On Sunday, 27 September 2015 21:18:37 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
Well to be honest I wasn't bad tempered and mardy like this at first.
After I lost the first leg I just thought it was bad luck. After the
second one I thought it was very bad luck. But after I lost both arms
within a fortnight I did start to think I was getting a rough deal. Then
I started with the gangrene and had to have my ears, nose, penis and
scrotum removed. I was OK for a while after that, on a plateau so to
speak, but then I developed chincough in the buttocks so they had to
come off. Then I got such bad ulcers inside I had to have my stomach and
intestines removed. I'll admit all this has left me a bit bitter and
twisted.

Never mind, you're still fit for work according to Atos.

But you're right, most folk do go out of their way to help the
disabled. Only the other day a bloke rolled me all the way from my front
door to the Asda.

That was nice of him, even if you didn't really want to go to Asda and had actually only fallen into the wheeliebin again.

Owain

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:52:48 +0100, wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 21:26:35 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
You can't make a corner shop into a multinational supermarket.

Jack Cohen did (Tesco)

Peter and Fred Asquith did (Asda)

Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer did (guess who)

Etc.

Owain

Ok, you can't make every (in fact not more than a few) corner shops into a multinational supermarket

--
If space is a vacuum, who changes the bags?

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:52:48 +0100, wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 21:26:35 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
You can't make a corner shop into a multinational supermarket.

Jack Cohen did (Tesco)

That doesn't sound very Jewish.

--
What has got two legs and bleeds?
Half a dog!

On 27/09/2015 22:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

It's speed limit +10mph.
Not everywhere. There are some speed cameras that register an offence
if you are doing 34mph or more in a 30mph limit. Some were in north Wales.

Jim

On 27/09/2015 18:41, ARW wrote:
"Tough Guy no. wrote in message

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss."


I never managed to master that knack.

If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving is not for you

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:08:06 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 27/09/2015 22:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

It's speed limit +10mph.
Not everywhere. There are some speed cameras that register an offence
if you are doing 34mph or more in a 30mph limit. Some were in north Wales.

North Wales has an arsehole (more than police usually are) of a ****stable. In fact he'd do you for 31. In more civilised areas, they use +10mph. And higher if there are many speeders, so they get "the cream of the crop".

--
Confucius say lion with small penis must compensate with mighty roar.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:09:24 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 27/09/2015 18:41, ARW wrote:
"Tough Guy no. wrote in message

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss."


I never managed to master that knack.

If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving is not for you

You can listen to thunder after lightning to tell how close you came to getting hit. If you don't hear it nevermind.

--
What do you call it when a blonde drives down the street with her head out the window?
Refueling.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:09:24 +0100, Indy Jess John wrote:

On 27/09/2015 18:41, ARW wrote:
"Tough Guy no. wrote in message

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss."


I never managed to master that knack.

If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving is not for you

To determine how tightly to do up a nut, continue until you hear a crack, then back off half a turn.

--
What do you call it when a blonde drives down the street with her head out the window?
Refueling.

On 27/09/2015 20:33, Bill Wright wrote:
Fredxxx wrote:

"disabled as a proportion" is a similar commodity as "proportion of
disabled people" in the context of "of all air travellers" or even
"people who travel by air"

What? I think you're trying to bu**** your way out of this now.

If you don't understand what you've said, how do you expect anyone else to.


What exactly are you saying? I have never knowing flown in an aircraft
who needed that level of assistance.

So people in wheelchairs never fly? Geddout.

Of course, but you were getting mixed up when tim said, "Only once in
about 300 flights have I ever shared the plane with a person who
required assistance in getting to/from their seat (which I suspect is a
reasonable proxy for "travelling with their own wheelchair")"

On 27/09/2015 17:15, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:53:58 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

No, they will rent. Rental properties then command higher rents with
commensurate value of properties.

Sounds like your beef is BtL landlords, not their tenants.

Unless, of course, you're working backwards to a pre-determined
conclusion.

No not all, my beef is that housing is now unaffordable for many, when
in the past and for my generation was immensely chap in comparison.

I'm talking about buying and renting, bot buy to lets per se.

On 27/09/2015 17:16, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:53:58 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Sure, there's a trickle-up effect, but let's not forget that the
majority of migration is in to cities - which is where house prices are
rising - and localised headcount increases don't change whether people
are moving to London for a better job is doing so from Builth Wells or
Bratislava or Benares.

So you finally agree that immigration does affect house prices, and yes
I will agree it that the greatest distortion is in or near big cities.

Did you read that paragraph before replying to it?


Yes this bit in particular, "the majority of migration is in to cities -
which is where house prices are
rising".

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

Bill is NOT disabled, but Hil is.

Bill was the one that moaned about the cost.

I'm Hil's designated moaner.

Bill

Jim Thomas wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Jim Thomas wrote:

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

I can tell you that you do if you are stood on a ridge and you hear a
whooshing sound so you look round and a hang glider is just about to
hit you.

You aren't flying if you are stood on a ridge.


'You don't throw yourself at the ground' was a general statement.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Jim Thomas wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Jim Thomas wrote:

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

I can tell you that you do if you are stood on a ridge and you hear a
whooshing sound so you look round and a hang glider is just about to hit
you.

You aren't flying if you are stood on a ridge.


'You don't throw yourself at the ground' was a general statement.

Everyone can see for themselves that it was nothing of the kind.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:43:52 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Sure, there's a trickle-up effect, but let's not forget that the
majority of migration is in to cities - which is where house prices
are rising - and localised headcount increases don't change whether
people are moving to London for a better job is doing so from Builth
Wells or Bratislava or Benares.

So you finally agree that immigration does affect house prices, and
yes I will agree it that the greatest distortion is in or near big
cities.

Did you read that paragraph before replying to it?

Yes this bit in particular, "the majority of migration is in to cities -
which is where house prices are rising".

Now read the rest of it.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:42:38 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

No, they will rent. Rental properties then command higher rents with
commensurate value of properties.

Sounds like your beef is BtL landlords, not their tenants.

Unless, of course, you're working backwards to a pre-determined
conclusion.

No not all, my beef is that housing is now unaffordable for many, when
in the past and for my generation was immensely chap in comparison.

Perhaps if your generation hurried up and died off, as you were expected
to do when you were younger, instead of increasing life expectancy
markedly and causing a "pensions timebomb"?

Also have a look at fig 10 on p33 of this...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

1911 - average household size 4.3 people
1961 - 3 people
2011 - 2.4 people
Since 2011, it's dropped further - to 2.3 people

So, even if the population remained static over the last century, an 84%
increase in the number of properties would have been needed.

I'm talking about buying and renting, bot buy to lets per se.

So doesn't BtL have any effect on the sale and rental markets, then?

In uk.d-i-y Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message ...
In uk.d-i-y Rod Speed wrote:
Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

I've never fathomed out why something which mounts to an
obstruction or fault in the road can contribute to road safety.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You don't get safety oil slicks to slow you
down so why have 'safety bumps'?

Because they do stop most of the traffic going
as fast as they would if they weren't there.

...and a patch of ice with a sign won't do that?

Much more difficult to maintain a patch of ice with
a sign on it to get people to slow down than to use
speed bumps which even you should have noticed
tend to last quite a bit longer than a patch of ice.

That isn't really the point I was making. A patch of ice is regarded
as dangerous, whether with a sign or not. Why isn't a huge bump in
the road regarded as dangerous?

I'm not suggesting that a patch of ice be actually used.

--
Chris Green
·

In message , Martin
writes
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:51:44 +0100, wrote:

In uk.d-i-y Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message ...
In uk.d-i-y Rod Speed wrote:
Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

I've never fathomed out why something which mounts to an
obstruction or fault in the road can contribute to road safety.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You don't get safety oil slicks to slow you
down so why have 'safety bumps'?

Because they do stop most of the traffic going
as fast as they would if they weren't there.

...and a patch of ice with a sign won't do that?

Much more difficult to maintain a patch of ice with
a sign on it to get people to slow down than to use
speed bumps which even you should have noticed
tend to last quite a bit longer than a patch of ice.

That isn't really the point I was making. A patch of ice is regarded
as dangerous, whether with a sign or not. Why isn't a huge bump in
the road regarded as dangerous?

It isn't dangerous unless you ignore speed limits.

If you're driving just within the speed limit, most UK speed bumps are
quite capable of inflicting serious physical damage to car occupants
(even if is only a one-time 'hit') - and also to the car (certainly if
done repeatedly). They ought to illegal.
--
Ian

Indy Jess John wrote:

There is a standard Road Traffic Act specification for a speed bump.
Mostly the speed limit of the road in which it is installed doesn't get
taken into account for the profile of the bump.

Problem is, while the _advisory_ specification for road humps is good:

http://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tal/2000/tal-10-00.pdf

....the _legislated_ specification is meager:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...9991025_en.pdf

So road workers could install a 10 cm high flat-topped hump on a 30 mph
road without breaking any regulation.

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
Problem is, while the _advisory_ specification for road humps is good:

http://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tal/2000/tal-10-00.pdf

...the _legislated_ specification is meager:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...9991025_en.pdf

So road workers could install a 10 cm high flat-topped hump on a 30 mph
road without breaking any regulation.

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed restriction (as
opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you are well within the
speed limit and only comes into effect if you exceed it. Most speed limits
result in traffic driving at a fairly constant speed (maybe at the limit,
maybe a bit above) between the humps and then slowing down considerably
below the limit (eg to 5-10 mph) as they go over the hump. The need for
constant acceleration back up to the limit between humps must contribute
greatly to increased exhaust emissions, as well as to wear and tear on the
cars and on the ears of the residents who live along the road. Sadly when
speed humps were installed in my village, residents were not given a say or
a vote: I've have voted for speed cameras rather than humps!

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
Problem is, while the _advisory_ specification for road humps is good:

http://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tal/2000/tal-10-00.pdf

...the _legislated_ specification is meager:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...9991025_en.pdf

So road workers could install a 10 cm high flat-topped hump on a 30 mph
road without breaking any regulation.

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed restriction
(as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you are well within
the speed limit and only comes into effect if you exceed it. Most speed
limits result in traffic driving at a fairly constant speed (maybe at the
limit, maybe a bit above) between the humps and then slowing down
considerably below the limit (eg to 5-10 mph) as they go over the hump.
The need for constant acceleration back up to the limit between humps must
contribute greatly to increased exhaust emissions, as well as to wear and
tear on the cars and on the ears of the residents who live along the road.
Sadly when speed humps were installed in my village, residents were not
given a say or a vote: I've have voted for speed cameras rather than
humps!

Sorry, second sentence should begin "Most speed *humps*..."

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:35:14 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

If you're driving just within the speed limit, most UK speed bumps are
quite capable of inflicting serious physical damage to car occupants
(even if is only a one-time 'hit') - and also to the car (certainly if
done repeatedly). They ought to illegal.

Who ever promised that the speed limit was always going to be
achievable...?

I'd pay good money to see somebody try and do the speed limit along the
road past our gate. Assuming they got round the S-bend, they might have
landed from the crest by the time they get to the 90deg corner, but I
rather suspect they'd go through the trees some way off the ground.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:11 +0100, NY wrote:

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed restriction
(as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you are well
within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you exceed it.

Yes, they have.

In Iberia, seemingly random traffic lights in the middle of straight
stretches of road are common. If you're exceeding the limit, they change
to red. The higher your speed, the longer they're red for.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with small
business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000% mark-ups are
never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get away with', also
known as 'charging what the market will stand'.

Check the price of one resistor at Maplin. ;-)


I should think that handling costs would far exceed the value of the
goods, but even so two wrongs don't make a right.

No different really from paying a fortune in a posh restaurant. You're not
necessarily going to get better quality product than in a cheaper one. You
are paying their owerheads.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/09/2015 08:47, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:42:38 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

No, they will rent. Rental properties then command higher rents with
commensurate value of properties.

Sounds like your beef is BtL landlords, not their tenants.

Unless, of course, you're working backwards to a pre-determined
conclusion.

No not all, my beef is that housing is now unaffordable for many, when
in the past and for my generation was immensely chap in comparison.

Perhaps if your generation hurried up and died off, as you were expected
to do when you were younger, instead of increasing life expectancy
markedly and causing a "pensions timebomb"?

Also have a look at fig 10 on p33 of this...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

1911 - average household size 4.3 people
1961 - 3 people
2011 - 2.4 people
Since 2011, it's dropped further - to 2.3 people

So, even if the population remained static over the last century, an 84%
increase in the number of properties would have been needed.

I'm talking about buying and renting, bot buy to lets per se.

So doesn't BtL have any effect on the sale and rental markets, then?

Given the population has increased 5.5m, mostly through net immigration,
since the 2011 census, it's a lot more that 84%.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:52:11 +0100, NY wrote:

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed restriction
(as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you are well
within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you exceed it.

Yes, they have.

In Iberia, seemingly random traffic lights in the middle of straight
stretches of road are common. If you're exceeding the limit, they change
to red. The higher your speed, the longer they're red for.

Ah, like the infamous linked lights on the A4 in Slough that were set to
keep traffic moving at about 30 mph; if you drove at 20 or 40 you hit every
light at red, whereas if you drove at 30 then once you got through the first
light, all the rest would be at green for you. I heard that someone worked
out that if you drove at 80 you also hit green on every light - and I bet
the ton-up boys on their motorbikes took advantage of that late at night :-)

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 22:43:42 UTC+1, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:45:57 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:40:48 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with small
business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000% mark-ups
are
never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get away with', also
known as 'charging what the market will stand'. It is the exploiting
of
a local monopoly made possible indirectly by the customers'
disability
and age.

Yeah right, that's why small businesses go bankrupt easily.

No, that's usually because of changing patterns of trade, out of town
supermarkets, ridiculous parking restrictions used as a means of
getting
revenue, refusal of older proprietors to change with the times,
outrageous rate demands, etc.

If you sell less stuff, you need to make more profit on each item. I
think your problem is that you think everyone is out to get you. Why do
disabled people think this way? From what I've seen most folk go out of
their way to help you lot.

They clearly don't with the prices they charge
for what they sell them with retail operations.

Small shop big price, nothing to do with disabled.

The prices they charge for what the disabled use
are much higher than with other small shops.

Could be down to supply and demand, left handed sissors are for the disabled ;-)

On 28/09/2015 10:46, Fredxxx wrote:
On 28/09/2015 08:47, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:42:38 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

No, they will rent. Rental properties then command higher rents with
commensurate value of properties.

Sounds like your beef is BtL landlords, not their tenants.

Unless, of course, you're working backwards to a pre-determined
conclusion.

No not all, my beef is that housing is now unaffordable for many, when
in the past and for my generation was immensely chap in comparison.

Perhaps if your generation hurried up and died off, as you were expected
to do when you were younger, instead of increasing life expectancy
markedly and causing a "pensions timebomb"?

Also have a look at fig 10 on p33 of this...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

1911 - average household size 4.3 people
1961 - 3 people
2011 - 2.4 people
Since 2011, it's dropped further - to 2.3 people

So, even if the population remained static over the last century, an 84%
increase in the number of properties would have been needed.

I'm talking about buying and renting, bot buy to lets per se.

So doesn't BtL have any effect on the sale and rental markets, then?

Do you accept house prices reflect their demand, driven by people who
want to live in them or who want to let them where they see return on
their investment worthwhile through relatively high rents?

Given the population has increased 5.5m, mostly through net immigration,
since the 2011 census, it's a lot more that 84%.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_393133.pdf

Since 2011 the average household size is back up to 2.4.

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 22:45:42 UTC+1, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:51:39 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:43:31 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:10:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:31:40 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , ARW
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:02:23 +0100, Bill Wright

wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

A good service the disabled should be doing for the whole
country
is
getting rid of speedbumps. They're illegally discriminating
against
the disabled. My Aunt has severe spine problems and can't go
over
them at any speed.

Yes I know someone who has to take a long route to her mother's
because of that.

In Rotherham a common way to induce a birth is for the woman to
stand
up in her boyfriend's van whilst he roars around the roadhump
strewn
streets. This has been known to make the baby plop out.

(That was a joke by the way)

What annoys me is the amount of money my council spends redoing
streets
with potholes, which are a tenth of the size of the speedbumps.
Why
do they bother?

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

same with the phrase "near miss" which ia actually a near hit - but
a
complete miss.

Agreed, that always makes me laugh. Explaining the above doesn't
seem
to
help when I dodge traffic at high speed and frighten the passenger
though.

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and
miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

Why not?

Because it works much better to do it the right way.

It's only carrier landings where the pilot does anything
like throw the plane at the ground and they don't miss,
they hit it where they need to hit it instead.

You might be thrown at the ground unintentionally.

That isn't throwing yourself at the ground.

Maybe you had to to avoid the plane you're dogfighting.

You don't throw yourself at the ground when dogfighting
and there is no dogfighting anymore anyway.

Maybe he's getting confused with dogging.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:47:46 +0100, NY wrote:

So far no-one has managed to come up with a *physical* speed
restriction (as opposed to a speed camera) which has no effect if you
are well within the speed limit and only comes into effect if you
exceed it.

Yes, they have.

In Iberia, seemingly random traffic lights in the middle of straight
stretches of road are common. If you're exceeding the limit, they
change to red. The higher your speed, the longer they're red for.

Ah, like the infamous linked lights on the A4 in Slough that were set to
keep traffic moving at about 30 mph; if you drove at 20 or 40 you hit
every light at red, whereas if you drove at 30 then once you got through
the first light, all the rest would be at green for you. I heard that
someone worked out that if you drove at 80 you also hit green on every
light - and I bet the ton-up boys on their motorbikes took advantage of
that late at night :-)

Not really - much simpler than them. Just a single set of radar-
controlled lights in the middle of nowhere.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:46:36 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Also have a look at fig 10 on p33 of this...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

1911 - average household size 4.3 people
1961 - 3 people
2011 - 2.4 people Since 2011
it's dropped further - to 2.3 people

So, even if the population remained static over the last century, an
84% increase in the number of properties would have been needed.

Given the population has increased 5.5m, mostly through net immigration,
since the 2011 census, it's a lot more that 84%.

Comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it? Try reading the
sentence starting "So, even if..." to yourself, slowly, this time
following the words with your finger.

BTW, there is no such thing as "net immigration" - you're thinking of net
_migration_, which is _immigration_ minus _emigration_.

Oh, and since 2011, the net migration total is 176k (year ending March
2012) + 212k (2013) + 243k (2014) + 330k (2015) = 961,000 people. 17.4%
of the (plucked from your arse) population increase figure you give, not
even close to being "most".

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:01:27 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Do you accept house prices reflect their demand

Ooh, let me think about that one... thinks Might supply be relevant,
too?

driven by people who want to live in them or who want to let them where
they see return on their investment worthwhile through relatively high
rents?

Especially in London and the SE, rental yields are laughably low. 2% is
optimistic in many parts of London. People are buying to let solely
because of the prospect of future capital growth - if they've even done
the sums, rather than just think "Ooh, I can make a lot of money..."

On 28/09/2015 11:11, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:01:27 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Do you accept house prices reflect their demand

Ooh, let me think about that one... thinks Might supply be relevant,
too?

Of course and the infrastructure associated with that supply.

Supply to match demand implies more housebuilding, something that isn't
happening stoking the demand.

driven by people who want to live in them or who want to let them where
they see return on their investment worthwhile through relatively high
rents?

Especially in London and the SE, rental yields are laughably low. 2% is
optimistic in many parts of London. People are buying to let solely
because of the prospect of future capital growth - if they've even done
the sums, rather than just think "Ooh, I can make a lot of money..."

Yes, and you still have the asset. As you imply 2% is less that current
growth estimates.

On 2015-09-27, Bill Wright wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

Bill is NOT disabled, but Hil is.

Bill was the one that moaned about the cost.

I'm Hil's designated moaner.

Do you get free soft drinks for that?

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:30:21 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Do you accept house prices reflect their demand

Ooh, let me think about that one... thinks Might supply be relevant,
too?

Of course and the infrastructure associated with that supply.

Supply to match demand implies more housebuilding, something that isn't
happening stoking the demand.

Exactly.

Especially in London and the SE, rental yields are laughably low. 2% is
optimistic in many parts of London. People are buying to let solely
because of the prospect of future capital growth - if they've even done
the sums, rather than just think "Ooh, I can make a lot of money..."

Yes, and you still have the asset. As you imply 2% is less that current
growth estimates.

No, you don't have the asset any more if you cash in any capital growth.

And 2% was the rental yield figure. 6% - or more - is readily achievable
elsewhere in the country, where purchase prices are far far lower.

On 28/09/15 11:11, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:01:27 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

Do you accept house prices reflect their demand

Ooh, let me think about that one... thinks Might supply be relevant,
too?

driven by people who want to live in them or who want to let them where
they see return on their investment worthwhile through relatively high
rents?

Especially in London and the SE, rental yields are laughably low. 2% is
optimistic in many parts of London. People are buying to let solely
because of the prospect of future capital growth - if they've even done
the sums, rather than just think "Ooh, I can make a lot of money..."


You omit the effect of gearing by buying with a mortgage and being able
to set mortgage interest against tax €” until it is phased out by 2020.
For a higher rate taxpayer that 2% return could be nearer 10%.

--
DJC
(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:01:33 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 22:45:42 UTC+1, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:51:39 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:43:31 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:10:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:31:40 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , ARW
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:02:23 +0100, Bill Wright

wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

A good service the disabled should be doing for the whole
country
is
getting rid of speedbumps. They're illegally discriminating
against
the disabled. My Aunt has severe spine problems and can't go
over
them at any speed.

Yes I know someone who has to take a long route to her mother's
because of that.

In Rotherham a common way to induce a birth is for the woman to
stand
up in her boyfriend's van whilst he roars around the roadhump
strewn
streets. This has been known to make the baby plop out.

(That was a joke by the way)

What annoys me is the amount of money my council spends redoing
streets
with potholes, which are a tenth of the size of the speedbumps.
Why
do they bother?

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

same with the phrase "near miss" which ia actually a near hit - but
a
complete miss.

Agreed, that always makes me laugh. Explaining the above doesn't
seem
to
help when I dodge traffic at high speed and frighten the passenger
though.

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and
miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

Why not?

Because it works much better to do it the right way.

It's only carrier landings where the pilot does anything
like throw the plane at the ground and they don't miss,
they hit it where they need to hit it instead.

You might be thrown at the ground unintentionally.

That isn't throwing yourself at the ground.

Maybe you had to to avoid the plane you're dogfighting.

You don't throw yourself at the ground when dogfighting
and there is no dogfighting anymore anyway.

Maybe he's getting confused with dogging.

That involves throwing your partner at the ground.

--
McMurphy fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a paper bag filled with vegetable soup.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:00:34 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 22:43:42 UTC+1, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:45:57 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:40:48 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with small
business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000% mark-ups
are
never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get away with', also
known as 'charging what the market will stand'. It is the exploiting
of
a local monopoly made possible indirectly by the customers'
disability
and age.

Yeah right, that's why small businesses go bankrupt easily.

No, that's usually because of changing patterns of trade, out of town
supermarkets, ridiculous parking restrictions used as a means of
getting
revenue, refusal of older proprietors to change with the times,
outrageous rate demands, etc.

If you sell less stuff, you need to make more profit on each item. I
think your problem is that you think everyone is out to get you. Why do
disabled people think this way? From what I've seen most folk go out of
their way to help you lot.

They clearly don't with the prices they charge
for what they sell them with retail operations.

Small shop big price, nothing to do with disabled.

The prices they charge for what the disabled use
are much higher than with other small shops.

Could be down to supply and demand, left handed sissors are for the disabled ;-)

Left handers try to tell us that left is no worse than right, but actually right handers could just as easily have learnt to use their left hand. Left handers are however limited to one hand. We use our right hand due to writing, which smudges the ink if you use the left hand.

--
A minister gave a talk to the Lions Club on sex. When he got home, he couldn't tell his wife that he had spoken on sex, so he said he had discussed horseback riding with the members.
A few days later, she ran into some men at the shopping center and they complimented her on the speech her husband had made.
She said, "Yes, I heard. I was surprised about the subject matter, as he's only tried it twice. The first time he got so sore he could hardly walk, and the second time he fell off."

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:17:39 +0100, DJC wrote:

Especially in London and the SE, rental yields are laughably low. 2% is
optimistic in many parts of London. People are buying to let solely
because of the prospect of future capital growth - if they've even done
the sums, rather than just think "Ooh, I can make a lot of money..."

You omit the effect of gearing by buying with a mortgage and being able
to set mortgage interest against tax €” until it is phased out by 2020.
For a higher rate taxpayer that 2% return could be nearer 10%.

Umm, hardly, since even the very highest rate taxpayer is still actually
seeing over half of the interest payments come out of their own pocket.

Get charged £10k in interest, and pay 40% tax, you'll pay £6k directly,
and have the other £4k set against income.

Or you would have. Now you'll get £2.5k set against income, and pay the
other £7.5k directly.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

This is 'charging what you can get away with',

To a point, yes. Your comment on "exactly the same
batteries" strikes a chord with me -- sourcing replacements
for a relative. The fitted batteries were "special
disability batteries that you can't get elsewhere".

Opens box. Camden Europa Green series. Yeah, real special.

The EXACT same battery from CPC was half the price. A slightly
inferior (Camden Europa Blue) was a little cheaper still, the
only difference being the Green are certified for air travel
and Blue aren't. This was never going to be an issue, so blue
it was.

The disability "dealer" wanted the scooter dropping off to
have the batteries changed, at somewhat inconvenience, whereas
CPC delivered the batteries to the door, and they were fitted
in minutes. Job done.

Also, note that either through ignorance, or wilful profiteering,
this is the same dealer that advised that "it is best to fully
run down the batteries before recharging them, otherwise they
won't last as long". These are lead-acid batteries, the last
thing you should be doing is deliberately flattening them
every time. Awful advice.

Some of these shops ARE making a rather large profit off stunts
like this. The argument that they are buying in small quantities
doesn't wash -- I was buying (2), not even at trade prices,
and even had to pay the VAT on them (provable disability
supplies through legit channels - 0% VAT) and was so far under
their price it was ridiculous.

--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---