IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Julian Fowler wrote:


On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:22:43 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:



In article , G&M wrote:


I think it's also a nadir of British society if a grotty two
bedroom terrace is London is now worth near to half a million
pounds. You can buy a five bedroom detached house, 10 acres of
land and a barn larger than that whole terrace house (upstairs
and down) within commuting distance of Manchester.


You can, and, as we repeatedly point out to IMM, people who have the
money to make such choices would, for the most part, much rather
have a poky cottage in Richmond than a barn near Manchester.


Really? Surely its the case that people think that they *have* to
live in the vicinity of the capital, because that's where all the
overpaid jobs are, that enable to people to afford ludicrous
mortgages, so that they can afford to live near the capital, etc.,
etc. I can't think of any reason why anyone would actually *want* to
live and/or work the open sewer otherwise known as London: personally,
you'd have to pay me half a million to tolerate doing either ;-)



Quite true. The stupid peasnts look at Londom salaries and imagine they
will get rich.

Well maybe, if they finally retire to a barn near Manchester, they will

be.

But most people in london are simply struggling to pay the mortgage
every month.


Because land account to 2/3 of the house value. Release land and house
prices drop and people spread out.




Thats only because you can build a house cheaply, but you can't build
land. Its either there or it isn't.

Its simple supply and demand.

The way to get house prices down is to gas all labour voters.

That should halve house prices at a stroke.

;-)

It makes no difference what a house COSTS, it is simply a question of
whether there are more houses than needed, and what people can afford to
pay for those that are available.

Its perfectly feasible to put up far higher density of housing on the
givcen land space, and leverage things like facilities and public
transport, by building higher.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Those that are outsiders, still yearn for where they came from.


********. The thought of going back to live where I was born, or even
brought up, would drive me to suicide.


Do you live in London. About that suicide ......Mmmm sounds appealing.



No, but I was born in what is now part of London, and brought up
somewhat outside it.

IMM wrote:

"al" wrote in message
...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Imm wrote:

More tripe. As soon as those people no longer rely on the city
for there living, they get out sharpies to there £700K house.

Hmm. Roughly one person in 7 (23618/172808: 2001 census) in LB
Richmond is over 65. Most will be homeowners and could sell up and
buy a very nice place away from London. But for the most part they
haven't. Perhaps they realise that as you get older having shops and
friends within walking distance and public transport that runs every
day of the week beats being stuck in some lonely country cottage.


With you on that ... I like living in London because it's got some life.
Not some dead-end middle-of-nowhere country place with no restaurants, no
pubs, no clubs, no museums, no theatres, no public transport, no nightbus,
no open minded people ... etc. etc. etc.


You must mean some village in the middle of nowhere. Most people in London
cannot afford the nightlife. Most of them do what everyone else does: look
at TV and go the pub. Most may as well be elsewhere.


The point is I used to live in London. And I never went to the the pubs,
clubs, museums, theatres, or use the public transport much, or met any
open minded people.

Largely, I was so knackered in dealing with the mechanics of stayng
alive, and had so little cash left, that I sued to get home, shut teh
door, and go to bed.

Now, living aboyt as far away timewise from teh West End as I used to on
North London, although I live in Suffolk, I find the occasional trip to
Londomn to todo all that stuff is actually quicker...

And teh pubs are here, if I want them, but generally I don't. In short,
I don't miss a single thing. I wake up on Sunday when the first car of
the day goes past at 12 o clock, on its way to the pub....and rejoiice.




And before I get a raft of people deciding to side with IMM, I do realise
that normal, well balanced (and quite skilled DIY'ers!) live outside of
London too ;o)

I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.




Well I jolly well DO.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

PoP wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:14:36 -0000, "al"
wrote:


I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.


I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for me is
a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife. My dream
home would be a quiet village which has a good pub, post office and
place to get provisions.



Sounds like mine.


And I'd sell the car tomorrow if I could find an existence where it
wasn't required.


The only thing we use em for apart from visting, is the supermarkets and
other big shopping.

there are busses.

A LOT of the older people round here simply get a taxi. The actual cost
for one or two trips a week is less than that of car ownership.




PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Oh brainwashed one. Only 7.5% of the land is built on. Too much of it
to build to make any impact at all.

Thats because as a nation we like to have gaps between houses and towns.

We don't have gaps worth talking about between houses.

How do they fit the streets in then? Just curious?

The gaps between "houses" are small, far too small.

Between towns there
are massive gaps of nothing, while house will
crammed together. Sounds all
wrong to me. Spread out.

No there are not.

Yes they are.

The gps are all filled with something. Even if its
woodland where deer live, or farmland where food is grown and animals
live. Or even the odd raliway and/or motorway.

Most of it is subsided little-profitable agricultural land.

Land is not solely there for your barbecue and decking IMM.

What the hell is it there for? It is to be used for the benefit of the
people, not to make large landowners richer.

It provides places to put teh roads
and raliways, walk the dogs, and
plant the odd tree.

30% occupancy of land is very high desnity urban stuf.

7.5% is still very very full, when
you allow for the huge tracts of land
in te UK that are completely isolated
and not sutuable for building on
at all.

Prey tell! What and where is this elusive land. Very little of the UK
cannot be built on.

I have told you, but youy totally refused
to listen. Take a plane and
fly iover, or better still drive up to, the
scottish highlands.

I have driven and flow all overrthe UK. Most is habitable, like 95% plus.

I have driven for HOURS across the north
of scotland. There is no one
there. There are plenty of derelict cottages
going for a song. I suggest
you move up there.

The land is owned by the cal Duke or whoever he is.

There are hundreds of square miles of places that do not even have a
road. Why? Because there is nothing there anyone wants to get to really.
A bit of timber, thats all. And a few deer.

No roads because people are excluded.

The only use of this land - which is worthless of course

Nonsense!

snip babble


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Julian Fowler wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:14:36 -0000, "al"
wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Imm wrote:

More tripe. As soon as those people no longer rely on the city
for there living, they get out sharpies to there £700K house.

Hmm. Roughly one person in 7 (23618/172808: 2001 census) in LB
Richmond is over 65. Most will be homeowners and could sell up and
buy a very nice place away from London. But for the most part they
haven't. Perhaps they realise that as you get older having shops and
friends within walking distance and public transport that runs every
day of the week beats being stuck in some lonely country cottage.


With you on that ... I like living in London because it's got some life.
Not some dead-end middle-of-nowhere country place with no restaurants, no
pubs, no clubs, no museums, no theatres, no public transport, no nightbus,
no open minded people ... etc. etc. etc.


Of which London has what to any appreciable level of quality?
Museums, yes; night buses, maybe. The others listed above have
exactly two characteristics: crap and ludicrously expensive.

The sad thing is that so few of those who live in London actually
realize what a third-rate city they are inhabiting (compared to, say,
Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Milan, or Madrid, or Lisbon, or NYC, or
San Francisco, or Boston, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Sydney, or
Melbourne ... to name a few).

OTOH I'm very glad that those who have this bizarre liking for London
prefer to stay there -- I'm sure it makes the rest of the country much
more pleasant for the rest of us :-)


I would not live in london unless I had a £2M budget for housing.

It IS possible to find a leafy backstreet without street crme and off
road parking, but boy, it costs.

The average terrace in e.g. Balham or somewhere is disgusting beyond
belief, and VERY expensive.

Id raher be poor here, than there.




Julian

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Julian Fowler wrote:


On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:22:43 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:



In article , G&M wrote:


I think it's also a nadir of British society if a grotty two
bedroom terrace is London is now worth near to half a million
pounds. You can buy a five bedroom detached house, 10 acres of
land and a barn larger than that whole terrace house (upstairs
and down) within commuting distance of Manchester.


You can, and, as we repeatedly point out to IMM, people who have the
money to make such choices would, for the most part, much rather
have a poky cottage in Richmond than a barn near Manchester.


Really? Surely its the case that people think that they *have* to
live in the vicinity of the capital, because that's where all the
overpaid jobs are, that enable to people to afford ludicrous
mortgages, so that they can afford to live near the capital, etc.,
etc. I can't think of any reason why anyone would actually *want* to
live and/or work the open sewer otherwise known as London: personally,
you'd have to pay me half a million to tolerate doing either ;-)



Quite true. The stupid peasnts look at Londom salaries and imagine they
will get rich.

Well maybe, if they finally retire to a barn near Manchester, they will

be.

But most people in london are simply struggling to pay the mortgage
every month.


Because land account to 2/3 of the house value. Release land and house
prices drop and people spread out.

Thats only because you can build a house
cheaply, but you can't build
land. Its either there or it isn't.

It is there!!! Look!!!! We only occupy 7.5% of it, while Lord Muck gets
richer.

Its simple supply and demand.

You don't listen do you. The market is rigged, we are not allowed to build
in the country.

snip babble


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Those that are outsiders, still yearn for where they came from.

********. The thought of going back to live where I was born, or even
brought up, would drive me to suicide.

Do you live in London. About that suicide ......Mmmm sounds appealing.

No, but I was born in what is now part of London, and brought up
somewhat outside it.

Sad eh.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On 7 Jan 2004 22:03:27 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


(Ted Woodley) writes:

It is hard to be certain, but I'd say that the bloke's assertion that
they had had an offer of 500k was a simple lie. Surely no-one was
surprised when it turned out they had "turned this offer down".

My thought exactly.


[10 lines snipped]


I was intrigued by the nasal strangulated voice of the red-haired
harridan - was she English ?

No. Described as a "New Yorker" in the intro.


God, now I'm confused! I've just been told that she was Greek! Was she
or wasn't she? I'm retracting my apology temporarily.



I also recalled her beoing a new yorker. The accent sounded to me like
new yorker/jewish extraction,. and the ghastly hair, lipstick and
general brazeness and stupidity did nothing to change my mind.

Greek women are mostly sane, often intelleigent, and usually have
execllent manners, and occasionally very beautiful.

None of thse qualities was diplayed by Ms Harridan.


MM

Tony Williams wrote:

In article ,
PoP wrote:


I hate London or anywhere that is built up. A good night out for
me is a quiet meal in a decent and half-empty pub with my wife.
My dream home would be a quiet village which has a good pub, post
office and place to get provisions.


Small post offices have been made so difficult to run
that they have all but disappeared. So the village
small shop plus post office is no longer viable in
many (most?) places.



Still running strong here. Now has cash machine and petrol station as well.

We calculated its cost relative to 'going into town'. At 30p a mile that
is around £6 the trip. 10% uplift on prices means you have to spend more
than 60 quid to make it worthwhile...

And its not teh only one around. Next village buy two has excellent post
pofficfe and general stoires, there is excellent asian run store in the
other direction...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"al" wrote in message
...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Imm wrote:

More tripe. As soon as those people no longer rely on the city
for there living, they get out sharpies to there £700K house.

Hmm. Roughly one person in 7 (23618/172808: 2001 census) in LB
Richmond is over 65. Most will be homeowners and could sell up and
buy a very nice place away from London. But for the most part they
haven't. Perhaps they realise that as you get older having shops and
friends within walking distance and public transport that runs every
day of the week beats being stuck in some lonely country cottage.

With you on that ... I like living in London because it's got some life.
Not some dead-end middle-of-nowhere country place with no restaurants,
no
pubs, no clubs, no museums, no theatres, no public transport, no
nightbus,
no open minded people ... etc. etc. etc.

You must mean some village in the middle of nowhere. Most people in
London
cannot afford the nightlife. Most of them do what everyone else does:
look
at TV and go the pub. Most may as well be elsewhere.


The point is I used to live in London. And I never went to the the pubs,
clubs, museums, theatres, or use the public transport much, or met any
open minded people.

Did you stay in and stare at the walls?

Largely, I was so knackered in dealing with the mechanics of stayng
alive, and had so little cash left, that I sued to get home, shut teh
door, and go to bed.

Now, living aboyt as far away timewise from teh West End as I used to on
North London, although I live in Suffolk, I find the occasional trip to
Londomn to todo all that stuff is actually quicker...

And teh pubs are here, if I want them, but generally I don't. In short,
I don't miss a single thing. I wake up on Sunday when the first car of
the day goes past at 12 o clock, on its way to the pub....and rejoiice.

Gosh.

And before I get a raft of people deciding to side with IMM, I do
realise
that normal, well balanced (and quite skilled DIY'ers!) live outside of
London too ;o)

I choose to live in London not because I work here but because I want
to.
Some people like the quiet life - I don't.

Well I jolly well DO.

Just as well you are away from other people.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


********. The thought of going back to live where I was born, or even
brought up, would drive me to suicide.


Where all those schools that bad. They are famed for their buggery.



Schools were excellent. It was the locations and the people who moved
into them.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Mitchell wrote:

On 7 Jan 2004 22:03:27 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


(Ted Woodley) writes:

It is hard to be certain, but I'd say that the bloke's assertion that
they had had an offer of 500k was a simple lie. Surely no-one was
surprised when it turned out they had "turned this offer down".

My thought exactly.


[10 lines snipped]


I was intrigued by the nasal strangulated voice of the red-haired
harridan - was she English ?

No. Described as a "New Yorker" in the intro.

God, now I'm confused! I've just been told that she was Greek! Was she
or wasn't she? I'm retracting my apology temporarily.

I also recalled her beoing a new yorker. The accent sounded to me like
new yorker/jewish extraction,. and the ghastly hair, lipstick and
general brazeness and stupidity did nothing to change my mind.

Well she showed no Jewish inclinations towards conserving cash.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
wrote:


Oh brainwashed one. Only 7.5% of the land is built on. Too much of
it
to
build to make any impact at all.

Any chance you could at least learn the art of trimming to context?

I am the greatest trimmer there is.

I think you might have one "t" too many in that sentence. But I'll leave
it
as an exercise for you to work out which one is superfluous :^)

You are such fun. Games as well.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
wrote:


Oh brainwashed one. Only 7.5% of the land is built on. Too much of
it
to
build to make any impact at all.

Any chance you could at least learn the art of trimming to context?

I am the greatest trimmer there is.


I think you might have one "t" too many in that sentence. But I'll leave it
as an exercise for you to work out which one is superfluous :^)

Cheers
Clive

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:13:48 +0000, Witchy
wrote:

There is - right click a message, select 'filters' then 'open filters
window'. Then you just have to click and delete the ones you don't
want any more.

Well bugger me sideways. I never realised there was a right-click menu
on the message pane.

Thank you - I now know I can retrieve IMM from the sin-bin if I feel
like it. Mind you, I might not be feeling like it for a while

PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:00:24 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams
wrote:

Small post offices have been made so difficult to run
that they have all but disappeared. So the village
small shop plus post office is no longer viable in
many (most?) places.

Yes, more's the pity.

PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Imm wrote:

You must mean some village in the middle of nowhere.
Most people in London cannot afford the nightlife.

Are these the same people who you keep telling us have
second homes in the country?

No.


So, according to you, *most* people in London cannot afford the
nightlife and don't have a second home in the country.


Yes.

Yet
these people who spend seven days a week in densely packed
terraced houses could sell up, move away to homes twice the
size for half the price and be better off (lower wages more
than matched by lower housing costs, except in the South West).


Yes.


But they don't. This ought to tell you what most people
realised decades ago, that location matters more to most people
than anything.


Yes. Except in this case they haven't done the sums, and don't realise it.

Most people are in london because that is where the highest paid jobs
are. Or sometimes ANY jobs are. Or because they were born there, and
haven't a clue how to get away.

In et 50's people began to commute. My parents moved to what was then
outsiie london, but my father still worked 'in town'

That process continyued until the originally quite rural home counties
now resmble contiguous suburbia. Ther is very little true countryside
left in teh home counties, except right off the communication corridoors.

As communiactions got better and worse, so other areas opend up - or
clsed down, and now people live in Oxford, Cambridge, Colchester.
Norwich and so on, and work in the city.


They are willing to trade 4 hours a day travelling for the privilege of
NOT having to bring their kids up in London.


Its all going pear shaped because nwo the actual fact is that altho
london is teh place where the work is, no one wants to live there, and
it takes about 5 times the workers as it has space to house them, and in
any case its so larger that on average each person who lives and works
in london still does an hour or more commute anyway...

The answer is to simply move the work out, and the people back to thise
northern towns where they came from oin the 50's and give london back to
teh few people who actually want to be there.

Its actually happening, as people realise that places like manchetser
and Leeds have better club scenes, places like Oxford and Cambridge have
better book shops, places like Lesicester have better asian stores,
places like little potton under marsh have spaces for children to play
and low crime rates...and indeed, there is as much of a life to be had
if not more, stacking shelves there than dealing dodgy bonds in teh
city...if you are not too greedy...



Its all in flux, its all changing. London is disintegrating

because it is EXPENSIVE. It is no longer value for money

in any sense except that people think it IS.


And that game is teh boom and bust game. If firms simplyopen up
elsewhere, london will empty and prices come crashing down.

IMM wrote:



London is an anomaly, not the norm at all.



But contains 10% of the population of the UK.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

London is an anomaly, not the norm at all.

But contains 10% of the population of the UK.

And 90% live elsewhere and hate the place.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Oh brainwashed one. Only 7.5% of the land is built on. Too much of
it
to
build to make any impact at all.

Thats because as a nation we like to have gaps between houses and towns.

We don't have gaps worth talking about between houses. Between towns
there
are massive gaps of nothing, while house will crammed together. Sounds
all
wrong to me. Spread out.

It provides places to put teh roads
and raliways, walk the dogs, and
plant the odd tree.

30% occupancy of land is very high desnity urban stuf.

7.5% is still very very full, when
you allow for the huge tracts of land
in te UK that are completely isolated
and not sutuable for building on
at all.

Prey tell! What and where is this elusive land. Very little of the UK
cannot be built on.


Well, there are considerable areas of Scotland that are definitely
unsuitable for numerous reasons. Look at the 225 sq km centred on NO 019
979, 225 sq km centred on NH 124 342, 225 sq km centred on NC 717 249, 225
sq km centred on SH 752 296, etc, etc...

Cheers
Clive

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Most people are in london because that is where the highest paid jobs
are. Or sometimes ANY jobs are.

More like any jobs.

Or because they were born there, and
haven't a clue how to get away.

That process continyued until the originally quite rural home counties
now resmble contiguous suburbia. Ther is very little true countryside
left in teh home counties, except right off the communication corridors.

A recent survey said that the home counties were underpopulated. There is
tons of land thee, tons of it. Only in the commuting corridors is it built,
and as people tend to use these it gives the wrong impression.

I was in an estate agents office in Herefordshire a few years ago and the
woman there was bitching about new houses being built in each village,
griping they will all merge into one. They had a large Ordnance survey map
on the wall of the area. It looked at it and it was just all green. I
pointed to the centre of the largest green area, where a rail line went
through, and said build another large village there well away from everyone
and out of sight, it can look like an old one if you like. She looked at me
in a confused way. People are conditioned that this mass of low productive
fields should not be built on. Propaganda over the years has instilled this
into them. In fact about three decent sized new villages could have been
built in the area well away from all the other villages and towns. Even the
traffic could have been directed away from them.

As communiactions got better and worse, so other areas opend up - or
clsed down, and now people live in Oxford, Cambridge, Colchester.
Norwich and so on, and work in the city.

They are willing to trade 4 hours a day travelling for the privilege of
NOT having to bring their kids up in London.

Very true.

Its all going pear shaped because nwo the actual fact is that altho
london is teh place where the work is, no one wants to live there, and
it takes about 5 times the workers as it has space to house them, and in
any case its so larger that on average each person who lives and works
in london still does an hour or more commute anyway...

The answer is to simply move the work out, and the people back to thise
northern towns where they came from oin the 50's and give london back to
teh few people who actually want to be there.

The problem is that the power base is in the rural south. The Midlands and
north of England catapulted this world forwards with the industrial
revolution, with the south being mainly rural market towns. They are not
stupid at all and should be allowed to run their own affairs again. The
north allowed the south to gasp power. London is arrogant calling the
counties that border it the "home£" counties, while the others are away and
don't matter. The UK started to decline when the north lost power,
politically and economically to the naive rural south. Tony's regional
assemblies will redress some of the imbalance.

Its actually happening, as people realise that places like manchetser
and Leeds have better club scenes, places like Oxford and Cambridge have
better book shops, places like Lesicester have better asian stores,
places like little potton under marsh have spaces for children to play
and low crime rates...and indeed, there is as much of a life to be had
if not more, stacking shelves there than dealing dodgy bonds in teh
city...if you are not too greedy...

Its all in flux, its all changing. London is disintegrating
because it is EXPENSIVE. It is no longer value for money
in any sense except that people think it IS.

And that game is teh boom and bust game. If firms simplyopen up
elsewhere, london will empty and prices come crashing down.

Modern comms mean you don't need to be in London any more, or most of your
operation does not.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
news

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Oh brainwashed one. Only 7.5% of the land is built on. Too much of
it
to
build to make any impact at all.

Thats because as a nation we like to have gaps between houses and
towns.

We don't have gaps worth talking about between houses. Between towns
there
are massive gaps of nothing, while house will crammed together. Sounds
all
wrong to me. Spread out.

It provides places to put teh roads
and raliways, walk the dogs, and
plant the odd tree.

30% occupancy of land is very high desnity urban stuf.

7.5% is still very very full, when
you allow for the huge tracts of land
in te UK that are completely isolated
and not sutuable for building on
at all.

Prey tell! What and where is this elusive land. Very little of the UK
cannot be built on.


Well, there are considerable areas of Scotland that are definitely
unsuitable for numerous reasons. Look at the 225 sq km centred on NO 019
979, 225 sq km centred on NH 124 342, 225 sq km centred on NC 717 249, 225
sq km centred on SH 752 296, etc, etc...

Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in the
Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on. Only flood
plains prevent building. Very little of the UK cannot be built on.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are
in the Alps.

Ben Nevis isn't in the Alps.

Only flood plains prevent building.

Clearly not. Unless you add the word "should" to your sentence.

Christian.

IMM wrote:

Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in the
Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on.

Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support the
population, and services need to be provided. There WOULD be tons more
people in northwest Scotland, if they could find ways to make a living
there. That's one of the reasons I have family members scattered all over
the world - they found it difficult (if not impossible) to make a living in
the north.

Sheila
Upper Melness
Sutherland

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:28:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

A LOT of the older people round here simply get a taxi. The actual cost
for one or two trips a week is less than that of car ownership.

Excuse me for asking, but where is "round here"?

PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

"Ted Woodley" wrote in message
om...
On a point of information, did the fact those two sold their own home
and moved into the development mean that they would avoid paying
capital gains tax when it was sold as it had become their principal
residence ? (Assuming, of course, that they made a level of profit
which would make CGT applicable - far from likely in practice)


Yep.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
It is hard to be certain, but I'd say that the bloke's assertion that
they had had an offer of 500k was a simple lie. Surely no-one was
surprised when it turned out they had "turned this offer down".

No chance. With the stamp duty limit at £500k nobody will offer more until
the property is worth nearly £600k.
Same at £250k. If your house is worth less than £300k you'll only get
offers at £250k.



I was intrigued by the nasal strangulated voice of the red-haired
harridan - was she English ?

No. Described as a "New Yorker" in the intro.


God, now I'm confused! I've just been told that she was Greek! Was she
or wasn't she? I'm retracting my apology temporarily.

Greek American perhaps ?

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:33:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Greek women are mostly sane, often intelleigent, and usually have
execllent manners, and occasionally very beautiful.

That's exactly what I remember from my erstwhile colleague! She was
the best looking girl in the company.

MM

S Viemeister wrote in message ...
.. That's one of the reasons I have family members scattered all over
the world - they found it difficult (if not impossible) to make a living in
the north.


Don't worry! After another 5 years of IMM's friends, Tony and Gordon,
together with the Scottish Parliament, the rest of the family and the
Scottish population will have gone to join them! You'll be able to live
abroad and with lower taxes, just by visiting relatives!
Regards
Capitol

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
et...
Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are
in the Alps.

Ben Nevis isn't in the Alps.

It is still a "small" mountain. Towns in the Alps are built far high in
more dramatic topology.

Only flood plains prevent building.

Clearly not. Unless you add the word "should" to your sentence.

Christian.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Nonsense. Towns can be even built up the side Ben Nevis, as they are in
the
Alps. There is lots of open moorland that towns can be built on.

Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support the
population,

That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that huge
tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense. 99%
of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:13:48 +0000, Witchy
wrote:

There is - right click a message, select 'filters' then 'open filters
window'. Then you just have to click and delete the ones you don't
want any more.

Well bugger me sideways. I never realised there was a right-click menu
on the message pane.

Thank you - I now know I can retrieve IMM from the sin-bin if I feel
like it. Mind you, I might not be feeling like it for a while

Please don't. Keep me in your killfile.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:29:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"PoP" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:13:48 +0000, Witchy
wrote:

There is - right click a message, select 'filters' then 'open filters
window'. Then you just have to click and delete the ones you don't
want any more.

Well bugger me sideways. I never realised there was a right-click menu
on the message pane.

Thank you - I now know I can retrieve IMM from the sin-bin if I feel
like it. Mind you, I might not be feeling like it for a while

Please don't. Keep me in your killfile.



Masochist to Sadist: "Hit me! Hit me!"

Sadist: "No!"


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:29:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"PoP" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:13:48 +0000, Witchy
wrote:

There is - right click a message, select 'filters' then 'open filters
window'. Then you just have to click and delete the ones you don't
want any more.

Well bugger me sideways. I never realised there was a right-click menu
on the message pane.

Thank you - I now know I can retrieve IMM from the sin-bin if I feel
like it. Mind you, I might not be feeling like it for a while

Please don't. Keep me in your killfile.

Masochist to Sadist: "Hit me! Hit me!"

My God you are odd. Sarf Landan must be the problem. Boiled beef and
carrots, boiled beef and carrots. This my calm you. Boiled beef and
carrots,


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support the
population,

That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that huge
tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense. 99%
of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.

Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Sure - you can build there - but then you have to have jobs to support
the
population,

That is not the point. Some of the brainwashed here were saying that
huge
tracts of the UK can't support any building, which is total nonsense.
99%
of the UK can support building, jobs and economy is another matter.

Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Only flood plains prevent building.

That doesn't seem to have stopped them in Berkshire !!!!!

IMM wrote:

"S Viemeister" wrote
Not much point in building houses that no-one can or will live in.

Once again the point was missed. Please focus.

I'm quite focused, thank you.

BTW, put a village half way up Be Nevis and it would be a big hit.

With second-home owners and holiday-makers, perhaps.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
IMM wrote:



London is an anomaly, not the norm at all.



But contains 10% of the population of the UK.
Oh here comes that meteorite ..... splat, yippee.







--
Andrew