Moderator: Peak Moderation
Bonkers! Bonkers! Bonkers!!!Question: what is the true population of the UK?
Voted best answer: Probably between 80 and 100 million but we will never know the exact figures. The Amsterdam Treaty 1997 gave the EU control of our immigration which is now running at 2.6 million p.a.
SleeperService wrote:I doubt that any of the evicted tenants are reading PS, however I would suggest Steve's opinion is morally defensible and even justified. I wonder if these landlord reptiles are attacking unmarried parents for moral reasons only disguised/excused by the defaulting benefits story....that would be in keeping with Thatcher's Victorian Britain.
How do you morally justify this approach in a society you no doubt think of as civilised?SteveCooketcetc wrote:I hope one of his evicted tenants ***** the ****er
No, really, I do.
I don't consider any society that allows such a significant disparity to grow up between rich and poor, both in terms of access to resources nor in terms of security of holding of those resource to be civilised.woodburner wrote:
How do you morally justify this approach in a society you no doubt think of as civilised?
Biff, stop taking things quite so literally.biffvernon wrote:I'm not sure that incitement to murder quite fits into this forum's terms and conditions.
Oh I see your version of New York City’s rent control. A well meant socialist program that muddles the free market and creates absurdities.UndercoverElephant wrote:..vtsnowedin wrote:[quote="fuzzy] I agree, and a lot of other peoples points are also right.
.....
.......
The value of private rented houses with sitting tenants is much lower than empty property, so the economics change.
That strikes me as being totally off. It certainly is not true in New England where a empty house has to be drained of all water or the pipes will burst come November. We appraise houses down twenty-five percent if they go vacant for more then a couple of months. Is the UK housing market so much different that a property that is bringing in rental income is worth less then one that sits idle and still generating maintenance expenses? How can that be?
Now sitting tenants that are stiffing you for the rent is another matter but I didn't read the above to mean that.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_A ... t_Act_1834The New Poor Law of 1834 attempted to reverse the economic trend by discouraging the provision of relief to anyone who refused to enter a workhouse.
Some Poor Law authorities hoped to run workhouses at a profit by utilising the free labour of their inmates, who generally lacked the skills or motivation to compete in the open market.
I had already written part of my post when I was interrupted and had to continue later, by which time other posts had arisen which I incorporated. I will consider editing my post.stevecook172001 wrote:I don't consider any society that allows such a significant disparity to grow up between rich and poor, both in terms of access to resources nor in terms of security of holding of those resource to be civilised.woodburner wrote:
How do you morally justify this approach in a society you no doubt think of as civilised?
Also, I would also ask you to quote my post first-hand. I have already edited my first post and have informed the only other single person who quoted from that post prior to the edit to ask them if they would re-edit their quote to reflect the edit of the original post. Namely, Shortfall. He has presumably not read my pm yet. However your quote has occurred significantly after my edit and so could not have been taken from the original post.
Please re-edit your quote of mine to reflect the content of the post you are quoting at the time you have quoted it.
"Consider your action" will you? Ooooooh...scary.woodburner wrote:I had already written part of my post when I was interrupted and had to continue later, by which time other posts had arisen which I incorporated. I will consider editing my post.stevecook172001 wrote:I don't consider any society that allows such a significant disparity to grow up between rich and poor, both in terms of access to resources nor in terms of security of holding of those resource to be civilised.woodburner wrote:
How do you morally justify this approach in a society you no doubt think of as civilised?
Also, I would also ask you to quote my post first-hand. I have already edited my first post and have informed the only other single person who quoted from that post prior to the edit to ask them if they would re-edit their quote to reflect the edit of the original post. Namely, Shortfall. He has presumably not read my pm yet. However your quote has occurred significantly after my edit and so could not have been taken from the original post.
Please re-edit your quote of mine to reflect the content of the post you are quoting at the time you have quoted it.
Do you consider your recent posts principally attacking Biff, but with significant abuse directed at others, to be in accordance with the registration conditions you agreed to when signing up to the PS forum? I would like an answer on the forum to this question, following which, I will consider my action.
You are generally short tempered and offensive to several posters on PS. If someone has a view you do not agree with you heap abuse into your replies. You agreed when registering not to post abusive comments, but post you do, and presumably think it's acceptable. Maintaining your position is one thing, but belittling someone else is a childish action of a bully.stevecook172001 wrote:"Consider your action" will you? Ooooooh...scary.woodburner wrote:I had already written part of my post when I was interrupted and had to continue later, by which time other posts had arisen which I incorporated. I will consider editing my post.stevecook172001 wrote:I don't consider any society that allows such a significant disparity to grow up between rich and poor, both in terms of access to resources nor in terms of security of holding of those resource to be civilised.
Also, I would also ask you to quote my post first-hand. I have already edited my first post and have informed the only other single person who quoted from that post prior to the edit to ask them if they would re-edit their quote to reflect the edit of the original post. Namely, Shortfall. He has presumably not read my pm yet. However your quote has occurred significantly after my edit and so could not have been taken from the original post.
Please re-edit your quote of mine to reflect the content of the post you are quoting at the time you have quoted it.
Do you consider your recent posts principally attacking Biff, but with significant abuse directed at others, to be in accordance with the registration conditions you agreed to when signing up to the PS forum? I would like an answer on the forum to this question, following which, I will consider my action.
I am more than content to stand by pretty much anything i post on here., anything I am not prepared to stand by I am more than happy to redress. with regards to my posts to Biff Vernon, I am more than happy to stand by every singe word. with regard to my posts to others, you are going to need to be more specific. However, I can say that, unless and until you provide examples, my default reply would be to say I am happy to stand by all other responses.
This is the last time I am going to respond to your petty little posts on this matter. you have my response and I do not intend to repeat it.
Born and brought up in London. Went to universities in Liverpool and London. Live less than an hour's drive from two cities, Lincoln and Hull.UndercoverElephant wrote:I think you live in a remote rural area and have no clue about what is going on in the big cities in the UK. You've never lived there,
Shortfall, be assured that if I had taken Steve literally for one nanosecond I would have informed the police, rather than posting a gentle riposte on an internet forum. I'm sure Steve is really a nice bloke, not a murderer, and I look forward to meeting him in a pub one day as I think he owes me a pint.Shortfall wrote:Biff, stop taking things quite so literally.biffvernon wrote:I'm not sure that incitement to murder quite fits into this forum's terms and conditions.
Things said in the heat of the moment are rarely meant or acted upon.
Please allow a little poetic licence from time to time.
There's no such thing as the "free market" VT - never has been, never will be.vtsnowedin wrote:Oh I see your version of New York City’s rent control. A well meant socialist program that muddles the free market and creates absurdities.UndercoverElephant wrote:..vtsnowedin wrote:[quote="fuzzy] I agree, and a lot of other peoples points are also right.
.....
.......
The value of private rented houses with sitting tenants is much lower than empty property, so the economics change.
That strikes me as being totally off. It certainly is not true in New England where a empty house has to be drained of all water or the pipes will burst come November. We appraise houses down twenty-five percent if they go vacant for more then a couple of months. Is the UK housing market so much different that a property that is bringing in rental income is worth less then one that sits idle and still generating maintenance expenses? How can that be?
Now sitting tenants that are stiffing you for the rent is another matter but I didn't read the above to mean that.