Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About argent

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. It interests me the way people suck up to ideologies, rather than looking at the real world. A poster here - I forget his/her nickname - thinks that because I ridicule the OP I must be a 'communist'. The person is probably too stupid to understand that 'communists' has nothing to do with social justice, everything to do with a racist elite being in charge. Incidentally he/she also says we would never get on socially - in fact, I have plenty of stupid friends - it's the way the world is. The point I'm getting at is, if someone doesn't inherit a fortune, and has to work etc, is it sensible to jsut quit a job and go for somewhere which makes it clear they hire and fire more or less at will? It's an empirical question, to do with actual evidence. I'd guess for every successful (e.g.) salesman, TV presenter, advertiser, political hack, estate agent, insurance salesamn, phone call operator, there are quite a large number of failed ones. So the odds may well be the OP is on to a loser - but he/she gives so little background it's impossible to know. I doubt the person wil read this far - let me give a completely different example to illustrate. The 'frontier' in the USA was regarded as the ultimate in individualism, with rugged types going out all on their own to tame the wilderness. Then about 20 years ago people started to doubt this, and found that financiers and bankers and planners arranged the whole thing - apart fromt he detail of where passes were through the mountains and so on. I'm just hinting to whoever it was that he may think he's being impressive; in fact, the words he uses, the houses he lives in, the legal framework, almost everything hwas invented by other people. It's better perhaps to be realistic than live in a fantasy world - isn't it?
  2. I don't think you understand the so-called 'left'. There are two types, and the dominant type is the EU/ Common Purpose/ Jewish 'red' type. These people want naff education for everyone -- except their own kids. The public schols in Britain I think will be permanently retained. This is the elite; the mediocre middle classes working in pressure groups, media, quangos, poor quality advice on this or that, ordinary teaching, social work, are likely to start feeling heavy pressure.
  3. It's quite funny reading these posts. Some berk whose life has been with a company he obviously isn't interested in, thinks he's being important in moving to a hire-and-fire place. Amusing. My other posts were concerned with censorship, essentially - I suspect this site would censor information and speculation on immigration and its effects on housing. In fact, they don't, which pleases me. However serious information is somewhat buried by low grade posts, such as moosetea's. But there ya go.
  4. 'Sir David', if new housing is allocated to illegals, it affects the total supply of housing. It also affects such things as green belt policy, water and reservoirs, future energy, and a host of things. Housing is - I presume - about bricks and mortar - or breeze blocks and mortar and utilities - so mortgages and so on are only a part of the picture. Incidentally many people have said the government has 'no idea' how many illegals are in the country. I'm afraid official figures are worth as much as Brown and Cameron's joint intellect.
  5. This may be outdated now, but near Blackburn Capita wanted to build an 'academy' - they put in a bit and get the land in 25 years, the council put in £20 or £25 million, that sort of thing. They had to pretend the 1900 ish housing was unfit so they sent office junior 'surveyors' to get any, real or imagined, reason to condemn the houses. If you live in an old house, in an area which someone micht have an eye on, I'd suggest you take it seriously - google for froups who have been in this sort of thing.
  6. A 'more dynamic company' sounds to me like they hire and fire on a whim. But hey - you may well feel more 'challenged'! To be honest you sound like a dickhead, preening yourself over your 'goodish' 'position' while apparently having no interest or loyalty.
  7. They weren't. They started when a group of illegal immigrants rioted, when they were told that enough had been processed for the day. The story was changed later by the media.
  8. ======================= Well, I posted five topics that struck me as important; in fact I thought the thread might be completely censored. I'm pleased it hasn't been. However some of the replies - such as yours - seem so pointless maybe they shoudl ahve been.
  9. enrieb typed: I think the best solution is to bring back some sort of test so that we can make sure homes are only allocated to people who deserve them. We could make sure the person applying for a home is a 'desirable' by testing to see if they sink or float in water. If they float then they must be an 'undesirable' and either an immigrant, single mother, benefit scrounger or whatever scapegoat you prefer to blame, and they should be denied a house. If they sink then they can be considered a desirable and will be allowed to have a home. I listed 5 sample issues - Asylum seekers so called getting priority/ huge houses specifically for immigrants/ Official Secrets/ House price effects on areas/ possibility of large scale buy ups - after all, hospitals, airports, post offices, govt departments, schools, gas, water, electricity are all targets for selling off; so why not houses? I'm interested 'enrieb' talks about 'scapegoats'. This means (I believe) a goat which is driven out from some middle eastern village to fend for itself. Not obviously very relevant. What makes me wonder about enrieb is that he seems not to grasp the issue. The world has something like 6 billion people and no doubt many of them aren't in some sense 'undesirable'. But so what? I suppose it's one of the side effects of internet that sites liike this attract people unable to say anything, but who feel they must, at all costs, type soemthing....
  10. Yes, I was curious to see if people were nformed on this topic. Obviously the respondents aren't, including the eastern European, who appears to exist in a way that doesn't apply to immigrants generally. I found using the search engine here a quite good article about 4 years old, with tables of figures for assorted varieties of incomers, and also things like 'new starts'. but of curse the statistical problems are enormous. However I'll return from time to time to see if anyone has reliable data, or for that matter sound evidence of why official information is unreliable.
  11. Just curious to know whether this aspect is ever mentioned on this site. A few possible topics: [1] New houses being automatically given to immigrants and so called 'asylum seekers'. Presumably this is only possible if tax money goes to house builders. The figures are supposed to be something like 40% - I quote from memory though. [2] Houses specifically built with e.g. 7 bedrooms on an immigarnts only need apply basis. This happens in Oldham (I'm told) and presumably elsewhere. [3] Offical Secrets Act and Tenancy agreements with immigrants who are issues with new euqipment of all sorts (including televisions). [4] Effects on areas being taken over - obviously it must have some effect on prices, and also on perceived desirability. And in the longer term the whole balance of whether housing is seen as desirable - if rates/ property taxes/ other euphemisms continue going up. [5] Possibility if prices fall of large scale buying up of housing by for example Saudi Arabia who (apparently) have money to burn.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.