Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:34:31 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Ticking boxes also brought us the social services department in
Haringey where a Director with no relevant experiences in social
services but an innate ability for box-ticking (in education) was
brought in. She received high praise for meeting government targets
but was dismissed after multiple failings were shown in the case of
"Baby P". No box to tick for something so fundamental? That's very
New Labour!

What is particularly worrying about this case is that this Director
was just one of a great many non-specialists in social work who were
recruited as Directors of social services departments around the
country after Labour's changes in 2004. God only knows what New
Labour thought they were doing.


Its also New Labour to find scapegoats, she was a sitting duck. Similarly
the paedatricitian who reasonably felt an examination of an agitated baby
was unwarranted.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:16:19 +0100 Tim.... wrote :
When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat
the searches already included in the HIP.

Surely he should have done? The day after the searches were done
for the HIP could have been the day the council put in plans for
a new road that would go right through your garden.

And if they make this change the day after?

Well yes. If you follow this argument that the search is three months
old and something dreadful might have happened in the interim, you
also have to accept that it's just as likely for this to happen in
the three months from signing the contract and many times more likely
to happen during your ownership. Best never to buy anything just in
case! It's far more likely that something relevant is already in the
search and the HIP process means that the buyer has access to this
information before spending anything on legal fees.

It would be interesting to know what the ratio of searches to sales
is, how many millions are being spent to achieve a minimal extra
level of comfort. My hunch would be that a second search carried out
within six months has a 0.1% chance of throwing up anything
material; any buyer who wants to avoid bad surprises would do much
better to read the local papers and ring on the neighbours' bells to
see what they are like and ask them what the road and area are like
(if not known).

Having bought property here, I will say that the Australian process
(Victoria anyway, it may be different in other states) is so much
better than the E&W system. If you need finance your bank gives you
an loan offer based on income.

You look at a property, get given a s32 (HIP), decide to make an
offer of $x, sign a formal offer at the EA's (you are not legally
allowed to do this unless you have been given a s32) - most people's
offers are made subject to finance and building and pest surveys. If
the buyer accepts, they countersign and you have a contract, with
three days for you to pass it to your solicitor to review - you can
pull out within this period, otherwise the sale goes through on the
appointed date (15-120 days depending on what the parties agree)

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:39:19 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

Buying/selling in the US was made much easier for me by the fact
that the (binding) contract is signed at the beginning of the
process (therefore no gazumping possible).

See my other post, same here. It just amazes me that so many people
think that the traditional E&W system is so wonderful.

Re your reference to the UK, Scotland has a completely different
system but I don't know how it works - AIUI it is also a contract
first system.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On May 20, 9:05*pm, Bruce wrote:
Ticking boxes brought us the NHS hospital trust in Stafford
....
Ticking boxes also brought us the social services department in


A lot of this comes from 1) recruiting general management into areas
where they have no expertise 2) applying general consultancy theory
into areas where it is not tailored & monitored for any external
efficacy.

Healthcare management soaked up an absolutely *vast* amount of often
rather crap middle managers "ex whatever industry / factory / company
just failed or was about to", whereupon they became senior managers
with gold plated pay, car, pensions, expenses.

I recall Kaplan's Balanced Scorecard being introduced and championed
throughout the public sector & healthcare in particular, but the
fundamental problem was always "what do we actually measure?". Kaplan
left that out because it was aimed at real senior executives in real
private sector companies from Germany to America to Japan - where it
was pretty obvious to the reader. After some disastrous attempts by
others Kaplan introduced a "workbook" somewhat akin to Peter Senge's
Fieldbook or the various BPR workbooks to walk people through "what do
we measure" and "with examples in coloured bricks". With healthcare in
particular the measures chosen were often as much "what we CAN
measure" and "what measures can we meet minimally AND thus meet to
achieve bonuses".

Therein is why so much of New Labour often ticked the wrong box AND
ticked boxes very expensively AND created a vast army of public sector
doing so AND hid a vast army of public sector quango staff AND a vast
number of incapacity benefit claimants away from unemployment numbers.
No wonder the BBC does not like Oxbridge, they might actually add up
the numbers correctly and come up with the true unemployment figure
which would taint their red-rose-tinted taxpayer funded world of
luvviedumb. The true size of the public sector is above 25% of the
employed workforce count.

In that respect it is worth noting the GM effect where 1 worker has to
effectively subsidise several retiree packages, Obama solved this by
burning the bond bankrupcy laws - creditors no longer had claim on
assets.

Exactly that scenario is playing out in the EU, the total lifetime
cost of policies has become disproportionate to the private sector's
ability to fund them - too many bankers lent too much money to both
public sector, private sector & consumer. That was as much because
government policy & low economic growth (exported to China) required
such free lending in order to first get the economy moving and then,
well, if we stop we lose votes so political greed took off where
talent for economic responsibility sadly ran out. Merkel is trying to
stave off naked shorting of sovereign debt (1$) to force easy payout
on credit default swaps (make 2$), but that does not solve the
structural problem.

The biggest "box ticking revelation" is yet to come, where the EU
drags World Inc into a double dip recession and then they turn on the
next deficit country - the UK. Indeed, peculiarly I can not help but
think we are in a managed climb-down from 2008 - where each country is
intent on default (literally or all but name) in an *orderly fashion*
rather than a chain reaction of panic creating a debt-1929. That is to
say, giving banks time to recapitalise rather than default and so
require Franco-German government bailout and in turn forcing sovereign
debt yields higher which in turn triggers more default. The problem is
countries are in SO much debt that even a small tickup in yields
demanded by bond buyers makes the interest crippling to GDP so in turn
requiring more yield to compensate for risk - trashing loan & housing
markets.

Trying to *slow down* the atomic blast of 2008 & prior credit bubble
is proving difficult.

Box ticking Healthcare showed the human cost, Financial markets will
yet show it too. Gordon Brown may not get the easy re-election he
assumes - the economic mess at the next election may actually be worse
than it is now.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:19:46 +0100 Fredxx wrote :
Its also New Labour to find scapegoats,

Did you mean 'Daily Mail'?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:19:46 +0100 Fredxx wrote :
Its also New Labour to find scapegoats,

Did you mean 'Daily Mail'?

It's difficult to distinguish with the misinformation from the likes of Ed
Balls and the lies propagated by the Daily Mail.

On 20 May, 15:59, Bruce wrote:

Pity Cameron hasn't grown enough balls yet to tell the EU to stuff the
Energy Assessment up Von Rompui's backend....

Cameron has the balls, but they are firmly gripped by Clegg. *;-)

Of come off it, the Liberals haven't had anyone by the balls since the
days of Jeremy Thorpe


Does Cameron have a dog?

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 13:30, John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just
quantitative if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the
message(s) that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is good
netiquette but someone coming along later needs SOME form of context
for your postings to make sense. You're taking the time and effort
to sit at the keyboard and type, so presumably you want someone to
read what you're saying. Please make it easier for us to do so.

You could just look at the previous message in the thread - that is
what they are there for.

But due to the vagaries of NNTP servers and/or OE, sometimes messages go
missing. It's not rocket science to leave in pertinent content of previous
messagesd when replying - it's even considered 'good practice' and 'good
netiquette' but js.b1 NEVER does it.

"Rednadnerb" wrote in message
...
On 20 May, 13:21, stuart noble wrote:
So instead of fixing it, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My thoughts exactly. No doubt the next government will reinstate the
baby plus some extra bathwater. And so we go on

I agree, I think people have short memories. When the cries for reform
start up again, as they will, the government will take the HIP scheme,
dust it off, rename it and launch it as their own.

IME the thing that slows up house purchases is people making offers on
houses which they cannot afford.

Every one of my "offers" that has failed to complete has done so because the
buyer couldn't afford the mortgage that that thought they could.

ISTM that the best way to speed up purchases is to compel buyers to have had
the salary upon which their mortgage offer is based verified before they go
around offering on houses that they can't afford, not after.

But, of course that would make extra work for the Bank's and they can shout
louder than individual sellers

tim

On May 20, 8:06*pm, "John" wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:46:23 +0100, "Fredxx" wrote:

Overall after buying and selling a house, switching some of the
search requirements from the potential multiple buyers to one seller
I found an good thing. *The energy survey was always at most a
finger in the air waving thing.

So while I was initially negative about HIPs, I thought there were
some positive aspects. *A buyer's solicitor would also charge more
for making the same searches.

The problem is that the buyer's solicitor will automatically ignore
anything in the HIP and do the searches anyway.

When I purchased my current place, my solicitor did not repeat the
searches already included in the HIP.

Surely he should have done? The day after the searches were done for the HIP
could have been the day the council put in plans for a new road that would
go right through your garden. A HIP is like a car's MOT - only really valid
at the time of testing.

I would be far more worried about what isn't in the HIP but is well
known about on the local grapevine. Plans for a new road or housing
estate don't just suddenly happen.

MBQ

On May 20, 5:42*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:05:29 +0100, Tim Streater



wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:06:21 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Yes it does. Because the haggling is done at the start (over a day or
so) and then you exchange contracts. Price fixed, end of story.

I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel. *

I have been involved in many sales and purchases of property in
England and Wales and seen just about every possible pitfall and
obstacle. *The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding. *

No gazumping. *No post-offer "negotiation". *No "subject to survey".

The highest bid gets the property, and that's it. *Job done.

I assume there's a deadline to get offers in? How does that work if a
house is on the market for months? Or does a timer get started when the
first bid arrives?

There's an end date, but if no offers are received, it can be extended
as many times as needed.



Does the seller have to accept any bid? Otherwise if there's a house
that's been on the market for months, what's to stop me putting in a bid
for tuppence-ha'penny? Or is there a reserve price?

I think they ask for offers over a certain amount. *So not a reserve
as such, because that would be kept private, but I think a minimum bid
is asked for up-front.

I should point out that I don't have any personal experience of buying
or selling property in Scotland. *I have several friends who have, and
my limited knowledge of the system is gleaned from them, also a lawyer
friend who bought several properties in Scotland and is always singing
the praises of the Scottish system.

Did you see the episode of (re)location... where a cock up by one of
the agents led to the winning bidders dicsovering they had effectively
overbid by almost £100,000? Sounds like a wonderful system. They
managed to get out of it, fortunately.

MBQ

On May 20, 6:33*pm, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51:04 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2010-05-20, Tim Streater wrote:

Trading houses is at least fractured if not bust, IMO.

All that is required is for the offer/acceptance to be legally
binding with appropriate penalties for withdrawal by either party.

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

Any/all of which can happen between exchange of contracts and
completion in the current system. There's nothing (other than
laggardly solicitors) preventing exchange of contracts happening much
earlier.

MBQ

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Man at B&Q"
saying something like:

Did you see the episode of (re)location... where a cock up by one of
the agents led to the winning bidders dicsovering they had effectively
overbid by almost £100,000?

In other words, they bid what they thought it was worth to them. Tough
****.

Sounds like a wonderful system.

It works quite well, most of the time.

They managed to get out of it, fortunately.

Weaseled out, you mean.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 03:34:10 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:
On May 20, 6:33*pm, Steve Walker wrote:

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

Any/all of which can happen between exchange of contracts and
completion in the current system. There's nothing (other than
laggardly solicitors) preventing exchange of contracts happening much
earlier.


I have been involved in two property transactions where exchange of
contracts and completion happened on the same day.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:50:37 +0100, "John" wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 13:30, John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just
quantitative if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the
message(s) that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is good
netiquette but someone coming along later needs SOME form of context
for your postings to make sense. You're taking the time and effort
to sit at the keyboard and type, so presumably you want someone to
read what you're saying. Please make it easier for us to do so.

You could just look at the previous message in the thread - that is
what they are there for.

But due to the vagaries of NNTP servers and/or OE, sometimes messages go
missing. It's not rocket science to leave in pertinent content of previous
messagesd when replying - it's even considered 'good practice' and 'good
netiquette' but js.b1 NEVER does it.


If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file? You
will never have to see any of the "upsetting" messages again.

On the other hand, you would miss out, because js.b1 is one of the
more informative posters on here.

Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness.

On May 21, 3:18*am, "Fredxx" wrote:
It's difficult to distinguish with the misinformation from the likes of Ed
Balls and the lies propagated by the Daily Mail.

Daily Wail please, a newspaper which should be directed straight into
recycling bins rather than grace any letterbox or floor.

On 20 May, 16:49, Bruce wrote:

I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel.

I suspect because England could never bring itself to "adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel " on principle, no matter what
the issue or its virtues were.

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:50:37 +0100, "John" wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 13:30, John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just
quantitative if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the
message(s) that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is
good netiquette but someone coming along later needs SOME form of
context for your postings to make sense. You're taking the time
and effort to sit at the keyboard and type, so presumably you want
someone to read what you're saying. Please make it easier for us
to do so.

You could just look at the previous message in the thread - that is
what they are there for.

But due to the vagaries of NNTP servers and/or OE, sometimes
messages go missing. It's not rocket science to leave in pertinent
content of previous messagesd when replying - it's even considered
'good practice' and 'good netiquette' but js.b1 NEVER does it.


If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file? You
will never have to see any of the "upsetting" messages again.

On the other hand, you would miss out, because js.b1 is one of the
more informative posters on here.

Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness.

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile
2. Yes, I am mentally ill and have the paperwork to prove it
3. Rules, arbitrary or not, have been laid down and when followed, make for
a better experience for everyone
4. What's the reasoning and the rationale behind cutting out all of the
previous text? What can be gained from it and why would someone do it? Why
not just be a good 'netizen' and practice good netiquette?

"John" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

On 21/05/10 12:41, Tim Streater wrote:

I also
recall that in my US transactions (buying and selling), the buyer hands
over $1k at signature. Forfeited if the buyer walked away - no excuses.


Now that is perfectly sensible IMO. It sorts out the time wasters,
without being ruinously punitive if something very unexpected happens
(remember, if chains are involved, the process from here until
completion could take months).

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On 20 May, 16:49, Bruce wrote:

I could never understand why England and Wales didn't adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel.

I suspect because England could never bring itself to "adopt the
Scottish system, lock stock and barrel " on principle, no matter what
the issue or its virtues were.


I suspect you're right. There is also the problem that, while most
people recognise the need for change, they still want to be able to
behave as before with gazumping, pulling out on a whim, making
spurious offers that aren't followed up, putting their houses on the
market for fun without any serious intention to sell, etc., etc..

The Scottish system would put an end to almost all of that. But "all
of that" is just a game that the English seem to enjoy. ;-)

On 21/05/10 13:13, John wrote:

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

Never used OE. But having got fed up with the foibles of knode and pan,
I've finally switched to Thunderbird and find it a most acceptable news
reader. It does quote correctly as far as my observations go.

2. Yes, I am mentally ill and have the paperwork to prove it

wibble?

3. Rules, arbitrary or not, have been laid down and when followed, make for
a better experience for everyone

I agree. The "rules" aren't there to beat someone over the head with if
they err occasionally, but are good guidelines developed over the years
to make it easier on the majority of people. Quoting text does make it
easier (I read news with "hide read messages" enabled, so skipping back
to the PP means wibbling around in the menu twice (OK one day I shall
work out how to bind a key to the threadview menu items, but it seemed
non obvious last time I tried).

4. What's the reasoning and the rationale behind cutting out all of the
previous text? What can be gained from it and why would someone do it? Why
not just be a good 'netizen' and practice good netiquette?




--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Adrian wrote:
"John" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

Touche )

I'm in the process of going over to Win7 and believe OE doesn't work with
that, so hoping to get to grips with Thunderbird soon. Been using OE (or
whatever it was called at the time) since Win95 so 'bout time I saw what
other mail clients offer anyway I suppose.

On 21/05/10 13:26, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

Come on - that's like blaming the apprentice when he makes a pigs ear of
fine joinery because all he was given was a butter knife ;-

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Tim Watts gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

Come on - that's like blaming the apprentice when he makes a pigs ear of
fine joinery because all he was given was a butter knife ;-

ITYM "because all that was to hand without having to walk two or three
steps was a butter knife..."

Tim Watts wrote:
On 21/05/10 13:13, John wrote:

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

Never used OE. But having got fed up with the foibles of knode and
pan, I've finally switched to Thunderbird and find it a most
acceptable news reader. It does quote correctly as far as my
observations go.
2. Yes, I am mentally ill and have the paperwork to prove it

wibble?

Wibble indeed )

Potted history: Cable jointer on BT, suffered back injury at work that led
to spinal surgery and medical retirement from BT. Went back to college to
start learning stuff for a new career. Got 2/3 of way through a degree in
physiology and pharmacology but the constant pain from my back (and I really
do mean 24/7 pain) got me down and started suffering from depression and
couldn't do the work.

Doctors note needed for uni said "To whom it may concern. This is to confirm
that Mr. xxx is under my care at the moment suffering from a mental
illness......"

So I'm a loony, I've got the paperwork to prove it, and my missus never lets
me live it down )

3. Rules, arbitrary or not, have been laid down and when followed,
make for a better experience for everyone

I agree. The "rules" aren't there to beat someone over the head with
if they err occasionally, but are good guidelines developed over the
years to make it easier on the majority of people. Quoting text does
make it easier (I read news with "hide read messages" enabled, so
skipping back to the PP means wibbling around in the menu twice (OK
one day I shall work out how to bind a key to the threadview menu
items, but it seemed non obvious last time I tried).

4. What's the reasoning and the rationale behind cutting out all of
the previous text? What can be gained from it and why would someone
do it? Why not just be a good 'netizen' and practice good netiquette?

On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:13:57 +0100, "John" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:50:37 +0100, "John" wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 13:30, John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just
quantitative if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the
message(s) that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is
good netiquette but someone coming along later needs SOME form of
context for your postings to make sense. You're taking the time
and effort to sit at the keyboard and type, so presumably you want
someone to read what you're saying. Please make it easier for us
to do so.

You could just look at the previous message in the thread - that is
what they are there for.

But due to the vagaries of NNTP servers and/or OE, sometimes
messages go missing. It's not rocket science to leave in pertinent
content of previous messagesd when replying - it's even considered
'good practice' and 'good netiquette' but js.b1 NEVER does it.


If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file? You
will never have to see any of the "upsetting" messages again.

On the other hand, you would miss out, because js.b1 is one of the
more informative posters on here.

Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness.

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile


Then why did you choose to use OE? Get yourself a newsreader.


2. Yes, I am mentally ill and have the paperwork to prove it
3. Rules, arbitrary or not, have been laid down and when followed, make for
a better experience for everyone
4. What's the reasoning and the rationale behind cutting out all of the
previous text? What can be gained from it and why would someone do it? Why
not just be a good 'netizen' and practice good netiquette?


Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness. You should consult your GP.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Cameron has the balls, but they are firmly gripped by Clegg. ;-)

They are at each others throats already!

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:13:57 +0100, "John" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:50:37 +0100, "John" wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 13:30, John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Energy bit is an EU requirement. Needs a FLIR camera to do it
properly, particularly CWI which is qualitative not just
quantitative if someone tries a rush job.

For ****'s sake js.b1 - will you PLEASE not cut out all of the
message(s) that you're replying to. Cutting superfluous text is
good netiquette but someone coming along later needs SOME form of
context for your postings to make sense. You're taking the time
and effort to sit at the keyboard and type, so presumably you
want someone to read what you're saying. Please make it easier
for us to do so.

You could just look at the previous message in the thread - that
is what they are there for.

But due to the vagaries of NNTP servers and/or OE, sometimes
messages go missing. It's not rocket science to leave in pertinent
content of previous messagesd when replying - it's even considered
'good practice' and 'good netiquette' but js.b1 NEVER does it.


If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file? You
will never have to see any of the "upsetting" messages again.

On the other hand, you would miss out, because js.b1 is one of the
more informative posters on here.

Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness.

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile


Then why did you choose to use OE? Get yourself a newsreader.

See my reply to Adrian at 13.41

2. Yes, I am mentally ill and have the paperwork to prove it
3. Rules, arbitrary or not, have been laid down and when followed,
make for a better experience for everyone
4. What's the reasoning and the rationale behind cutting out all of
the previous text? What can be gained from it and why would someone
do it? Why not just be a good 'netizen' and practice good netiquette?


Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness. You should consult your GP.

See my reply to Tim Watts at 13.56

On 21/05/2010 13:26, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

Doesn't even know how to use "Block Sender"...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

The Scottish system would put an end to almost all of that. But "all
of that" is just a game that the English seem to enjoy. ;-)

The Scottish system is also (as in England) plagued with time-wasters
who spend their entire hobby hours going round houses for sale just so
they can gawp at others' dwellings/decor/kitchens/etc, with no intention
of actually ever buying a place.

Clive George wrote:
On 21/05/2010 13:26, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

If js.b1 upsets you so much, why not put him in your kill file?

1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

A bad workman...

Doesn't even know how to use "Block Sender"...

Who said that I wanted to killfile/block him/her anyway? I didn't.

On May 21, 12:14*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 03:34:10 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
On May 20, 6:33*pm, Steve Walker wrote:

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

Any/all of which can happen between exchange of contracts and
completion in the current system. There's nothing (other than
laggardly solicitors) preventing exchange of contracts happening much
earlier.

I have been involved in two property transactions where exchange of
contracts and completion happened on the same day. *

So have I, but that's the opposite end of the scale.

MBQ

On May 21, 12:41*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,



*Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 03:34:10 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:
On May 20, 6:33*pm, Steve Walker wrote:

The trouble is that you'd then have to write in every conceivable
circumstance (or a catch all) to allow people to back out (such as if they
were suddenly told they were going to be made redundant; their
spouse/partner became seriously ill; their buyer pulled out; etc.) It's not
fair to punish someone who is pulling out because of suddenly changed
circumstances by making their circumstances even worse is it?

Any/all of which can happen between exchange of contracts and
completion in the current system. There's nothing (other than
laggardly solicitors) preventing exchange of contracts happening much
earlier.

I have been involved in two property transactions where exchange of
contracts and completion happened on the same day. *

A recipe for disaster if you arse me.

I'll decline that offer, thank you.

In my case all parties *wanted* to move. It was other issues which led
to late exchange.

MBQ

On 21/05/10 14:32, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

Cameron has the balls, but they are firmly gripped by Clegg. ;-)

They are at each others throats already!




Only the media (who are bored and/or too lazy to do some proper
investigative journalism somewhere else) claim that.

I don't expect the first coalition for decades to be an easy ride, but I
will be quite pleased if they can make it work as it will be a new age
of politics, possibly for the better.

Although I *do* wonder what Cameron thinks he's doing with the 1922
Committee. he's got enough *real* problems without creating more.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 16:58, Andrew May wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

That would be the first objection. Why should every buyer pay for a
survey - that may be a full structural survey - if they don't even know
that their offer will be accepted?

Needing a full structural survey is relatively rare. More to the point
if you don't commission your own survey then you are never going to be
quite sure what parameters were set by the person that did commission it
(or for that matter, have the ability to steer it to look at the aspects
that you are particularly interested in)


Agreed. But at least under the English system you don't have to pay for
the survey until you know whether the seller is going to accept your price.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

Getting irrationally upset when arbitrary rules are not followed is
possibly a sign of mental illness. You should consult your GP.

Is this a hardware or kitchen goods store?
Only that there seem to be a few pots and kettles in here, of a
distinctly dark hue.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:25:52 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

The Scottish system would put an end to almost all of that. But "all
of that" is just a game that the English seem to enjoy. ;-)

The Scottish system is also (as in England) plagued with time-wasters
who spend their entire hobby hours going round houses for sale just so
they can gawp at others' dwellings/decor/kitchens/etc, with no intention
of actually ever buying a place.


I have no doubt it is also plagued with time-wasters who put their
house on the market just to get hordes of people around to see it, but
never with the slightest intention of selling.

You cannot prohibit human nature and the often bizarre behaviour that
goes with it.

On 21 May, 17:06, Andrew May wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 20/05/2010 16:58, Andrew May wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Scottish system requires sealed bids, and every bidder
has to pay for a survey before bidding.

That would be the first objection. Why should every buyer pay for a
survey - that may be a full structural survey - if they don't even know
that their offer will be accepted?

Needing a full structural survey is relatively rare. More to the point
if you don't commission your own survey then you are never going to be
quite sure what parameters were set by the person that did commission it
(or for that matter, have the ability to steer it to look at the aspects
that you are particularly interested in)

Agreed. But at least under the English system you don't have to pay for
the survey until you know whether the seller is going to accept your price.

Most offers under Scottish system are now `subject to satisfactory
survey` amongst pile of other conditions.

Sealed bid auctions sets the price at what the buyer is prepared to
pay, even if thats a lot more than next keenest buyer, but overs in
region of is lot more common now....

Cheers
Adam

"John" wrote in message
...


1. OE doesn't have the ability to killfile

Yes it does (right click, junk mail, add to blocked).
Also you should have switched to live mail as OE is not maintained since
live mail replaced it.