Friday, Jun 29, 2007
Do you really want to pay £1m+ for a mediocre house in a war-zone?
BBC News: Suspected bomb found in London
Looks like London is still a target for terrorists. And it looks like terrorists are still active in the UK. Very unpleasant/frightening for those of us who have to live with this threat, but when you consider that you have to pay in excess of £1m to get a decent house around London, you have to question the sanity of the people paying those prices.
Posted by royston @ 09:28 AM (82 views) Add Comment
27 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
1. Planning4acrash said...
I don't mean to be funny, but, who lives on Picadilly Circus? Last time I remembered, it was offices hotels and shops! In anycase, are your really safer in other European cities, like Paris and Madrid?! And we compete with New York, which as we all know is pretty damn vulnerable. We survived the blitz, think we might just survive a few poxy car bombs! Only really screwed if terrorists get hold of nuclear material.
2. confused76 said...
Royston,
this looks very serious, and I would suggest we do not comment on terrorist attacks, planned, potential or real. Great discussing house prices with you folks, but - again - i suggest we leave terrorism out of it. I was shocked that Yolanda of Savills made an explicit connection between house prices and terrorism in her broadcast (i posted the link and a comment yesterday), but I feel it is not for us
to discuss this
3. Benedict said...
That'd be why they had security out the front of my building checking everyones passes before they could even get into the courtyard then. I'd wondered what was going on.
4. Scott said...
Who the hell is frightened? Who the hell cares? If they can't even set off a car bomb, they are a bunch of lightweights.
5. Scott said...
Good idea confused76. Wouldn't it be funny if Al-Qaeda struggled to get a foothold in London due to living costs, then they could have an Al-Qaeda forum where they discussed terrorist attacks but not house prices.
6. Harris said...
Some of you people are so blinkered about house prices that you have lost your sanity. I suppose that if people had been killed you'd have been even happier as that would have had a far bigger potential effect on house prices.
7. p. o. o. r said...
I was wondering how long it would take before some organisation puts GB to the test.
I partly agree with your comments Royston, however it should be recognised that a major terrorist attack on the UK could be the catalyst for a housing crash - I just hope that it is something else that triggers a crash - Maybe the MPC increasing interest rates by 0.5 percent next week :-) I wish.
8. Me Me Me said...
Gas cannisters and 3am, hmmm.
9. mrmickey said...
The Litvinenko poisoning illustrated how easy it is to bring radioactive material in to this country wander about with it do what you need to then leave. This country has many enemies both internal and external, I for one would not want to live within a 50 mile radius of central London.
10. japanese uncle said...
To be honest what we are told to believe may not be the true story at all, for exactly the same reason as commercial media (save the HPC) have been hardly trustworthy in regard to the housing bubble for the past few years. Since 911 credibility of the media including the BBC is in tatters (for this matter particularly since the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 30 minutes before it actually took place) in their reporting about the so called terrorism and the war on terrorism. Very sad to say this since the corporation has always been regarded highly as a model by the audience throughout the world.
11. Ohforgoodnesssake said...
Come on Royston get real. One failed car bomb attempt does not constitue a war zone. If only people in the UK, the US and other places could be a bit less insular, it might be a slightly more understanding place. Funnily enough, the world does not revolve around British House Prices!
12. Andy said...
OK, this is the black chance card - nobody wants to pick it up and nobody wants anybody else to pick it up. But, we cannot remain obvlious to the fact that its in the pack and if you live in London - well your pushing up your chances.However macabre, ignorance is not the solution to this section of house price debate and people should bear this in mind and be informed about this when buying.
Shrewd insurance companies and other markets and governements will definetely be calculating the odds on this one - we should do the same.
Sorry confused, not in full agreement on this one.
13. Stoatgobbler said...
The linking of house prices to terror attacks is simply paranoia combined with obsessive book-talking. Get a grip.
14. harold said...
"I was wondering how long it would take before some organisation puts GB to the test."
What, MI5?
15. mattpascoe said...
Why would anyone want to live in London for anyway. Let alone pay £1m for a crappy townhouse is beyond me.
16. shipbuilder said...
Let's not buy into the culture of fear - weren't there much more regular bomb scares from the IRA?
17. harold said...
japanese uncle, spot on. The BEEB's WTC7 gaff was a classic cock-up with potentially disastrous implications for all those involved - yet in the official 911 report says that WTC7 unexpectedly fell down due to fire. How odd?
I am not at all a fan of conspiracy theories, but you have to be really thick or naive, or both, to continue to believe the US government's position.
Sorry to be so off-topic (not to mention "off-message") - couldn't resist it.
18. Bearorbull said...
Yeh, & let's not forget...that if America hadn't trained Bin Laden & the Mujahadeen to fight the russians in Afghanistan in the first place, there would be no Al Quaeda & no Al Quaeda inspired attacks here or anywhere.
19. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Harold, you may be closer to the mark than you think:
- How long has Gordon been in power?
- Is he looking to assert himself?
- Does he want to pass some legislation he's had waiting in the wings?
- Why was the device described as "potentially" viable - does that mean it was not viable but designed to be near enough to get a reaction?
I think terorism stinks, but to be honest I see plenty of governments using the fear of it as carte blanche to control their nations and pass whatever laws they want. How come the IRA faded away gracefully when Al-Qaeda came on the scene (apart from a few muppets who got carried away after being used for years and took some time to clean up)? The media need to be kept on message with a single bogey man.
Consider this: 2 days into Brown's premiership and he wants to finally get his law to "lock up anyone I choose for 90 days" through, rings up MI5 asking for a good decoy and bingo, job done.
I think conspiracy theorists tend to be slightly nutty and in need of a cause, but it's worth noting the timing here and keep tabs on what legislation gets nodded through in the next couple of months. (note I don't not include myself in my comment about conspiracy theorists)
[p.s. the 911 thing - surely that could have been a non-live feed playing, recorded a few minutes earlier? What is this compelling about it?]
20. japanese uncle said...
Harold;
Exactly. Any insurance company in normal circumstances, would never pay the claim filed after the 911 (unless pressurized to do so by some authority or sinister power), with so many obvious/dubious annomalies with utterly clear hallmarks of insurance fraud such as terrorism insurance purchased just weeks before the event, let alone the unprecedented total collapses of skyscrapers three in a series, one of which WTC7 was as mentioned above, reported to have collapsed by the BBC live coverage in which the 48 storied building remained standing behind the shoulder of the reporter speaking about the collapse. The fact that those dubious people making billions out of this supposedly the biggest crime in history remain at large to this day without even being charged, convinces me that we are living in a mad world.
21. harold said...
dohousescrashinthewoods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
Oops!
22. monty said...
Nice try Royston but I think you need a bigger trigger. So, how are those London flood defences holding up?
Harold - time to don your tin foil hat. It's worked for JU - they haven't got him yet!!
Just ask yourself what is more the more likely WTC7 scenario?
1.) foreign journalists confronted with an unfamiliar skyline getting confused about which a building fell down during the biggest story of the last decade or
2.) a massive insurance fraud coordinating the efforts of 14 pathetic brainwashed suicidal maniacs, 4 hijacked airliners, a cruise missile or two and covert demolition teams?
I know which one I'm likely to pick but then again I'm just sooo naive.
23. harold said...
"...but then again I'm just sooo naive", and clearly (or perhaps wilfully) thick. Think about it monty, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. But then we are told in the official 911 report that WTC7 unexpectedly collapsed due to fire. Are you not even curious as to how that could happen? Only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire in history - all on September 11, 2001. I'm not saying 911 was an insurance fraud, but if you think for a moment that your or any government is incapable of criminal activity then, yes, you are naive, and run the risk of living in an increasingly authoritarian society, in which the nanny state tells you what you can and cannot do. Inherently, I do not trust government - personally I think that this attitude is far safer than lazily accepting the message and spin. The truth is out there regarding WTC7 from some of the world's leading architects and engineers - you just have to sit on your backside and find it.
24. Ticktock said...
I know which one I'm likely to pick but then again I'm just sooo naive.
You certainly are monty.
25. japanese uncle said...
Just FYI, WTC was designed by Minoru Yamazaki, a Japanese architect, to withstand the impact by four engine jet airliner and the subsequent fire. He might be turning in his grave now. Anyway only if one has half brain, one can tell the event on 911 was sheer impossibility unless organized by the insider, and sadly whoever designed that event was retarded enough to believe that the public was retarted enought to accept the official line.
Nowadays, democratically elected government is becoming an illusion, particularly thanks to the introduction of the electronic voting system which is wholly prone to manipulation, let alone the possibility of vote counting fraud as reported in Florida in 2000 (Bush vs Gore). Indeed voters with reasonably suspicious minds are the warranty of the soundness of a democracy.
26. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
27. monty said...
Harold, take the tin foil hat off just for a minute.
How do you manage to make the leap from not believing in a conspiracy theory to the full acceptance of an authoritarian nanny state? As it happens I'm inclined to mistrust all politicians and the state in particular but where you see conspiracy and collusion I just see incompetance.
Yes, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. What is the more likely reason for this?
1.) Whoever was involved in the insurance fraud conspiracy to demolish/burn WTC7 screwed up by reporting it to the BBC before the building fell down. I think we can discount this one because the same people who managed to co-ordinate the the efforts of 14 suicidal maniacs, demolition teams etc. and manage to keep it a secret surely wouldn't make this kind of school boy error.
2.) The BBC was complicit in the insurance fraud conspiracy and screwed up by reporting the facts too early. Why, oh why, would anyone want or need to involve the BBC in the first place?
3.) The BBC reported without their newsroom checking the facts first. I imagine the newsroom would have been quite busy on that particular day. Any US reporter may have just looked at the skyline and suggested that the newsroom go and check their facts again but the Beeb reporter didn't. Yup, they sure look stupid.
Yes, the twin-towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 and they did. It was burning the entire plane load of aviation fuel that brought them down. I don't know if the same held for WTC7, why it caught fire or how much debris hit it during the collapse of the twin towers.
Like most conspiracy theories the 9/11 insurance scam just doesn't stack up. You can find little anomalies on the day like Attah's passport being found intact in the street and the BBC WTC7 report. These are well documented by the likes of Loose Change and friends but what they don't do is bring together a coherent picture of the what, who, why and how of 9/11. Right now, the only story that holds together is terrorism.
These conspiracy theories will never go away and just like Oliver Stone's JFK they'll resurface periodically and make for fantastic fiction. While you're searching for the "truth" that's "out there" take a little peek at Occam's Razor. You can put your tin foil hat back on now.