and again, you pretend it never happened and look for the next thing.
> 
> This so-called point is nothing.  Call it no more than one property within the UK if you're that bothered for an answer.  What does that get you?  Want to pick any more micro-points?



You have been banging on about the market abroad for btl and/or investment in London for some time now.

But when I ask how you propose to restrict this practise as part of your wider, notably vague, investor control proposals, you splutter to a screeching halt.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Why are you asking cesare for verification?

When cesare asked detailed questions about my credentials, I provided them.

Cesare was not prepared to return the favour when I requested by response - unreliable at best.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You have been banging on about the market abroad for btl and/or investment in London for some time now.
> 
> But when I ask how you propose to restrict this practise as part of your wider, notably vague, investor control proposals, you splutter to a screeching halt.


This is what I mean about dishonesty.  You have already decided against market intervention, so your questions are disingenuous.

For your enlightenment, however: restricting individuals to one property in the UK would certainly be a good start, as part of the solution that includes rent controls and tenancy rights (remember those?).  It wouldn't prevent all investment, no, but it would prevent wholesale accumulations.  

Your dishonesty in the debate has led you down the blind alley of thinking that one part of a solution has to completely solve a problem or it is worthless.  Can you recognise that though, I wonder?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Why are you asking cesare for verification?
> 
> When cesare asked detailed questions about my credentials, I provided them.
> 
> Cesare was not prepared to return the favour when I requested by response - unreliable at best.



I am asking whether a proven liar is a fit person to be a lawyer.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> This is what I mean about dishonesty.  You have already decided against market intervention, so your questions are disingenuous.
> 
> For your enlightenment, however: restricting individuals to one property in the UK would certainly be a good start, as part of the solution that includes rent controls and tenancy rights (remember those?).  It wouldn't prevent all investment, no, but it would prevent wholesale accumulations.
> 
> Your dishonesty in the debate has led you down the blind alley of thinking that one part of a solution has to completely solve a problem or it is worthless.  Can you recognise that though, I wonder?



Ok, some traction at last...

So are we restricting only foreigners from one property in the UK or does this apply to UK nationals?

And as a follow on point how does that square with:

(i) EU nationals and freedom of movement/ the common market, particularly given the high levels of Greek investment in London in the context of the eurozone crisis;

and

(ii) the ownership of existing properties in light of the ECHR/HRA right to property (which admittedly can be derogated from under certain conditions)?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I am asking whether a proven liar is a fit person to be a lawyer.



Nothing of the kind has been proven.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

You fucking joker.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I am asking whether a proven liar is a fit person to be a lawyer.



Some would say it's a prerequisite.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ok, some traction at last...
> 
> So are we restricting only foreigners from one property in the UK or does this apply to UK nationals?


Again?  What do you think?  Or are you just desperately trying to find cheap points?



> And as a follow on point how does that square with:
> 
> (i) EU nationals and freedom of movement/ the common market, particularly given the high levels of Greek investment in London in the context of the eurozone crisis;
> 
> ...


How doesn't it square with it? 

Better than you have tried to baffle me with bullshit.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 5, 2015)

Is it worth reading this thread and seeing what the argument is about?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Is it worth reading this thread and seeing what the argument is about?


There is no argument.  It's just a series of attempts by Diamond to embarrass himself in a cringing series of ways, getting the requisite abuse you would thereby expect, pretending he has some high ground and moving on to the next dishonest prevarication,


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Again?  What do you think?  Or are you just desperately trying to find cheap points?
> 
> 
> How doesn't it square with it?
> ...



These are not "cheap points" and I'm not trying to baffle you, although baffled you may be.

These are relatively straightforward, barely technical, points that any politician advancing your proposals, such as they are, would be expected to answer directly.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Some would say it's a prerequisite.



Remember me telling you about my barrister who went to Slough when the rest of the party was in Bracknell? Probably not, you were cunted. Well, he tried to give it some old flannel about papers being mixed up, Andy and I refused to let the prick talk on our behalf, we got the rig back


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> These are not "cheap points" and I'm not trying to baffle you, although baffled you may be.
> 
> These are relatively straightforward, barely technical, points that any politician advancing your proposals, such as they are, would be expected to answer directly.


And yet you have not identified in what way they prevent the prohibition of a private individual owning multiple properties.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> There is no argument.  It's just a series of attempts by Diamond to embarrass himself in a cringing series of ways, getting the requisite abuse you would thereby expect, pretending he has some high ground and moving on to the next dishonest prevarication,



Bravo narrator!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bravo narrator!



Are you OK?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> And yet you have not identified in what way they prevent the prohibition of a private individual owning multiple properties.



OK, let me restate my points:

1. Does the absolute restriction on owning more than one property in this jurisdiction apply only to non-UK nationals?

(more of which later)

2. Will this absolute restriction apply to EU nationals and, if so, how will that work with EU freedom of movement/common market principles that run explicitly counter to what is envisaged by you?

And

3. Finally, what happens to those in contravention of these new laws when they come in to power given the right to property under human rights law?

Sorry, you may call this "nit-picking".

I consider it to be valid examination.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

So, also as a promised side-point, would there be a discrimination between national and non-national investors that fall into the multiple property category and, if so, why?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

You're still arguing about the mechanism, because you can only imagine one way of bringing these things to pass and so you are searching for weaknesses in your one imagined mechanism.  But there are many ways to skin a cat.

First and foremost: do you believe in the underlying principle?  If not, why pretend that it is a matter of logistics?  Be honest about your position.

I'm not going to spend the time thrashing out the mechanism with one who is determined to find a way to see it fail because he disagrees with the entire premise.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

It's your proposal and your case to make.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It's your proposal and your case to make.


I have made the case for the principle behind it.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I have made the case for the principle behind it.



But you have failed to defend it under the most cursory examination.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you have failed to defend it under the most cursory examination.


I haven't even tried to define a mechanism, you buffoon.  I thought I'd made that quite plain. 

I've defended the principle entirely robustly, however.  And you have avoid it entirely beyond insisting that any intervention is bad, mmmkay.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you have failed to defend it under the most cursory examination.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2015)

You got a wig Diamond ?

Gary Glitter won't be needing his for a while...


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I haven't even tried to define a mechanism, you buffoon.  I thought I'd made that quite plain.
> 
> I've defended the principle entirely robustly, however.  And you have avoid it entirely beyond insisting that any intervention is bad, mmmkay.



We've dealt with your latter point a long time ago.

I am pressing you on a central point of principle - foreign investors and how you intend to control them.

This is direct and central to the OP and you are not prepared to explain your position for reasons that remain unclear.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

You've already been given one mechanism that overcomes your problems by sidestepping them: a heavily penal escalating stamp duty.  100% for a second property, 200% for anything further.  And yes of course for those inside and out the UK.  What would be the point otherwise?  That will stop investors undercutting owner-occupiers.

And that's just one of a myriad of possible mechanisms.  It doesn't have to be an outright ban, although that could work too.

This is just to show that there are ways, if the will is there.  But really, honestly, I have no interest in discussing a mechanism that will always be feasible one way or other.  You are still being entirely dishonest in your entire line of questioning.  It's utterly disingenuous,  you don't care about solutions to mechanistic trivialities.  You just hate the idea full stop and want to find a way to prevent it via bureaucratic lawyery.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

Nope, genuinely interested in that. You had not put it so clearly earlier.

Will mull it over but I suppose the first thing that occurs to me, as a "bureaucratic lawyer" as you so charmingly put it, is how do you define a first property, particularly with regard to foreign investors?

Also, what degree of equity equates to ownership of a property - is a simple majority required or something more distinct?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Is it worth reading this thread and seeing what the argument is about?



It'll be a strong candidate for _most boring thread of the year_.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Nope, genuinely interested in that. You had not put it so clearly earlier.
> 
> Will mull it over but I suppose the first thing that occurs to me, as a "bureaucratic lawyer" as you so charmingly put it, is how do you define a first property, particularly with regard to foreign investors?
> 
> Also, what degree of equity equates to ownership of a property - is a simple majority required or something more distinct?


These are not difficult things to resolve though, are they?  We manage it already for stamp duty, for example.  It's not hard to define rules.

And again, _this is just one possible mechanic_.  Clever people can come up with others.  This is why it is the principle that matters first.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 5, 2015)

Diamond 
I see you have still yet to explain why you used lame as a pejorative, yet have continued to badger others for answers to questions yuo asked.

How about returning the courtesy and answering this one?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> These are not difficult things to resolve though, are they?  We manage it already for stamp duty, for example.  It's not hard to define rules.
> 
> And again, _this is just one possible mechanic_.  Clever people can come up with others.  This is why it is the principle that matters first.



Agreed, but it's a very difficult question that underlies your proposal:

Essentially, how, and on what basis, does one discriminate against buyers?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 5, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Diamond
> I see you have still yet to explain why you used lame as a pejorative, yet have continued to badger others for answers to questions yuo asked.
> 
> How about returning the courtesy and answering this one?



I'm pretty sure I covered that one off a while back.  Maybe return to the source material for assistance?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Agreed, but it's a very difficult question that underlies your proposal:
> 
> Essentially, how, and on what basis, does one discriminate against buyers?



Supposedly You are the fucking lawyer. We've all paid for you to be this hot shot, is it really beyond your wit to come up with ANYTHING?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm pretty sure I covered that one off a while back.  Maybe return to the source material for assistance?



Your pants are burning. Again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Please inform me how to other better.
> 
> You are clearly expert, particularly when in league with your pals.



The post above says everything anyone needs to know about you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> One further, serious issue has been raised here by Diamond; people who claim to be qualified lawyers usually don't allow themselves to get in to a situation whereby their ignorance on a topic is self-evident even to those of us who were only educated to GCSE level. Further, I would have thought that a qualified lawyer who then lies to support his position should not really be a lawyer, an honest character should be surely be displayed by such people? cesare ?



You're kidding, right? Lawyers who are "honest characters" would be useless. You want a mouthpiece who knows exactly what to say and what not to say,not some gitbag who'll blurt everything out to the rozzers!


----------



## Diamond (Feb 6, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Supposedly You are the fucking lawyer. We've all paid for you to be this hot shot, is it really beyond your wit to come up with ANYTHING?



Wut?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Agreed, but it's a very difficult question that underlies your proposal:
> 
> Essentially, how, and on what basis, does one discriminate against buyers?



Kabbes - I'm going to continue to press you on this.

Do you have an answer?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 6, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wut?



Wut? Really? What do you think that language achieves or shows?

 

Apologies for calling you a fucking joker. You're just a joke.


----------



## campanula (Feb 6, 2015)

Yes Diamond, I am retiring, beaten down and bored to death with your tedious repetitions of non-points, deliberately vague and obtuse language and ludicrous pomposity. I admire those who have the patience to keep battering their heads against a (thick) brick wall or attempt to shine a light down the clouded and dim mental pathways in your cramped lawyerly brain...but I do have a dog in this race and have the honesty to explain my position and why I am holding it....while you have failed to offer anything of substance whatsoever, either morally, politically, even economically and appear to have a woeful understanding of market mechanisms while enthusiastically endorsing more of the same....why are you still waffling on about restricting foreigners - they (investors...of any type) will willingly restrict themselves if the opportunities for profit were not so ridiculously excessive.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Kabbes - I'm going to continue to press you on this.
> 
> Do you have an answer?


How many times do I have to repeat the same things?  I am not going to give you a fully worked out and costed policy for a principle.  Particularly not a principle that has a thousand different ways to implement it.  It is highly disingenuous of you to act as if this is the silver bullet for you, and it is ridiculous to pretend that such a policy is just going to be plonked on the table up front.  It's also utter transparent as a device -- I could put forward twenty clear and unambiguous policy directions and you will look for the one you think has something you can attack in it, tying up another twenty pages with nitpicking and politicking about one single point of one single hypothetical version of an implementation for something you philosophically opposed to in the first place.  And yes, this is the last time I am going to repeat this.  Knock yourself out with your "pressing".

Incidentally, if you want to start "pressing on this", do you have an answer yet to why, if this is a housing supply problem, the cost of housing has gone up fourfold in real terms over a period in which the population has remained static whilst young people have moved back in with their parents?

Do you have an answer yet as to why it is OK to call things "lame" to mean "shitty"?  Or why it is okay to imply that others are, at the very least, xenophobic?  Or that they view those who can't afford housing as the type who "breed"?

Do you have an answer yet as to why the whole thread is about London housing, you have repeatedly declared building on the London green belt is the answer to that and yet when, in that context, I mention "green belt", you triumphantly leap on the fact that I didn't specify London?  I mean -- you want an example of the kind of disingenuous fuckwittery I want to avoid, you have it right there.

Do you even have an answer as to whether you have a fundamental objection to the idea of restricting house-purchasing (in whatever form, be it legal, fiscal, planning or other)?

Do you have an answer for _any_ of the questions repeatedly thrown at you, Diamond?  Or is the idea of repeatedly nitpicking one detail of a non-articulated, non-specific implementation of a principle just too fucking exciting for you to deal with anything else?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It'll be a strong candidate for _most boring thread of the year_.



It lacks a certain _je ne sais quoi _innit?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> It lacks a certain _je ne sais quoi _innit?



It's become a boring game of ping pong. Veeps, Bahnhoff, and Kabbes trying to pick up on points of order or simply just abusing Diamond, and Equationgirl occasionally popping in to moan about "lame". Diamond in turn has rather run out of steam and has been trying to entrap someone into saying that the property market should be restricted to foreigners, probably so that he could level a charge of xenophobia.

Despite having had some promising moments and at one time, an all star cast, it never really took off and has now crashed and burned in the Sea of Mundanity.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's become a boring game of ping pong. Veeps, Bahnhoff, and Kabbes trying to pick up on points of order or simply just abusing Diamond, and Equationgirl occasionally popping in to moan about "lame". Diamond in turn has rather run out of steam and has been trying to entrap someone into saying that the property market should be restricted to foreigners, probably so that he could level a charge of xenophobia.
> 
> Despite having had some promising moments and at one time, an all star cast, it never really took off and has now crashed and burned in the Sea of Mundanity.



I think it's because the subject matter isn't dramatic enough to draw in the real nutters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's become a boring game of ping pong. Veeps, Bahnhoff, and Kabbes trying to pick up on points of order or simply just abusing Diamond, and Equationgirl occasionally popping in to moan about "lame". Diamond in turn has rather run out of steam and has been trying to entrap someone into saying that the property market should be restricted to foreigners, probably so that he could level a charge of xenophobia.
> 
> Despite having had some promising moments and at one time, an all star cast, it never really took off and has now crashed and burned in the Sea of Mundanity.



"Restricted to natives", you mean? That's what he was trying to provoke. "Restricted to foreigners" would give him a hard-on (for their money).


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm pretty sure I covered that one off a while back.  Maybe return to the source material for assistance?


Then please could you point to where you did?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Restricted to natives", you mean? That's what he was trying to provoke. "Restricted to foreigners" would give him a hard-on (for their money).



I meant the same. As in 'to foreigners the market would be restricted'. But yes.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's become a boring game of ping pong. Veeps, Bahnhoff, and Kabbes trying to pick up on points of order or simply just abusing Diamond, and Equationgirl occasionally popping in to moan about "lame". Diamond in turn has rather run out of steam and has been trying to entrap someone into saying that the property market should be restricted to foreigners, probably so that he could level a charge of xenophobia.
> 
> Despite having had some promising moments and at one time, an all star cast, it never really took off and has now crashed and burned in the Sea of Mundanity.


As opposed to you to popping in to have a dig rather than make any substantive comments?

I'm not moaning about the use of the word, I'm asking him to justify why he used it in a negative context given that it is seen as disablist by many. But it's more important for you to say that I'm moaning.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 7, 2015)

Maybe this thread could take a whole new direction.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> As opposed to you to popping in to have a dig rather than make any substantive comments?



Yes, as opposed to that.



> I'm not moaning about the use of the word, I'm asking him to justify why he used it in a negative context given that it is seen as disablist by many.



We've been here before. It's either because he doesn't know or doesn't care.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The post above says everything anyone needs to know about you.



Here's something I know about you: you're a coward.  Why do you attack people when you know they can't answer back?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Here's something I know about you: you're a coward.  Why do you attack people when you know they can't answer back?



Get a grip, you special snowdrop.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Get a grip, you special snowdrop.



I did think it wasn't your usual style.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 7, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How many times do I have to repeat the same things?  I am not going to give you a fully worked out and costed policy for a principle.  Particularly not a principle that has a thousand different ways to implement it.  It is highly disingenuous of you to act as if this is the silver bullet for you, and it is ridiculous to pretend that such a policy is just going to be plonked on the table up front.  It's also utter transparent as a device -- I could put forward twenty clear and unambiguous policy directions and you will look for the one you think has something you can attack in it, tying up another twenty pages with nitpicking and politicking about one single point of one single hypothetical version of an implementation for something you philosophically opposed to in the first place.  And yes, this is the last time I am going to repeat this.  Knock yourself out with your "pressing".
> 
> Incidentally, if you want to start "pressing on this", do you have an answer yet to why, if this is a housing supply problem, the cost of housing has gone up fourfold in real terms over a period in which the population has remained static whilst young people have moved back in with their parents?
> 
> ...



I see that the boil has been lanced...

You raise a number of points that will take me a while to deal with so, given my travel time back from Slovenia and other engagements tomorrow, Monday is the earliest that you can expect a substantive response but bravo sir for choosing to rejoin the party and defend your position further.


----------



## maomao (Feb 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Monday is the earliest that you can expect a substantive response


Don't worry, no-one's expecting a _substantive_ response from you at all.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 7, 2015)

The life of a jet-setting lawyer, plush apartment, 'n all that.


----------



## andysays (Feb 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Get a grip, you special snowdrop.



Special snow*flake*, surely.

Or in this case, maybe just flake...


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Special snow*flake*, surely.
> 
> Or in this case, maybe just flake...



How this grovelling must repel even its intended recipient.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2015)

The guy is a prick that you wouldn't want to go for a pint with. That's all you need to judge whether someone is a fucking cock or not.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The guy is a prick that you wouldn't want to go for a pint with. That's all you need to judge whether someone is a fucking cock or not.


Which one?  On some threads I'm spoilt for choice.  BTW my excuse for staying out of this thread is being slightly snowed under by real life.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The guy is a prick that you wouldn't want to go for a pint with. That's all you need to judge whether someone is a fucking cock or not.



I dunno, I drink with you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I dunno, I drink with you.



That's cos I can drink and you're a pisshead. Works well.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2015)

Yeah, I'll drink with anyone tbf.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 7, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I see that the boil has been lanced...
> 
> You raise a number of points that will take me a while to deal with so, given my travel time back from Slovenia and other engagements tomorrow, Monday is the earliest that you can expect a substantive response but bravo sir for choosing to rejoin the party and defend your position further.


Kabbes, please don't bother. Diamond actually thinks you're jousting mentally, that you are peers with equal knowledge and you will shake his hand at the end as an honourable opponent who came close to "winning". It's cruel to let him keep thinking that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, I'll drink with anyone tbf.


funnily enough I was just mentioning salman rushdie in a PM.


----------



## treelover (Feb 8, 2015)

> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...housing-tenants-denied-access-communal-garden



Social Housing tenants do have access to two rooftop gardens though.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Social Housing tenants do have access to two rooftop gardens though.


Which isn't really the point. The developers made a big song and dance about the development being 'tenure blind' -  an odd phrase I've certainly never heard before - and now they're saying 'well to make the service charge more appropriate we're limiting access to one of gardens, the gym, the spa and the 24 hr Harrods concierge service'. So it's not just the gardens.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

campanula said:


> Yes Diamond, I am retiring, beaten down and bored to death with your tedious repetitions of non-points, deliberately vague and obtuse language and ludicrous pomposity. I admire those who have the patience to keep battering their heads against a (thick) brick wall or attempt to shine a light down the clouded and dim mental pathways in your cramped lawyerly brain...but I do have a dog in this race and have the honesty to explain my position and why I am holding it....while you have failed to offer anything of substance whatsoever, either morally, politically, even economically and appear to have a woeful understanding of market mechanisms while enthusiastically endorsing more of the same....why are you still waffling on about restricting foreigners - they (investors...of any type) will willingly restrict themselves if the opportunities for profit were not so ridiculously excessive.



Very lyrical.  Bravo.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How many times do I have to repeat the same things?  I am not going to give you a fully worked out and costed policy for a principle.  Particularly not a principle that has a thousand different ways to implement it.  It is highly disingenuous of you to act as if this is the silver bullet for you, and it is ridiculous to pretend that such a policy is just going to be plonked on the table up front.  It's also utter transparent as a device -- I could put forward twenty clear and unambiguous policy directions and you will look for the one you think has something you can attack in it, tying up another twenty pages with nitpicking and politicking about one single point of one single hypothetical version of an implementation for something you philosophically opposed to in the first place.  And yes, this is the last time I am going to repeat this.  Knock yourself out with your "pressing".
> 
> Incidentally, if you want to start "pressing on this", do you have an answer yet to why, if this is a housing supply problem, the cost of housing has gone up fourfold in real terms over a period in which the population has remained static whilst young people have moved back in with their parents?
> 
> ...



The point is that you say that you could put forward twenty arguments to provide support for your reasoning but you aren't prepared to put a single one to the test.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

Coward.

That's what it looks like.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

campanula said:


> Yes Diamond, I am retiring, beaten down and bored to death with your tedious repetitions of non-points, deliberately vague and obtuse language and ludicrous pomposity. I admire those who have the patience to keep battering their heads against a (thick) brick wall or attempt to shine a light down the clouded and dim mental pathways in your cramped lawyerly brain...but I do have a dog in this race and have the honesty to explain my position and why I am holding it....while you have failed to offer anything of substance whatsoever, either morally, politically, even economically and appear to have a woeful understanding of market mechanisms while enthusiastically endorsing more of the same....why are you still waffling on about restricting foreigners - they (investors...of any type) will willingly restrict themselves if the opportunities for profit were not so ridiculously excessive.



The clever thing with this post is that you obscure a very weak point by making appeals to some greater nobility first.

Very smart but also not very effective when subject to proper scrutiny.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Everyone thinks that you're cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

You _are _a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Game over.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone thinks that you're cunt.


That's not true. Only everyone who's read this thread.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> not very effective when subject to proper scrutiny.


Yep. The best way to deal with proper scrutiny is evasion and smears of racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

maomao said:


> That's not true. Only everyone who's read this thread.


I think we can say it's unproven thus far


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

You carry on gents...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You carry on gents...



Seriously, cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

That recalled ad.This bloke took it as aspiration.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, cunt.



Succinct.

I think you may have levelled this charge before.

Care to expand?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Oh yeah, the results of your opposition is that you are racist. All non-market responses = racist.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Care to expand?


Tedious cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

How does it feel to close ranks?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Succinct.
> 
> I think you may have levelled this charge before.
> 
> Care to expand?


Not sure that i need to - you're a massive cunt. You've been out-argued by thickos. The way you talk, it's so urgh


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How does it feel to close ranks?


De gang. What gang? Name names. You've been moaning and even calling them up in the middle of the night to play your game. So name names.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure that i need to - you're a massive cunt. You've been out-argued by thickos. The way you talk, it's so urgh



Ha!

Which fellow travellers also deserve your scorn?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ha!
> 
> Which fellow travellers also deserve your scorn?


You haven't got any. That should be a warning to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ha!
> 
> Which fellow travellers also deserve your scorn?




I'm cleverer than you. I'm not a big brain, but i'm well clever. Are you cleverer than me?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't got any. That should be a warning to you.



But you scorn the people who you enter into alliance with, that much is clear, who are these unfortunate individuals?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you scorn the people who you enter into alliance with, that much is clear, who are these unfortunate individuals?


eh?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

Apparently I've been "out argued by thickos"...

Your words, not mine...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you scorn the people who you enter into alliance with, that much is clear, who are these unfortunate individuals?



Do you need some help here? Shall we call the poulticrexx?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

Just as a point of clarity - who are these "thickos", how did they "out-argue" me, and what will happen to this legion after the event?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apparently I've been "out argued by thickos"...
> 
> Your words, not mine...



_Not my words Carol, the words of Top Gear magazine_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Just as a point of clarity - who are these "thickos", how did they "out-argue" me, and what will happen to this legion after the event?


_Bravo
Encore_

And the other one.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond you're a thick cunt - you think you're clever. You're not. This daft idea that you're in some game of alliances that are allied against the truth speaker  - fuck off. We all independently think you're a nasty thick arrogant cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _Not my words Carol, the words of Top Gear magazine_



We all have long known that your standard procedure is to tunnel down into cryptic bullshit.

It just takes some of us longer than the other to recognise the technique, such as it is, but in the end everyone realises that it is essentially a highly aggressive distraction method.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> We all have long known that your standard procedure is to tunnel down into cryptic bullshit.
> 
> It just takes some of us longer than the other to recognise the technique, such as it is, but in the end everyone realises that it is essentially a highly aggressive distraction method.


Most people just get that you're having the pissed ripped and you don't know. Revenge shall be when o clock?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> We all have long known that your standard procedure is to tunnel down into cryptic bullshit.
> 
> It just takes some of us longer than the other to recognise the technique, such as it is, but in the end everyone realises that it is essentially a highly aggressive distraction method.





> *We *all have long known that your standard procedure is to tunnel down into cryptic bullshit.
> 
> It just takes some of *us *longer than the *other *to *recognise *the technique, such as it is, but in the end *everyone realises *that it is essentially a highly aggressive distraction method.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Most people just get that you're having the pissed ripped and you don't know. Revenge shall be  when o clock?



"Pissed ripped out of me"?

Two points here - first, your argument is inapplicable owing to the online disinhibition effect; second, and this is related, do you really think I give a shit about what the majority on these boards consider to be correct?

"Revenge"

I would encourage you to deal with your thrusts for revenge in IRL situations rather than here, where they seem to hang around like stale farts.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "Pissed ripped out of me"?
> 
> Two points here - first, your argument is inapplicable owing to the online disinhibition effect; second, and this is related, do you really think I give a shit about what the majority on these boards consider to be correct?
> 
> ...


1) you can't have both. So 2) yeah,they're laughing at you and of course you care. It's why you've gone to bizarre lengths to look like a cunt. 

_I'm a hero._


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> 1) you can't have both. So 2) yeah,they're laughing at you and of course you care. It's why you've gone to bizarre lengths to look like a cunt.
> 
> _I'm a hero._



Congratulations.

I concede to your greater something-or-other...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Congratulations.
> 
> I concede to your greater something-or-other...


Apologise then.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Apologise then.



By all means.

I apologise for your conduct to the degree that I am culpable and will do the utmost to try and prevent such repeats in the future.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> By all means.
> 
> I apologise for your conduct to the degree that I am culpable and will do the utmost to try and prevent such repeats in the future.


Not for smearing a poster as a racist, your attempts at being high-handed, your terrible terrible writing _style? _You're playing the wrong game sister.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not for smearing a poster as a racist, your attempts at being high-handed, your terrible terrible writing _style? _You're playing the wrong game sister.



OK, I have to pull you up on this one point again - I smeared no one as a racist.

I challenge you to show it explicitly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, I have to pull you up on this one point again - I smeared no one as a racist.
> 
> I challenge you to show it explicitly.


I have done. Many others have. Here's mine showing.  Why have you suddenly  to use _explicit _btw? That's a recognition that you did at the very least last _implicitly  _call the editor racist. Isn't it - clever cloggs?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I have done. Many others have. Here's mine showing.  Why have you suddenly  to use _explicit _btw? That's a recognition that you did at the very least last _implicitly  _call the editor racist. Isn't it - clever cloggs?



That is pathetic reasoning on both counts.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

You are aware of the idea of elision, aren't you, since you seem so bloody keen on it...?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

This is going to go on for some time I see, but I have all the time in the world to demonstrate time and again your perverse, self-serving and fundamentally bizarre interpretation of my words.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You are aware of the idea of elision, aren't you, since you seem so bloody keen on it...?


I'm aware of running away because you got caught. I'm aware of the damage that being unable to integrate being wrong can do to some people. They can't dala with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That is pathetic reasoning on both counts.


Are you going to demonstrate this at any point?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm aware of running away because you got caught. I'm aware of the damage that being unable to integrate being wrong can do to some people. They can't dala with it.



"Running away because someone got caught"

What world do you live in?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That is pathetic reasoning on both counts.


It's not btw - it's how i've got you nailed to the floor as a liar.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's not btw - it's how i've got you nailed to the floor as a liar.



You have no such thing.  Such a suggestion is ludicrous.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "Running away because someone got caught"
> 
> What world do you live in?


Keep 'em coming. Have a skip full soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You have no such thing.  Such a suggestion is ludicrous.


Wrong


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 10, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You carry on gents...


Gents? 

Do the opinions of women not count on this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Gents?
> 
> Do the opinions of women not count on this thread?


Men only game for Diamond.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Men only game for Diamond.


I'll toddle back to my embroidery and be meek and quiet then...


----------



## Diamond (Feb 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong



So you link to a post that has been in dispute before.

That's lazy at best.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I'll toddle back to my embroidery and be meek and quiet then...



And, yes, of course I'm a mysoginist.

Well recognised and clearly put as all your contributions on this thread have been.

Most salient.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you link to a post that has been in dispute before.
> 
> That's lazy at best.


Can you link to a post that has a definitive judgement attached to it? If not, suggesting that you calling someone racist is not in doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> And, yes, of course I'm a mysoginist.
> 
> Well recognised and clearly put as all your contributions on this thread have been.
> 
> Most salient.


What on earth made you like this?


----------



## Humberto (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you link to a post that has been in dispute before.
> 
> That's lazy at best.



Everyone thinks you implied racism. I'm the kind to side with the underdog generally. You should of apologised and made a clarification. But no because you are a lawyer type you have to argue the fuck out of an untenable point because thats how you usually get paid.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Everyone thinks you implied racism. I'm the kind to side with the underdog generally. You should of apologised and made a clarification. But no because yo are a lawyer type you have to argue the fuck out of an untenable point because thats how you usually get paid.


His job is process stuff - he get's paid whatever. This is a point of principle for him.

After he's been caught so clearly.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

For fuck's sake, does no one understand nuance here or is it all "you're a wacist" bollocks all day long?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

No one but you.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Me, me me.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Everyone thinks you implied racism. I'm the kind to side with the underdog generally. You should of apologised and made a clarification. But no because you are a lawyer type you have to argue the fuck out of an untenable point because thats how you usually get paid.



Ok, but your "everyone" are very dim in my opinion...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

But not  i


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ok, but your "everyone" are very dim in my opinion...


This is where you lost. And am losing.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is where you lost. And am losing.



Apologies because this is the kind of sharp practice that I don't approve of at all but I want to show it to you directly, particularly because it's the kind of small point that you revel in - do you mean "am" or "are" in this context?

Because according to your logic I can draw deep, far-reaching conclusions on that difference and insult you for good measure (which is the perhaps the main purpose behind your bile...?).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apologies because this is the kind of sharp practice that I don't approve of at all but I want to show it to you directly, particularly because it's the kind of small point that you revel in - do you mean "am" or "are" in this context?
> 
> Because according to your logic I can draw deep, far-reaching conclusions on that difference and insult you for good measure (which is the perhaps the main purpose behind your bile...?).


You am are a cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

I'd say touche but your response barely merits more than a "meh".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'd say touche but your response barely merits more than a "meh".


I'd say touche but your response barely merits more than a "meh".


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Cushion cut cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond: You write like a 12 year old thinks posh people write.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> Cushion cut cunt.



Cesare - you asked me about my practice area and my firm in detailed fashion.

Are you going to return the favour or are you too much of a coward to answer your own question?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Diamond: You write like a 12 year old thinks posh people write.



Apparently you can't write at all.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Cesare - you asked me about my practice area and my firm in detailed fashion.
> 
> Are you going to return the favour or are you too much of a coward to answer your own question?


I didn't ask myself. And I also didn't send myself a PM asking either. You were under no obligation to answer


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apparently you can't write at all.


Wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apparently you can't write at all.


You keep on giving - like some shitty catholic statue - _come on it's free_


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> I didn't ask myself. And I also didn't send myself a PM asking either. You were under no obligation to answer



Yes, I was under no obligation to answer you but I paid you the courtesy.

The fact that you will not repay the favour demonstrates a certain shiftiness that is often associated with lawyers.

I've been called many things on this thread but I've always been as direct as possible - your passive-aggressive approach is the worst kind of way to be a lawyer or to represent the profession and the source of the greatest negativity in that regard.

But then you knew all that anyways because you are, like the very worst lawyers, a coward.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apparently you can't write at all.


Oh i get it, the PM you sent me at 2:40 am begging me to look into your health. Even though i've never talked to you and would rather not?  Oh that's what you mean by not writing. Well sorry, i think you're a prick and being used to fuck up a thread in order to get you out of smearing another poster as racist is not on the agenda.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yes, I was under no obligation to answer you but I paid you the courtesy.
> 
> The fact that you will not repay the favour demonstrates a certain shiftiness that is often associated with lawyers.
> 
> ...


So many false premises, you dolt


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i get it, the PM you sent me at 2:40 am begging me to look into your health. Even though i've never talked to you and would rather not?  Oh that's what you mean by not writing. Well sorry, i think you're a prick and being used to fuck up a thread in order to get you out of smearing another poster as racist is not on the agenda.



Show the racism.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've been called many things on this thread but I've always been as direct as possible



If i was minded to and he other one that others might say -the totally indirect things you said.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> So many false premises, you dolt



Good to know the level of reciprocation to expect in future dealings, particularly as you think you have somehow apparently developed some advantage by being "smart".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Show the racism.


You can't even recall your smear can you? You called another poster racist - proven - not that you are racist. You show the racism.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Good to know the level of reciprocation to expect in future dealings, particularly as you think you have somehow apparently developed some advantage by being "smart".


You can look forward to unalloyed contempt


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Good to know the level of reciprocation to expect in future dealings, particularly as you think you have somehow apparently developed some advantage by being "smart".


Wow, he does smart/dumb in his mind - must be why he's won this one.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> You can look forward to unalloyed contempt



I don't doubt that.

Prejudice is a warm bath to you, I can see already.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

It's just horrifying stupidity. Over and over.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

Any chance of any degree of indication as to what area your practice lies in again cesare, or will this remain evermore a mystery?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

Is it Real Estate, maybe?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

A qualified lawyer shouting into the void.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I don't doubt that.
> 
> Prejudice is a warm bath to you, I can see already.


You are not behaving in a way that maintains the trust the public places in the legal profession


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

The void's all you deserve diamond.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> You are not behaving in a way that maintains the trust the public places in the legal profession



Wonderful passive-aggression!!!

That, along with your deep resistance to answer my direct questions, assures me that at the very least you are an adequate lawyer!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2015)

"Members of the public should be able to place their trust in you. Any behaviour either within or outside your professional practice which undermines this trust damages not only you, but also the ability of the legal profession as a whole to serve society."

You've failed every one.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wonderful passive-aggression!!!
> 
> That, along with your deep resistance to answer my direct questions, assures me that at the very least you are an adequate lawyer!



I doubt you're a lawyer, tbh.


----------



## campanula (Feb 11, 2015)

I cheerfully admit to being a thicko yet it is transparently clear to me that the continuing housing crisis is not just some slight imbalance in a functioning 'free' market economy but an artifically skewed, deeply unsustainable scam...and have to conclude that you are arguing from a position of 'you've got yours'. Would this be the case? Not that it makes it forgiveable but at least I can see why you would so fiercely defend the right to make a profit regardless of the social costs, along with the callous comment you made about the supposed mobility of all those underpaid service workers.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> I doubt you're a lawyer, tbh.



Ha!  I wouldn't be so rude about you but probably more than justified to level that claim, qualification or no...


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ha!  I wouldn't be so rude about you but probably more than justified to level that claim, qualification or no...


It's entirely a matter for you as to whether you ungarble your point.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 11, 2015)

campanula said:


> I cheerfully admit to being a thicko yet it is transparently clear to me that the continuing housing crisis is not just some slight imbalance in a functioning 'free' market economy but an artifically skewed, deeply unsustainable scam...and have to conclude that you are arguing from a position of 'you've got yours'. Would this be the case? Not that it makes it forgiveable but at least I can see why you would so fiercely defend the right to make a profit regardless of the social costs, along with the callous comment you made about the supposed mobility of all those underpaid service workers.



Anyone who is not a socialist has yet to switch on


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How does it feel to close ranks?



Like Detective_Boy and others before you, you mistake agreement among disparate posters as "closing ranks", possibly because contemplating the fact that disparate posters can all arrive at the conclusion that you're a "tedious cunt" is existentially-damaging to you. far better to rail against rank-closing clique-members, than to face reality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> I doubt you're a lawyer, tbh.


i don't. the arrogance and stupidity are common among so many of that debased breed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Any chance of any degree of indication as to what area your practice lies in again cesare, or will this remain evermore a mystery?



If you were at all observant,it'd be fairly obvious, given how regularly posters ask cesare questions related to her where her practice lies.


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you were at all observant,it'd be fairly obvious, given how regularly posters ask cesare questions related to her where her practice lies.


It's also fairly obvious that I'm not a lawyer. But he builds his arguments on a series of false premises and sooner or later someone will refuse to foot the bill for his billing time if that's how he conducts his own practice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2015)

campanula said:


> I cheerfully admit to being a thicko yet it is transparently clear to me that the continuing housing crisis is not just some slight imbalance in a functioning 'free' market economy but an artifically skewed, deeply unsustainable scam...and have to conclude that you are arguing from a position of 'you've got yours'. Would this be the case? Not that it makes it forgiveable but at least I can see why you would so fiercely defend the right to make a profit regardless of the social costs, along with the callous comment you made about the supposed mobility of all those underpaid service workers.



Mobility being meaningless in the absence of employment opportunities.
While I believe that it's premature to panic about *absolute* social cleansing, it's certainly the case that local authorities throughout the UK are undertaking development policies that actively reduce the volume of available social housing, and while that doesn't *necessarily* mean workers being pushed out of their communities wholesale, it does mean, under "market principles", that the low-paid service worker has the dice loaded against them, and the dice becomes more heavily-loaded as the situation continues.
Where do we go from here? Dormitory workers' camps on the model of the South African mining companies?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 11, 2015)

campanula said:


> I cheerfully admit to being a thicko yet it is transparently clear to me that the continuing housing crisis is not just some slight imbalance in a functioning 'free' market economy but an artifically skewed, deeply unsustainable scam....



Exactly.  And it can't be understood in isolation from the rest of the economy, as many on this thread attempt to do.  It is the result of recently-developed lending practices by the banks, particularly the concept of "derivatives."  Because sub-prime mortgages are re-packaged and sold on as derivatives, the personal connection between lender and borrower has been severed, leading to a market in which prices no longer reflect lenders' confidence in the ability of the buyer to repay.

(Desperate attempt to rescue the thread from insane bickering.)


----------



## maomao (Feb 11, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Exactly.  And it can't be understood in isolation from the rest of the economy, as many on this thread attempt to do.  It is the result of recently-developed lending practices by the banks, particularly the concept of "derivatives."  Because sub-prime mortgages are re-packaged and sold on as derivatives, the personal connection between lender and borrower has been severed, leading to a market in which prices no longer reflect lenders' confidence in the ability of the buyer to repay.
> 
> 
> (Desperate attempt to rescue the thread from insane bickering.)


That's a 10-year old issue that isn't the problem with the UK/London market now. 'Sub prime' mortgages were mostly real people trying to get houses to live in (that they couldn't really afford). The problem with the London market is that the inflated prices mean that the buyers are mainly BTL or just investors and people who actually want a house to live in can't get a mortgage at all. The amount lent to buyers in proportion to wages has increased but it's not the same as the sub prime mortgage situation at all.


----------



## Flavour (Feb 11, 2015)

Sub prime is not the fucking problem phil you dunce. It's a decrease in mortgages, even bad ones, and a massive increase in renters paying increased rents to an ever-richer and ever-more-international clique of capitalists seeking to make a quick pound sterling from the bubble in London.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

Not that I doubt that per se but I would be interested to know your source for this assertion:



maomao said:


> ...that the buyers are mainly BTL or just investors and people who actually want a house to live in can't get a mortgage at all...


----------



## Diamond (Feb 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> It's entirely a matter for you as to whether you ungarble your point.



Please clarify.  Your point is rather foggy, much like your thinking...


----------



## Greebo (Feb 12, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Sub prime is not the fucking problem phil you dunce. It's a decrease in mortgages, even bad ones, and a massive increase in renters paying increased rents to an ever-richer and ever-more-international clique of capitalists seeking to make a quick pound sterling from the bubble in London.


Tbf Sub prime was more of a problem in the USA - where Dwyer is, so you can hardly blame him for assuming it might have also caused the problem over here.

And in a way it did - mortgage companies over here, in Europe, became so worried about anything remotely subprime that mortgages have become well nigh impossible to get, even with a large deposit, two good incomes, and a willingness to prove to the lender that you'll happily spend the next 30 years doing without whichever luxuries they think you no longer deserve (in the shape of a highly detailed breakdown of monthly expenditure).


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Tbf Sub prime was more of a problem in the USA - where Dwyer is, so you can hardly blame him for assuming it might have also caused the problem over here.
> 
> And in a way it did - mortgage companies over here, in Europe, became so worried about anything remotely subprime that mortgages have become well nigh impossible to get, even with a large deposit, two good incomes, and a willingness to prove to the lender that you'll happily spend the next 30 years doing without whichever luxuries they think you no longer deserve (in the shape of a highly detailed breakdown of monthly expenditure).



Exactly.  Also it fucked up the entire world economy, not just the housing market.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

It was a trigger, not the fundamental cause.

Sub-prime is far less important than the deep complexities of securitisation, which are related but essentially different issues.

Put simply, with a system of unregulated securitisation in place, it matters not a jot what the underlying debt class is that fails, be it sub-prime or any other sufficiently large category.

Once things start to cascade, the system is in no position to work things through effectively before systemic failure occurs.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

But, regardless, sub-prime was completely out of control.

The proportion of capital and/or evidence of income required to gain a mortgage were verging on the criminally exploitative, no matter how many caveat emptor pleas you might want to advance in defence.

And that's even before we get on to the repayment terms...


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

"I'll give you shitloads of money on no financial basis to let you buy an asset that you can never hope to repay the loan for under the terms that I have provided..." 

What did these idiots, on both sides of the bargain, expect?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It was a trigger, not the fundamental cause.



I can't agree with you there.  It was the immediate, proximate cause.

Obviously though (and as you say) the question of "derivatives" is a more fundamental, underlying problem.  I suppose we could call it the "final cause."


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "I'll give you shitloads of money on no financial basis to let you buy an asset that you can never hope to repay the loan for under the terms that I have provided..."
> 
> What did these idiots, on both sides of the bargain, expect?



To be able to get out before the whole scheme collapsed.  Which the clever ones did.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> I can't agree with you there.  It was the immediate, proximate cause.
> 
> Obviously though (and as you say) the question of "derivatives" is a more fundamental, underlying problem.  I suppose we could call it the "final cause."



I would prefer the term "structural".


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

In poker terms, it's an aggregation of hands in a panoply of games, none of which you have proper sight of, all of which you don't really understand and, which, in the final analysis, when you bet the house, you are liable to be utterly destroyed.


----------



## campanula (Feb 12, 2015)

well, in my terminology, a bunch of venal scum ruined it for the rest of us.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not that I doubt that per se but I would be interested to know your source for this assertion:



I've given figures and a source on this thread already. I'm not going to repeat them for your benefit you dishonest little cock.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

maomao said:


> I've given figures and a source on this thread already. I'm not going to repeat them for your benefit you dishonest little cock.


 
So you can't be arsed to even nod to your source?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Sub prime is not the fucking problem phil you dunce. It's a decrease in mortgages, even bad ones, and a massive increase in renters paying increased rents to an ever-richer and ever-more-international clique of capitalists seeking to make a quick pound sterling from the bubble in London.


 
Actually, the trend in loans has shifted away from SME businesses to mortgages in the last cycle, as far as I understand.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> I can't agree with you there.  It was the immediate, proximate cause.
> 
> Obviously though (and as you say) the question of "derivatives" is a more fundamental, underlying problem.  I suppose we could call it the "final cause."


 
Securitisation is only a sub-category of derivatives.

Derivatives are pretty useful things when used sensibly, much as securitisation can be.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you can't be arsed to even nod to your source?



S/he has.  If you can't be arsed to go and find it then why the fuck should anyone humour you.  Tedious twat.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So you can't be arsed to even nod to your source?


It's more effort to not tell you quite frankly.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

absence/evidence


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> absence/evidence


No, you don't get to do that. We had the conversation just over 2 weeks ago and I provided evidence. _You_'re the thick cunt who's lost track. I'm just refusing to provide it due to your dishonest, smearing approach to argument. If you apologise to editor for smearing him as a racist and provide a couple of straightforward answers to questions you've been asked then I'd happily provide it. But you won't do that because you're a dishonest shitcunt who'd rather smear people and waffle on about things you barely understand in a vain effort to pretend that you're having a conversation when really all you're doing is demonstrating what a complete ignorant cunt you are.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

maomao said:


> No, you don't get to do that. We had the conversation just over 2 weeks ago and I provided evidence. _You_'re the thick cunt who's lost track. I'm just refusing to provide it due to your dishonest, smearing approach to argument. If you apologise to editor for smearing him as a racist and provide a couple of straightforward answers to questions you've been asked then I'd happily provide it. But you won't do that because you're a dishonest shitcunt who'd rather smear people and waffle on about things you barely understand in a vain effort to pretend that you're having a conversation when really all you're doing is demonstrating what a complete ignorant cunt you are.


 
I didn't smear editor as a racist.

You are too lazy to support your arguments.

And I note your language - usually the bellwether for someone without much to say.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 12, 2015)

You really are a thick cunt .


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I didn't smear editor as a racist.



Amply demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone on this thread except yourself. The posts have been requoted at least 3 times. I won't bother again.



> You are too lazy to support your arguments.



The post number would be 3 or 4 characters including the hash key (and I know the post number) ie. same effort as typing 'cunt' which I've had to do about 6 times now so the charge of laziness doesn't hold up.



> And I note your language - usually the bellwether for someone without much to say.



All it proves is I'm talking to a cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Derivatives are pretty useful things when used sensibly



Useful for what?

Certainly not useful for doing anything in the material world, completely useless for that in fact.  Useful for making money out of money, that's the truth of it, which means not useful at all for those with no money in the first place, e.g. me.

Also, derivatives are dangerous.  They are an extra step farther removed than ordinary investements from a reference to reality, and this extra degree of abstraction leads to practical and ethical disaster.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Apparently you can't write at all.


Says the person who can't spell misogynist.

Normally it's customary on urban to overlook various spelling and grammatical errors because of things like dyslexia, but seeing as you went after someone, it's only fair that your failings are also highlighted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Says the person who can't spell misogynist.
> 
> Normally it's customary on urban to overlook various spelling and grammatical errors because of things like dyslexia, but seeing as you went after someone, it's only fair that your failings are also highlighted.


don't do that  we'll be here all night and most of tomorrow listing them


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2015)

The Boy said:


> You really are a thick cunt .


he is, isn't he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I didn't smear editor as a racist.
> 
> You are too lazy to support your arguments.
> 
> And I note your language - usually the bellwether for someone without much to say.


see? it's not just me, it's the rest of the english speaking world thinks you're a wanker too.

i await the votes from non-english speakers, which i am assured will arrive momentarily.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i await the votes from non-english speakers, which i am assured will arrive momentarily.


他真的是个傻屄


----------



## Diamond (Feb 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> see? it's not just me, it's the rest of the english speaking world thinks you're a wanker too.
> 
> i await the votes from non-english speakers, which i am assured will arrive momentarily.



Your "English speaking world" is most notable by its limited dimensions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your "English speaking world" is most notable by its limited dimensions.


yes, as the term english speaking world suggests it is limited to people speaking english.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 12, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Useful for what?
> 
> Certainly not useful for doing anything in the material world, completely useless for that in fact.  Useful for making money out of money, that's the truth of it, which means not useful at all for those with no money in the first place, e.g. me.
> 
> Also, derivatives are dangerous.  They are an extra step farther removed than ordinary investements from a reference to reality, and this extra degree of abstraction leads to practical and ethical disaster.




sorry Phil, derivatives is meant to be used for hedging- hedging things in the maetrial world- this is self evident

I do agree however on the second point. a bit

but this is a diversion


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your "English speaking world" is most notable by its limited dimensions.



Your just making this shit up as you go aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Your just making this shit up as you go aren't you?



He has to, or face admitting that he's a snide and a bullshit merchant.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Useful for what?
> 
> Certainly not useful for doing anything in the material world, completely useless for that in fact.  Useful for making money out of money, that's the truth of it, which means not useful at all for those with no money in the first place, e.g. me.
> 
> Also, derivatives are dangerous.  They are an extra step farther removed than ordinary investements from a reference to reality, and this extra degree of abstraction leads to practical and ethical disaster.



Futures, swaps, options, forwards, etc... _should_, if properly used, allow parties to build greater certainty into their business model and allow for greater social welfare.

However, if improperly used, such as in the securitisation, and consequent fogging up, of extremely dodgy mortgage debts through, inter alia, CDOs (collaterised debt obligations) and CDSs (credit default swap), they can be critically dangerous.

There's nothing wrong with the basic idea (which is rather ingenious), the problem is the way it is used and the people who decide to do so.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He has to, or face admitting that he's a snide and a bullshit merchant.



Hello Russell.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

Just keep responding. Keep going. Sooner or later everyone will give up and you can claim your crown.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Just keep responding. Keep going. Sooner or later everyone will give up and you can claim your crown.



I'm not claiming any bloody crown.

Do you really think, like butchersapron, that this is some sort of competition?

Are you really that juvenile?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm not claiming any bloody crown.
> 
> Do you really think, like butchersapron, that this is some sort of competition?
> 
> Are you really that juvenile?




'I look forward to jousting'

was that not your words

Look, Diamond, you've really shit the bed here. Properly. You have managed to unify disparate oft warring elements into a consensus on the matter of your cuntitude. But hey, keep posting. If you carry on maybe no one will notice (everyone will notice)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Hello Russell.



Are you trying to brand me, or do you have an acquaintance by that name?


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I look forward to jousting'
> 
> was that not your words
> 
> Look, Diamond, you've really shit the bed here. Properly. You have managed to unify disparate oft warring elements into a consensus on the matter of your cuntitude. But hey, keep posting. If you carry on maybe no one will notice (everyone will notice)



"Warring elements"

Laughable. You do really think of this bulletin board in grandiose Game of Thrones terminology, don't you?

I wonder what lack you are attempting to compensate for.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

see now_ I'm_ the pompous one. I'm compensating for my micropenis diamond. You should be able to recognize such a thing, sat as it is in the center of your forehead


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "Warring elements"
> 
> Laughable. You do really think of this bulletin board in grandiose Game of Thrones terminology, don't you?
> 
> I wonder what lack you are attempting to compensate for.


You don't seem to understand. Most of us disagree all the time. The one thing uniting us on this thread is that we all think you're a cunt. To get such disparate people to all think the same thing would be impressive were it not for your cuntitude.


----------



## lambro (Feb 14, 2015)

See the dead horse is still being mercilessly flogged here.

What's this thread about again?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2015)

lambro said:


> What's this thread about again?


What a cunt Diamond is.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> You don't seem to understand. Most of us disagree all the time. The one thing uniting us on this thread is that we all think you're a cunt. To get such disparate people to all think the same thing would be impressive were it not for your cuntitude.



A small number of people have been challenged on certain points, some of which have been demonstrated to be wrong, others of which remain moot, and the collective response has largely been "cunt" (alongside other similarly pathetic ad hominem attacks).

Let there be no doubt, this is truly a grand coalition for the greater good.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A small number of people have been challenged on certain points, some of which have been demonstrated to be wrong



The tragic thing is you actually believe this to be true.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "Warring elements"
> 
> Laughable. You do really think of this bulletin board in grandiose Game of Thrones terminology, don't you?
> 
> I wonder what lack you are attempting to compensate for.



I do like it when people make vague insinuations about psychological causation. Enjoy watching "Cracker" when it was on, did you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> You don't seem to understand. Most of us disagree all the time. The one thing uniting us on this thread is that we all think you're a cunt. To get such disparate people to all think the same thing would be impressive were it not for your cuntitude.



I tried to make the same point, but didn't deploy the most excellent of descriptors that is "cuntitude".


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

I have no idea of Diamonds latest transgression and can't be bother to read the thread in it's entirety. 

It is ALWAYS the same moral arbiters turning up on every thread picking apart the slightest points\terminology and that does makes me laugh....cue the outraged.


*Read a bit more and this seems to be about Diamond accusing others of racism in a snidey way, but it then swiftly turned into a group kicking with the glee of the righteous....It has all the makings of a classic


----------



## Idaho (Feb 14, 2015)

The p n' p prefects are fairly mental, when you take a step back.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 14, 2015)

What's really pathetic is the degree to which some people choose to vent.

Anyone may disagree with what I say but there's something peculiarly onanistic about the endless refrains of cunt this and cunt that.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 14, 2015)

people have tried the arguments and asking you numerous reasonable questions so what's left? you think your obfuscation will tire people out or bore them to death and you'll then be the natural winner with the last word


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

They are what I regard as rather "earnest". It's not the worst trait by any means, but fuck going for a pint with them*

*yes - I love to go to the pub with my mates and joke about the darkies\disabled\benefit scroungers if that makes you feel better.....unfortunately I'm off to the THH tonight so we will have to rip into the beards instead....that's a more acceptable form at least..the last refuge of the bigot


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 14, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> I have no idea of Diamonds latest transgression and can't be bother to read the thread in it's entirety.
> 
> It is ALWAYS the same moral arbiters turning up on every thread picking apart the slightest points\terminology and that does makes me laugh....cue the outraged.
> 
> ...


moral arbiters = complaining about racism.


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> moral arbiters = complaining about racism.



lol....I thought he was complaining about inadvertent racism...that was a joke but still to accuse me of being a racist apologist says it all....that's lame!


----------



## Idaho (Feb 14, 2015)

ddraig said:


> people have tried the arguments and asking you numerous reasonable questions so what's left?


Accept that ranting and hectoring won't make any difference and do something else? Crazy thought, I realise.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 14, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> lol....I thought he was complaining about inadvertent racism...that was a joke but still to accuse me of being a racist apologist says it all....that's lame!


Can you not use disablist language like lame as well please? It's offensive to those with physical disabilities.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> I have no idea of Diamonds latest transgression and can't be bother to read the thread in it's entirety.




'I haven't read the thread but I'll make my judgements regardless'


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Can you not use disablist language like lame as well please? It's offensive to those with physical disabilities.



Can you not insinuate people are racist apologists as I find that more offensive than the usage of the word lame....


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I haven't read the thread but I'll make my judgements regardless'


Get in the queue behind eq and andysaus to register your disapproval pls...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> Get in the queue behind eq and andysaus to register your disapproval pls...


no dissaproval, I just find it proper funny when people do that 'not read the thread but here's my 2p' thing. A weighty coin of wisdom there.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 14, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> Get in the queue behind eq and andysaus to register your disapproval pls...


Actually I was pointing out that Diamond had tried to accuse others of being racist but you read into my posts what suits you.

Nowhere have I called you a racist apologist so cut that shit out.


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> no dissaproval, I just find it proper funny when people do that 'not read the thread but here's my 2p' thing. A weighty coin of wisdom there.



And I find it amusing when you weigh in with your mighty two penneth.....but at least your right and know it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2015)

sometimes I'm wrong. 1992 was the last time iirc and really, biased judges there.


----------



## alfajobrob (Feb 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Actually I was pointing out that Diamond had tried to accuse others of being racist but you read into my posts what suits you.
> 
> Nowhere have I called you a racist apologist so cut that shit out.



No you just accused me


equationgirl said:


> Actually I was pointing out that Diamond had tried to accuse others of being racist but you read into my posts what suits you.
> 
> Nowhere have I called you a racist apologist so cut that shit out.



No you didn't directly...that being the sneaky fuck you are...you just equated what I said with the above so I decided to reciprocate and no I don't give a fuck about LAME as a perogitive suddenly (it's way down on my list to get offended about) so you can shove that up your arse as well.

Pls provide me with a list of non offensive, offensive words for you and I'll be sure to include them in every future post I direct your way


----------



## Idaho (Feb 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> no dissaproval, I just find it proper funny when people do that 'not read the thread but here's my 2p' thing. A weighty coin of wisdom there.



It's a 34 page thread! A boring one at that. Who in their right mind would read through all of that just so they can justify being able to post "lol you are all lame".


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Actually I was pointing out that Diamond had tried to accuse others of being racist but you read into my posts what suits you.
> 
> Nowhere have I called you a racist apologist so cut that shit out.



OK.  Here we go again.

I have not accused anyone of being racist.

Just need to flag that up _one more time_.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

Actually, let's make that bigger:

I have not accused anyone of being racist on this thread


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2015)

_The bigger the lie..._


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Actually, let's make that bigger:
> 
> I have not accused anyone of being racist on this thread


Yes you have:


Diamond said:


> Article 2 was an Independent report on Article 1 that paraphrased Punter 3's words - who is the the foreign man from Hong Kong remember - of _"hopefully the rental and selling price will go up quite a bit_" as:
> 
> It doesn't really matter whether you want to call it racism or xenophobia but it appears that Mr Chiu makes quite a convenient "bogeyman" for both you and the factually dodgy Independent hacks.





Diamond said:


> And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?





Diamond said:


> It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.



For the clarity of anyone who joined the thread late and obviously can't be arsed trawling through 34 pages of tedious nonsense Mr Chiu was the only one of the three interviewees who self identified as a BTL landlord and this is why discussion had focussed on him. The three posts above are a sample of Diamond 's attempt to use this to smear other posters as racist.

I've bookmarked this post so can easily refer back to it and don't have to drag them out again.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

maomao said:


> Yes you have:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is that your argument simply does not work.

The evidence that you have accumulated does not support your accusation.

It's quite straightforward.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The problem is that your argument simply does not work.
> 
> The evidence that you have accumulated does not support your accusation.
> 
> It's quite straightforward.



I've just posted up _your_ posts for the benefit of anyone who joins this thread at the end and thinks you might be telling the truth. I'm not engaging with you because you're a dishonest little prick.


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The problem is that your argument simply does not work.
> 
> The evidence that you have accumulated does not support your accusation.
> 
> It's quite straightforward.



I don't think I've commented on this question, though I've been following the thread as it progresses.

When the subject at hand is an accusation of dodgy conduct by you, you don't get to decide whether the arguments others are making do or don't work, you don't get to decide if the evidence presented does or does not not support the accusation.

The vast majority of those who have expressed an opinion however are content that the evidence is sufficient and the accusation is proven. The best thing for you to do, IMO, would be for you to admit your guilt and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 15, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> No you just accused me
> 
> 
> No you didn't directly...that being the sneaky fuck you are...you just equated what I said with the above so I decided to reciprocate and no I don't give a fuck about LAME as a perogitive suddenly (it's way down on my list to get offended about) so you can shove that up your arse as well.
> ...


I get offended by the word lame as I do have a physical disability.

And I accused you of nothing. If you read my post as an accusation then perhaps you should examine why you leapt to that conclusion.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> I don't think I've commented on this question, though I've been following the thread as it progresses.
> 
> When the subject at hand is an accusation of dodgy conduct by you, you don't get to decide whether the arguments others are making do or don't work, you don't get to decide if the evidence presented does or does not not support the accusation.
> 
> The vast majority of those who have expressed an opinion however are content that the evidence is sufficient and the accusation is proven. The best thing for you to do, IMO, would be for you to admit your guilt and throw yourself on the mercy of the court.



So I have no rights of defence in the face of allegations made against me?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> Can you not insinuate people are racist apologists as I find that more offensive than the usage of the word lame....



She didn't insinuate that you're an apologist for racism, she *very clearly* pointed out that you were stating that in your view posters complaining about racism were setting themselves up as moral arbiters.  

Not quite the same thing, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So I have no rights of defence in the face of allegations made against me?



Rights? The only "rights" any of us have on Urban are those that the editor gives us. As many posters will be keen to inform you, this place is *NOT* a democracy, it's a Hobbesean nightmare.


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rights? The only "rights" any of us have on Urban are those that the editor gives us. As many posters will be keen to inform you, this place is *NOT* a democracy, it's a Hobbesean nightmare.



Hilarious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Actually, let's make that bigger:
> 
> I have not accused anyone of being racist on this thread



As I said many pages ago, no you haven't.
Instead you *insinuated* racism on the part of another poster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Hilarious.



Hilarity is irrelevant. The only relevance is that this isn't a democracy, and we have no rights.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So I have no rights of defence in the face of allegations made against me?


You can put your case forward, as you have done, but we reserve the right to look at the posts you have made and make up our own minds, as we have done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _The bigger the lie..._



...the smaller the intellect?
...the greasier the chips?
...the easier it is to con the plebs?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hilarity is irrelevant. The only relevance is that this isn't a democracy, and we have no rights.


Absolutely correct. Urban is not a democracy.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So I have no rights of defence in the face of allegations made against me?


Of course you have the right to defend yourself but at the moment you're doing the equivalent of saying 'I never done it m'lud' when there's CCTV, fingerprints and a signed confession. Denial is a shit defense.


----------



## lambro (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Actually, let's make that bigger:
> 
> I have not accused anyone of being racist on this thread



Can see why you call yourself "The Red Baron"


----------



## Diamond (Feb 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hilarity is irrelevant. The only relevance is that this isn't a democracy, and we have no rights.



You have as many rights on here as you would do having a discussion in the pub.

Of course one can still be barred at the discretion of the landlord tho...


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So I have no rights of defence in the face of allegations made against me?



You've set out your "defence" repeatedly and at some length.

The jury of your peers doesn't seem to be convinced...


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rights? The only "rights" any of us have on Urban are those that the editor gives us. As many posters will be keen to inform you, this place is *NOT* a democracy, it's a Hobbesean nightmare.



Nasty, brutish and short, just like many of the posters


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> Nasty, brutish and short, just like many of the posters



2 out of 3 ain't bad, in my case (I'm not short!).


----------



## scifisam (Feb 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 2 out of 3 ain't bad, in my case (I'm not short!).



I am short, but not particularly brutish, so 2 out of 3 for me.

I think we should all give up on this thread. Let Diamond think he's "won" if he wants to. You know, just like you let the ranting bloke at the train station think he's won. There's nothing to be gained for anyone else here.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2015)

> Six arrested as police help in evictions from London estate
> 
> Scuffles break out as police support Southwark council’s attempt to clear the Aylesbury Estate to make way for controversial regeneration scheme
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-police-help-in-evictions-from-london-estate




Can't see this anywhere else, confrontation and arrests as evictions start on the Aylesbury Estate in London, anyone know more?


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2015)

> One of London’s largest, the estate was the setting for Tony Blair’s first speech as prime minister in 1997. Appearing on one of its characteristic concrete walkways, he pledged to deliver people “forgotten by government,” including its 7,500 residents, from the urban decay he had chosen the estate to represent.
> 
> However, residents voted in 2001 by a large majority against the transfer of its council stock to a housing association, scuppering redevelopment attempts to create a more “economically mixed” community.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Can't see this anywhere else, confrontation and arrests as evictions start on the Aylesbury Estate in London, anyone know more?


Have a look for focus E15 mothers on FB


----------



## ddraig (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover 
https://twitter.com/search?q=#aylesburyestate&src=tyah


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Can't see this anywhere else, confrontation and arrests as evictions start on the Aylesbury Estate in London, anyone know more?


The guardian seemed to have it later than other news sources, according to the times of the articles. It was on the internet from around midday today.

What search terms were you using? 'six arrests aylesbury estate evictions' gave a number of articles including one from last night.

http://londonist.com/2015/02/six-arrests-over-aylesbury-eviction-protest.php

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-one-of-londons-largest-estates-10053161.html

http://rt.com/uk/233443-social-cleansing-protest-southwark/

http://report24.co.uk/article/95181/six-arrested-as-police-help-in-evictions-from-london-estate


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 7, 2017)

Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady

A harrowing tale of being a BTL landlord and why she has had enough. taking only a 190K profit for her troubles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady
> 
> A harrowing tale of being a BTL landlord and why she has had enough. taking only a 190K profit for her troubles.


Surprised she's not fucked her back swimming in her money


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 7, 2017)

I could imagine her back being strained while doing a spot of corrective labour.


----------



## Sue (Aug 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady
> 
> A harrowing tale of being a BTL landlord and why she has had enough. taking only a 190K profit for her troubles.


(((190K profit))).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

seventh bullet said:


> I could imagine her back being strained while doing a spot of corrective labour.


She's down for transportation to south georgia for the canals


----------



## alan_ (Aug 7, 2017)

Sue said:


> (((190K profit))).




1993, Key West, Florida. When a Ku Klux Klan official is shot in broad daylight, all eyes turn to the person holding the gun: a 96-year-old Cuban woman who will say nothing except to admit her guilt.

vanessa Lafaye’s second novel, At First Light


----------



## alan_ (Aug 7, 2017)

1993, Key West, Florida. When a Ku Klux Klan official is shot in broad daylight, all eyes turn to the person holding the gun: a 96-year-old Cuban woman who will say nothing except fuck you landlord


----------



## kabbes (Aug 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady
> 
> A harrowing tale of being a BTL landlord and why she has had enough. taking only a 190K profit for her troubles.


I don't get where they get 190k from.  As far as I can tell, she made 95k profit plus a bit on rent (10k or so).

It's an ok return, but she's had 100-200k capital tied up for 13 years for that, so it's only of the order of 4% p.a. return on capital. For a risky, geared investment.  She'd have done better investing in equities or bonds over the same period.


----------



## Lurdan (Aug 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady
> 
> A harrowing tale of being a BTL landlord and why she has had enough. taking only a 190K profit for her troubles.


With landlords, as with many other things, it's not their size it's what you do with them


----------



## Gromit (Aug 7, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I don't get where they get 190k from.  As far as I can tell, she made 95k profit plus a bit on rent (10k or so).
> 
> It's an ok return, but she's had 100-200k capital tied up for 13 years for that, so it's only of the order of 4% p.a. return on capital. For a risky, geared investment.  She'd have done better investing in equities or bonds over the same period.


It's surprising how few people realise that most profit comes not from rent but just house price inflation and compared to many other businesses the returns are shit. 
The only way to make decent money from property is to have tons of it and employ your own maintenance workers.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

capital appreciation has acted as a default subsidy in the property market for a while now- I har of many late entry carpet bagger BTL'ers have to top up their outgoings for their *investment* each month and depend on the costs flattening out and the property rising in value FOREVER


----------



## kabbes (Aug 8, 2017)

Certainly, if you are going to have 10% of your *turnover* walking out the door to letting agents every month -- as this woman did -- it's not surprising your *profit* will take a massive hit.  You have to make 10% profit margin for the agent before you even start for yourself.

The telling part is that this woman didn't even know she wasn't making money on rent until it was all totted up at the end.  if you are investing money, you have to understand your incomings and outgoings, not just hope for the best.


----------



## Lurdan (Aug 12, 2017)

Patrick Collinson asks :
Have we gone too far in vilifying landlords? - The Guardian

Interesting question. Are they still breathing ?


----------



## Dandred (Aug 12, 2017)

Move somewhere else then, the North is looking for people!


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 12, 2017)

Lurdan said:


> Patrick Collinson asks :
> Have we gone too far in vilifying landlords? - The Guardian
> 
> Interesting question. Are they still breathing ?


That's a shit article, Scottish landlords have had to be registered and vetted by the local council for the past decade. Newham isn't being that groundbreaking. 

Shit because of inaccuracies BTW, not the subject.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2017)

Lurdan said:


> Patrick Collinson asks :
> Have we gone too far in vilifying landlords? - The Guardian
> 
> Interesting question. Are they still breathing ?



I'm reminded of the old adage that any newspaper headline containing a question can be answered with the word 'no'.


----------

