Billy Ray Valentine

Similar thing with some houses I pass on my way back from work each day. A row of 15 or so large terraced houses, 2 of them were either for sale/sold for more than a year, and now one of these has just gone to let. Another one has already been to let for 4-5 months after being for sale for a lengthy period, and another one a little further down has been for sale for the last couple of months as well. Then yesterday I see that yet another one has just gone for sale! So there's two for sale, two for let, and one that has had a sold sign up for a number of months, and not for the first time either - 5 out of 15 houses that are either struggling or are going to struggle to sell.

I refer you to my post in this thread - http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...p;#entry1941820 Keep it up old chap.

Bingo. 3.5 times salary plus a little more than 10% deposit. We're still a further 30% drop away from sanity imo.

That line you quoted, I noticed andykn, or whatever is name is, using that yesterday, except he said it as if it was a serious argument to go out and buy. It's pure psychology.

I think this is the most probable outcome - in fact I'd go so far to say it's almost nailed on.

Would you say the fact that there are a lot more bears than bulls on this forum might have had something to do with that?

I reckon you've got to be a bored mod or something, jeez!

If it's so great then why do so many Australians come over here to start a new life? Grass is always greener and all that.......

Is the mp expenses row not going to prove to be the tipping point?

If rates head up toward 10% then the real housing crash would begin. The interest alone on a significant proportion of peoples tracker mortgages would exceed, or come close to matching, their monthly take home income I would imagine. This could make the dreams of the 60-70% off believers become reality.

So sorry for having an opinion when I only have 144 posts. What a stupid post. Do you see the irony in what you've said, being that you yourself have kept the thread going with a childish quip. Anything in my post you disagree with? I can only assume you work for the BBC in some capacity - researcher for Nigella Lawson perhaps?

So what. Does the bbc need so many meterologists? Would two be enough? Is there not an independent body that does weather reports that the bbc could pay a small fee to use their information? Do they need to present the weather at all? Why not just have the newsreader quickly state the expected weather at the end of a broadcast instead of turning to another presenter to do the same job. It's blolocks. The weather presenters are picked for their ability to present, not their ability as meterologists. Do the bbc need so many sports presenters?? What a fuggin' gravy train that is! How many wealthy footballers do they need to pay a small fortune to sit their for 10 minutes a week and spout stuff about a match that just about any punter could see for themselves? Stand up Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson et al! I'd love to know how much these smug chancers are being paid to do nothing but watch football all year round - not to mention the great holidays they have when they are unnecessarily flown overseas to cover tournaments. The BBC is a disgrace. A lumbering gravy train of a 'news' organisation with no integrity whatsoever. If people knew about many of the things knowingly covered up by them many of these celebrity journos would end up in jail.

Brilliant. That's what I thought. Mr Frys rant made him come across like a fugging buffoon.

What numbers? Average salary roughly £25'000, at 3.5 x salary, = £87'500 mortgage, if they can afford the 20%+ deposit - those type of numbers? Those are the weight of the numbers on our side - cheer up!

I rest my case! Wind up level 6.8/10

I'm convinced that you are actually not a bull, but a bear with nothing better to do and think these posts are good for a laugh! I guess this place would be less lively without something easy to shoot down - keep up the good work!

Exactly why I asked the question in the first place.

I was replying to this post - and in particular the bit in bold. Drugs and guns are valuable commodities, and as the whole debate was meant to be about principles, I wondered how far the poster would stretch this principle. It was the obvious question to ask. There was a point to my question: this story is about a large ammount of cash that has been confiscated by the police under suspicion of how it was obtained. What if the police don't confiscate the money while they investigate, and a week later they have evidence for a conviction, but the man in question has gone and invested the full £67'000 on drugs and guns, with these commodities split around several of the mans associates - would you say the police should have confiscated the money beforehand and prevented further criminality? As regards the innocent til proven guilty, I would otherwise agree - except that we simply no nothing about this case. Nothing. We don't even know how the police found the money. They responded to a call of an attempted break in. When they arrived at the house, was the door open? Was the money on the front room table in bundles? Did the police do an illegal search of the house? Was the money in a safe in the spare bedroom? Was the owner at home when the police responded to the call, or was he out? Who made the call? Was there a break in? Was the call a hoax, and somneones way of shopping the guy to the police? Was this a dodgy ruse in order to enter a property the police suspected had this money inside? Was the owner asked if anything was missing, to which he responded, 'no, but I'll just quickly check if my £67'000 in cash is still buried under the floorboards'? How old is the guy? Does he have a criminal record? Does he, and has he ever, worked? Does he associate with known drug dealers? The whole story sounds dodgy but not knowing any of the details, I simply don't know.

What about guns or drugs?

Er, no. I'm just illustrating the point that no-one knows the full facts, and that there could well be a lot of small details involved in this situation that will otherwise make this thing seem less sinister than it actually appears. As regards to confiscating the money, in the scenario I made up, it would appear that the money was obtained in an illegal fashion. What should the police do then? Let him have the money, come back a week later with evidence of wrong doing, only to find out the money has been spent, probably on other criminal related activity? Does anyone know if there was actually a break in? Was the break in a call from someone who knew he had the stash of money there and wanted to drop him in the shit? Was the guy in question aware that the money was in his house, or was the purported break in actually an acquaintance of his stashing the money the money there without his knowledge? Does anyone know what the scene was like when the police arrived at his house? No. Just a lot of assumptions from people on this thread.

Exactly. I'm flummoxed by peoples reactions on thi thread. The story barely gives you any info. The police responded to an alleged break in, and from this somehow discovered £67'000 in cash? Was there actually a break in? Did they do an illegal search after they had arrived? Was the money just sitting there in bundles on the table? wtf is wrong with this picture? Maybe someone will enlighten me. Also, people screaming the whole innocent til proven guilty line should maybe realise the laughable irony that they're not giving the same consideration to the police in this case. You know nothing about this case. You know nothing about the man arrested, and next to nothing about the circumstances in which the money was discovered. Now picture this scenario. The police get a call regarding an alleged attempted break in. They arrive at the house and the door is open. They walk in and see a sports bag on the table, unzipped - it is full of cash. 10 minutes later the occupier comes back, screaming at the coppers for being in his house. He's a 22 year old ex-jailbird with previous convictions for drug and violent offences. Barely worked a day in his life, lives of benefits. The police say a break in was reported, and then point to the bag full of 20's and 50's on the table. They ask him if it his money to which he say yes. They ask him if he knows how much is in the bag so they can check if any of it has been stolen. He says he doesn't know, maybe £5'000. They count it up and realise there is £67'000 grand there. WTF? Something doesn't add up here! They ask him how he got the money, but he says he can't remember. They leave it for the night and take him in for questioning the next day. Now he says he got the money selling military memorabilia, but has no proof of it - something smells dodgy here. What do you think the police should do in this situation? Now, this is probably not what happened, but bizarre as it may seem, this kind of scenario is entirely possible for all you lot know. So maybe you want to check the facts before going off on the deep end all paranoid like. *Stands back, puts flame proof suit and goggles on.

You're speaking too much sense here.

Put your thinking cap on will ya'.

The money has been confiscated, not stolen. If he has an innocent reason for having the money, then he will get to keep it. What do you expect the police to do? Let him have the money while they investigate and let him spend it/lend the money to mates to keep etc? Only for him to then be found guilty of money laundering/drug dealing, but the money has already well spent/disposed of? Be interested to know if anyone has any ideas on this.

Easy to prove if this was the case.