Tottenham Riots

jthetrader said:
I'm not saying it is the most efficient way to distribut property, but homes are seen as an investment these days and if prices fall then that is bad feedback to the market, it would be much better to at least preserve the illusion of rising house prices by injecting money into the system. Not to mention the fact pensions are being cut for public sector workers (not that many of them are landlords).

The new landlord class must have offered something? Surely the banks didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. In effect, for it to work, one of two things had to happen:

1) Landlord has larger amount of cash upfront than renter can provide, i.e. on a £100,000 house he puts up £20,000 and as such the bank only need lend £80,000.

2) Landlord is supplementing the rental income with his own additional income in order to make mortgage payments.

Let's say the landlords were just leeches, they were paying £1,000 a month in mortgage payments and getting £1,500 a month in rent. If the tenant can pay £1,500 a month in rent why wouldn't he have just taken out a mortgage rather than renting? Possibly, in some cases, this is because he doesn't want to settle down in a particular place or can't find a property he wants to remain in on a more permanent basis, but generally people would rather own than rent.
Click to expand...

The whole 'buy to let' thing is dying anyway.

I was in the UK about 3 years ago. At that point, my friends wife was selling mortgages and everybody and his dog was getting a second house. A close friend of mine was doing it.

He explained that by the time you got your third house, you'd be living in the first for free. He said (and I quote) "Everybody is doing it". To this, I replied "That's precisely the reason YOU won't make any money out of it".

There's always a scheme going around that's going to put everyone on easy street. Just the current scheme is buy to let. Trouble is, the laws of economics dictate that not everyone can be on easy street.

It is simple, increase the demand for houses, the price increases. Increase the supply of rental properties, the rents decrease. The inevitable outcome is that a lot of these people buying into a 'sure thing' will get their pants pulled down big time.
 
DionysusToast said:
The whole 'buy to let' thing is dying anyway.
Click to expand...

The whole buy to let is a scam any way. Every parasite has mites on it's back sucking blood from it. The only people making money from this are the banks, solicitors, the management companies, and the building maintenance. What scraps are left over is not really worth writing home about.

Personally I think additional homes should be used as a long term hedge against inflation.
 
DionysusToast said:
The whole 'buy to let' thing is dying anyway.

I was in the UK about 3 years ago. At that point, my friends wife was selling mortgages and everybody and his dog was getting a second house. A close friend of mine was doing it.

He explained that by the time you got your third house, you'd be living in the first for free. He said (and I quote) "Everybody is doing it". To this, I replied "That's precisely the reason YOU won't make any money out of it".

There's always a scheme going around that's going to put everyone on easy street. Just the current scheme is buy to let. Trouble is, the laws of economics dictate that not everyone can be on easy street.

It is simple, increase the demand for houses, the price increases. Increase the supply of rental properties, the rents decrease. The inevitable outcome is that a lot of these people buying into a 'sure thing' will get their pants pulled down big time.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but acquiring property can't be a bad thing in the very long term. More people, same amount of land=increase in value of land. If I win the lottery I'd buy farmland, people will always need to eat and for that they will need farmland to grow crops on/rear animals.

As ever someone is left holding the bag, the people who bought in 2006/7 in this instance. If you started doing the buy-to-let thing about 10 or so years ago you are quids in, your properties are still probably worth three or four times what you paid for them. A lot of people missed opportunities. A few weeks ago I was in Wednesbury and was looking at property prices there with my dad, there were little terraces selling for £100,000+. There were, he said, such houses available for £20,000 a little over a decade ago. Anyone who had the foresight to snap up 10 or 15 of them is sitting on a million in gains today and will, if they were renting them out, have paid off the tiny mortgages. You could probably get £400 a month for them in rent, notwithstanding tax and insurance, a very easy income (£6,000 a month+ the capital gains on the houses).

Anyone who decided to do the same thing three or four years ago will have been burned very badly.

Is there a proven formula which works re: property prices? E.G. when properties are not more than 3 times the average salary they are cheap (i.e. a signal to buy) and when they are more than 6 times the average salary they are expensive (i.e. a signal to sell)?
Obviously it would be more complex than this, since interest rates/rents/insurance would make things more complex (if rents are 5% of a property's value and interest rates are at 15% a year then that will be why properties are so cheap relative to income).
 
BeginnerJoe said:
The whole buy to let is a scam any way. Every parasite has mites on it's back sucking blood from it. The only people making money from this are the banks, solicitors, the management companies, and the building maintenance. What scraps are left over is not really worth writing home about.

Personally I think additional homes should be used as a long term hedge against inflation.
Click to expand...

It really is just an interest rate v rent game isn't it? If you can get it right you can't lose, the only skill you require is the ability to accurately predict interest rates and rental yields for the next 30 years (y)

If you can cover most/all of your mortgage payments from the rent you are receiving then the price of the property is unimportant.
 
Don't want to explain it - but it was the Mrs trying to get kids into school of her choice.

Yeah you know what, i bet the residents of tottenham and other poor boroughs get to make choices like this all the time.

I almost can't believe you have written stuff like this and you wonder why the country is so f***ed up.
 
Absolutely spot on! There are absolutely no excuse for the awful things those scum did at all!


DionysusToast said:
So you are for wealth redistribution?

I come from a working class family. My dad slaved in a factory working 14 hour shifts 4 nights a week. My mother was a cleaner at the school. I am PROUD of what my father did to give me a better life.

I left school at 18 because University simply wasn't affordable for us. I worked my ass off to the point where I run a company for a well known Japanese MNC. My salary is 6 figures and doesn't start with a "1". My son goes to a private shool and my daughter will too.

Still - I am not rich - but I am working my ass off - daytime work, 2nd own business & trading 5 nights a week to increase my wealth. I may become rich. I may also end up in the gutter. Both are entirely possible scenarios.

So why work hard? Why employ people? So some lefty can come along and presume it was all handed on a platter? So someone can say - why don't you take all the money you saved and invested and give it to that spotty guy in the shell suit?

You think all rich people didn't work hard? Don't deserve the fruit of their labours? Just redistribute it to all the lazy directionless Tennants Extra drinkers?

Then what motivates people to excel? To run businesses? To employ people?

You cannot judge someone on their wealth. Whether they have it or not. The idea that the rich are bad and the poor are good is just extreme leftism. It is total nonesense.

It certainly has nothing to do with what's happening in the UK right now.
Click to expand...
 
Solving this problem was determined nearly 30 years ago when football hooliganism was at its height and I am sure this solution would be as effective today:



Paul
 
Having watched the news coverage of the riots for the last few nights I decided it was time for me to do something. So, I lobbed a brick through our house window and tried to make off with the t.v, but the missus caught me and battered me half to death with the remote control.
 
builderman said:
Having watched the news coverage of the riots for the last few nights I decided it was time for me to do something. So, I lobbed a brick through our house window and tried to make off with the t.v, but the missus caught me and battered me half to death with the remote control.
Click to expand...

Must be a big remote.

You should have done it to a neighbour's house and told them you were taking your taxes back.
 
Those Westminster wank*rs have let the situation get so out of control. They will bleat like a lot of sheep about doing the right thing etc. There is very little respect for them anywhere. It's taken 1,000 years to weld these unruly groups togethor into a mass called a country and now that they have loosed the shackles, all hell breaks loose.

The solution is not less police, by cutting the force by a third but by organising back-up. Many people are prepared to defend their neighbourhood and will still fight off the hooligans with any weapon available. If Dipstick and co. leave it too long the masses will support the hooligans.

We shall see. BTW lots of bargains on eBay now ? Only 1 looter !
 
Pat494 said:
Those Westminster wank*rs have let the situation get so out of control. They will bleat like a lot of sheep about doing the right thing etc. There is very little respect for them anywhere. It's taken 1,000 years to weld these unruly groups togethor into a mass called a country and now that they have loosed the shackles, all hell breaks loose.

The solution is not less police, by cutting the force by a third but by organising back-up. Many people are prepared to defend their neighbourhood and will still fight off the hooligans with any weapon available. If Dipstick and co. leave it too long the masses will support the hooligans.

We shall see. BTW lots of bargains on eBay now ? Only 1 looter !
Click to expand...

This is going to be interesting, especially about cutting back of the police, in view of the Olympics next year.

Someone mentioned, on 5live, the Riot Act. Cameron did not mention that this was a riot. The reason could be because the police, ie the taxpayer, is liable to compensate all damage, including loss of business due to rioting.

Any business people following this thread who don't know about it should know that they must get the claim in within 14 days.
 
pboyles said:
Worse still the idiot has used her surname (with same photo) on another website. Her name is Chevonne Graham, she has two sons, Tyreese and Enzo Marley.

http://missgucci13.chime.in/
Click to expand...

Chevonne, Tyrees and Enzo? I think anyone who comes from a council estate should be mandated to pick a name from a list provided by the hospital; in Switzerland you have to pick your child's name from a list.

Tyreese and Enzo? Those names will look good on job applications, if I were looking for applicants I would definitely not throw their applications straight into the bin without reading them :whistling And I'm sure if I were on a jury I definitely would not take one look at their names and find them guilty. :whistling

Honestly, why do these plebs want to make life as hard as possible for their kids? Might as well name them Cracksmoka.

What's wrong with John or Fred or William or you know any other ****ing English name?
 
I think there is a book of chav names that they use, it is updated every decade. In the 80s it was Crystal (from Dynasty), then in the 90s Keanu was popular, in the last decade of course it was Britney, now there seems to be an updated version, mostly with names like Rio and Marley and Shaniqua.
 
Under Sharia law the guilty would have a hand cut off. Then only able to carry a half load next time.
UK law they get tea and biscuits in Her Majesty's holiday Camp and no swearing by the staff in case they get offended - makes ya puke !!
 
So even among the low-life, entrepreneurism isn't yet dead!

@Stone_SkyNews
Mark Stone
They explained how they saw bandanas & hoodies being stolen and then re-sold so people could cover their faces! #londonriots #thamesmead
2 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone
Retweeted by samjblackburn and 16 others
 
Pat494 said:
Under Sharia law the guilty would have a hand cut off. Then only able to carry a half load next time.
Click to expand...

So maybe there should be a three loots and you're out policy?

1st time-First hand (non-dominant hand) off
2nd time-Second hand (dominant hand) off
3rd time (if you do it with your mouth or get 'your ho' to carry it for you)- Killed

Pat494 said:
UK law they get tea and biscuits in Her Majesty's holiday Camp and no swearing by the staff in case they get offended - makes ya puke !!
Click to expand...

:mad::mad:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Russian gang suspected of scam in ICE market
Replies
2
Views
2K
apau
A
T
UK riots: was Enoch right ?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Vorbis
Vorbis
P
Bryan Webber nil pointe - PAYPAL Douze pointe
Replies
0
Views
1K
prusski
P
S
How to lose money on a Sunday, when the markets are closed
Replies
15
Views
3K
dick_dastardly
D
Steve
Community Constitution
15 16 17
Replies
321
Views
44K
Liquid validity
L
Top