Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

wtc

Members
  • Posts

    372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wtc

  1. Which part? Far as I can see I only stated the following facts... Cannabis is a plant, surely you don't think that is untrue. Herbal cannabis is the flowers taken from the cannabis plant once it reaches the end of its lifecycle, commonly known as weed and skunk falls into this category as after all, skunk is just one of hundreds of different strains of the same plant. That soapbar or solids is infact a potentially deadly mixture of toxic substances which cannot be accurately called cannabis given the levels of cannabis within the mixture are minimal. Taken from a report by the Department of Health based on research conducted at Edinburgh University. Preliminary analysis of Moroccan soap-bar cannabis resin carried out by which were seized by HM Customs in 2002, found that some contained little cannabis resin - one sample was 80% soil. The main other adulterants identified include liquorice, boot polish, beeswax, turpentine, henna, coffee, vinyl, motor oil, dyes, animal faeces, milk powder, and pine resin; and other drugs such as aspirin, ketamine, glue, toluene and benzene. The report noted toluene and benzene can have unpleasant and dangerous poisoning effects, including liver and kidney damage. Further analysis of 'formula' cannabis products in 2002 . THC purities of 'formula' are often closer to zero than 1%, and are rarely above 2%." and also found evidence of' phenols' - aromatic hydrocarbons. (1) That skunk was originally created in the 1970's and has been available worldwide since the 80's? The average THC content of Skunk #1 is 8.2%; it is a 4-way combination of the cannabis strains Afghani indica, Mexican Gold, Colombian Gold, and Thai: 75% sativa, 25% indica. This was done via extensive breeding by cultivators in California in the 1970s using the traditional outdoor cropping methods used for centuries (2) That you are Daily Mail reader? Well thats a fair cop, I have no evidence, just a guess based on your frightening lack of knowledge regarding the subject not preventing you from spouting b*llocks about it anyway. Cannabis sends you mad? The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and drug experts heard a presentation on the possible mental health impacts of stronger cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher of Keele University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data from a confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office. He and his colleague, Professor Ilana Crome of Keele’s academic psychiatry unit, used data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005 to work out whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be linked to the increase in cannabis use since the 1970s. Their paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychosis. The authors say this data is “not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards”.(3) (1) Department of Social Anthropology, The University of Edinburgh (report) (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28d...tion_techniques (3) http://rinf.com/alt-news/culture/gov-set-t...e-cannabis/3393
  2. Sorry, had to pick up on this one as you are talking complete and utter b*llocks. You are aware cannabis is plant right? I ask because you seem to think some brown solid crap is "normal" and herbal cannabis such as skunk is abnormal??? You little disclaimer at the end is actually not necessary, analysis of the solid stuff you seem to enjoy shows at best it contains 1% cannabis and sometimes as little as 0.25%, the rest being made up of dead leaf material, animal and human faeces, turpentine, ketomine, asprin and whole host of other nastiness. So the reality is you've probably never actually smoked cannabis and should be fine for a job in politics. And skunk is nothing new, first bred in the 1970's means its at least 30 years old. So to sum up, you would have a lethal cocktail of chemicals which really can kill you decategorised while placing the regular cannabis plant which has never killed anybody into the same category as herion.......are you sure you're not a politician or just an avid reader of the Dail Mail? Either way, you clearly know nothing about the subject. Skunk addicts wandering the streets till they murder somebody, ffs get a grip.
  3. Why do you think they are struggling? They posted record profits of over 80 million for the last financial year.....how is a company in decline if its annual profits are going up Theres a massive barrier to entry in the travel sector, its called sales volume. All the major operators have small profit margins and rely heavily on mass sales, this makes it very difficult for new entrants to compete in the market. Now travel agents, thats a different story, that market has definately been flooded, but with agents you have to realise most sell the rebranded packages of the big operators. There seems to be a massive misconception amongst people that because people don't buy holidays on the high street as much, it means the big operators are going out of business, this simply isn't true. They are just closing the shops and turning to other sales channels.
  4. Their recent merger with MyTravel will have a lot to do with this, jobs always go when two companies merge. The same will happen in a few months when TUI and first choice go ahead with their merger, thousands of jobs will be cut. As one poster points out, the future of travel is via the internet, but he incorrect in assuming this means the end of the big players like Thomas Cook. Its just a shift in the way holidays are sold but it will be the same players who are doing the majority of the selling, Thomas Cook are just realigning themselves and cutting off the deadwood. The travel sector has very little potential for small operators to operate and make a profit, its all about sales volume and if you don't have the volume then you can forget making any money.
  5. All UK properties ............................ Q3...............Q4...........% Detached...........301,771........293,248...... -2.8 Semi.................177,087........174,744...... -1.3 Terraced............151,826........149,906...... -1.2 Flat....................174,886 ........173,915..... -0.5 All......................194,589........191,327...... -1.6 So there you have it, falls across the board when Q3 is compared to Q4. Funny how the OP posted this report along with a smug "told you prices weren't falling" remark, perhaps he should have examing the figures closer. Prices may not be down YOY, but I don't think anyone was expecting the report to show that.
  6. York ............................ Q3...............Q4 Detached...........286,602........249,374 Semi.................173,650........174,195 Terraced............163,648........155,544 Flat....................145,689 ........153,783 All......................186,343........177,308 YOY ............................2004.............2005 Detached............275,512......... 249,374 Semi..................167,090..........174,195 Terraced.............170,885..........155,544 Flat.....................149,169.........153,783 All......................185,191..........177,308 Ouch time in York Look at that drop in price for detached houses between Q3 and Q4.........but of course house prices never fall Except when then drop approx. 13% in a single quater
  7. Northamptonshire ............................ Q3...............Q4 Detached...........252,094........248,134 Semi.................148,443........145,098 Terraced............120,696........123,447 Flat....................105,889........111,421 All......................165,090........164,361 All looks pretty static to me YOY ............................2004.............2005 Detached............249,623......... 248,134 Semi..................144,323..........145,098 Terraced.............118,839..........123,447 Flat....................106,601..........111,421 All......................163,310..........164,361 Again pretty flat, except flats(suprisingly) which have seen the biggest increase EDIT - Anyone know a way to do columns of figures without all the whitespace being removed?
  8. Hmmm so looking back on the Q3 report from the LR, prices are actually down in Q4 from Q3 Is there any reason why they haven't compared prices to the last quarter or is that just the way they always do things? Still, prices have fallen, not by a huge amount though but theres still some areas increasing rapidly and masking other areas that are seeing some quite serious falls.
  9. I think prices were down 5% or so last year and from keeping my eye on the market there does seem to be a lot of property thats sticking. Though I only really look at a single area, it will be interesting to see what happens in the spring because if a lot more property comes on then there really is going to be flood and demand just doesn't seem to be there.
  10. I'd be up for it, though I'd have to agree with a previous poster that perhaps summer time would be better for this particular operation Surely if theres enough ppl it would be hard for the fuzz to break it up and even harder to break it up without attracting a LOT of media attention(which of course is the main aim)
  11. I work for one of the UKs biggest builders merchants, profits are definately down and there is a lot of talk about "tough trading conditions" when it comes to anything to do with costs(licenses, payrises etc.). They are also not replacing leaving staff whereever possible(which is pretty much everywhere) and so either existing staff see workload increase or the work just doesn't get done. Ppl just aren't buying building supplies in the same volumes as before.
  12. Reading back I don't think it was I didn't mean to challenge your knowledge but I had it in my mind it was you. You're correct that generally an organisation will monitor volume of traffic more than actual content but content is also monitored. For example, if you visit...errr lets say slightly dubious.....porn sites then this will generally be flagged even if the volume isn't that high. Clearly HPC isn't pr0n but for an organisation like RightMove, HPC is like the anti-christ, its quite possible it is on the trigger list and if not, it would stand out to anyone having a curious glance over the traffic logs. Fair point. I support what the mods did in this instance but you do raise an interesting question regarding where lines are drawn and, possibly more importantly, ppl knowning where these lines are in advance, something which you mentioned yourself. Perhaps a privacy statement like you suggest would be the way to go, though I doubt most ppl would read it. I still maintain that in the case of zorn, he had crossed wherever that line may be drawn. He clearly did have a VI on a commercial and organisational level(as opposed to someone with a VI just because they STR). Also the fact he tried to cover up that VI and generally used "smoke and mirror" style tactics warrants what the mods did. indeed, I was playing devils advocate to a certain extent I have heard of, though not used, tools that automate this. Possibly a myth and if a reality how accurate and workable they are is another question.
  13. Ppl have a right to know if someone posting on these boards has a very clear vested interest in the topic being discussed, especially if that person is acting as though they are not privy to information that they actually are and generally being cloak and dagger about the whole thing. Somebody mentioned that this may cause "the poster formely known as zorn TM" to get in trouble with his superiors, hopefully this wasn't the same person who claimed to be studying IT security. Obviously if zorn is an employee of RM then all traffic to this site will be logged anyway, his superiors would already know he was visting the site as a nice little log would arrive on their desk showing every URL he has been to. Unless hes so high up the organisation that his i-net traffic is unmonitored(unlikely), hes the network admin(even more unlikely) or....shock horror....his employers already know. When posting on these forums ppl give up a certain amount of their privacy, thats just the way things work, ultimately nobody is forced to post here. In almost all other communication channels outside the i-net, somebody taking active participation will be giving up an equal if not greater amount of privacy. Also, IP cloaking isn't a fullproof form of defence otherwise hackers wouldn't feel the need to bounce like rubber balls in order to ply their trade.
  14. I fully support the moderators decision to reveal this information, I also fully support leaving it to moderator discretion regarding whether or not they decide to reveal such information, when and where. My two cents worth anyway
  15. Heh, yes I feel we are going round in circles a little Despite the fact we clearly disagree, I do respect your opinion and I'm glad we could discuss the issue without things becoming personal.
  16. Peach, I'm afraid your argument lost substance with me when you said that you don't think those with private healthcare should have to pay for a national healthcare system. It is totally illogical and hypocritical. To suggest you shouldn't be forced into paying for a needed national service(whether you need it is irrelevant, watch how fast the health and sanitation of the country falls without it, something that effects us all) on one hand and then to fight tooth and nail against people who suggest they shouldn't be forced into paying for an unneeded national broadcasing service is highly bizarre. How can you even begin to justify these seriously conflicting viewpoints? Transportation network and infrastructure are a needed national service. Those goods don't just magically "beam" themselves onto the shelf of your local Tescos. It is also needed to allow ppl to travel to work, without it the country would be severley stunted economically. Half agree with you. I didn't support the war in Iraq but for a justified war and defence spending in general its an unfortunate necessity 100% agree, another shining example of why the government shouldn't attempt to provide entertainment and culture to the masses using taxation to pay for it. They inevitabley fail and it always ends up being a costly exercise.
  17. And what about those of us who don't read the Sun, the Times or watch SKY as well as not watching the BBC and do not wish to pay for this unneeded service? You see, the difference with the the Sun, the Times and SKY is quite simple....if I don't like these services or the person who runs them then I don't have to buy them. Can I say the same about the BBC?
  18. Fair enough, I honestly didn't know that. Though I don't view the multimedia reports and I have noticed a lot of ppl from other countries commenting in the "have your say" section. So I think on the whole most of the site is freely available. 1. Nope/indifferent 2. Don't buy this argument. If the BBC is self-funding then why the need for the license? Oh hold on, what you're actually saying is they charge a license fee which goes toward making programmes which they then sell to other countries and pocket the profits. Forgive me for not being overjoyed at that prospect, its bit like a venture capitalist stumping up a load of money to a startup and that startup getting to keep all the profits for itself. 3. Not convinced with this argument. The area I live in won't even get digital till 2011, yet the ppl paying their license are paying for the service anyway. Right, hugely advanced infrastructure Again, seem to have overlooked the concept of needed services Vs wanted services 1. Yes you do, to prevent road traffic accidents and ppl dying uneccesarily as a result 2. Surely needed to ensure the safety of the food supply. 3. Hmmm sanitation issues and ongoing health of the nation. Plus ppl have the right to not be subjected to piss stained streets, especially as they pay for them(are you going to argue that you don't want streets now?) Right, and you talk about flawed arguments. So a organisation which is funded through compulsion is a shining example of how "the ppl" can overcome the market? Well if there are so many ppl who think that way then wheres the problem with paying the fee being optional. Or perhaps what you really mean is that YOU like the BBC and you're scared that if funding is optional the BBC will cease to exist because the MAJORITY don't feel the same way. Now I'm not saying this would be the case but its a slightly undemocratic opinion isn't it? I don't understand. Are you really saying you are happy to have to pay a compulsory license fee(a form a tax when all is said and done) for a national entertainment/media service but you aren't happy to pay a tax for a national health system. I just don't see the logic there. So your company provides you with private healthcare(nice, fair play) but so what. What if SKY provides me with private broadcasting? Surely by your logic I then have no need to pay the tax for the national service.
  19. I read the BBC news website from time to time. But anyone in the world can access that site, why should a small proportion of us be left to foot the bill(I could live without it). I don't own a radio, don't own a car either so no radio there. I have a TV but don't tune in BBC 1 or BBC 2, I don't watch it much either, just C4 occassionally. I mainly use it for my X-Box. I don't know of many traffic wardens who use strong arm tactics in an attempt to gain entry to your home. I posted this on the thread yesterday and will place it here as well.... This is the kind of scum TVL enforcement officers are. Ron, a disabled man, refused to let one into his home. The EO then went to his neighbour and started asking questions about him, Ron suspecting this was actually against the law got his video camera and went to his front door and started filming. The EO then proceeded to hit him in the face claiming he was breaking the data protection act(funny time to start caring about ppls privacy, the irony) http://www.tvlicensing.biz/media/mpeg/TVLa...NALcomplete.wmv That said, I think there are issues with the way some traffic wardens conduct themselves since the wardens were privatised. But thats another argument for another day;)
  20. Despite my above points, I think its you who is underestimating the BBC If the license fee were optional and those who didn't pay simply didn't receive the service, I think the BBC would be just fine. From having this discussion many times before, I know there are many ppl who value the BBC and thats fine, good luck to them. Essentially I think more ppl than you seem to think would willingly pay the fees, so why can't those of us who don't want to simply be allowed not to. As I've said, its hardly a life or death service. I have, trust me. I can easily afford to pay it, I have thought long and hard about it and decided not to. So, technically speaking I'm a criminal(yes I own a TV and yes VERY occasionally I watch C4, BBC1 and BBC2 aren't tuned in). I don't enjoy the TVL enforcement officers coming round hassling me every month or so(though sometimes its amusing to wind them up), it would be a lot easier for me to simply pay, but thats not my style. I fundamentally object to the whole thing and especially the way the license is policed. The TVL are a private company whos enforcement officers are paid commission for every enforcement and fine they successfully make. The whole indimidation aspect and strong arm tactics designed to keep ppl in line simply aren't right in my eyes.
  21. Addressed in the post above. The health of the entire nation is a very real issue that impacts everyone, whether they have private healthcare or not. To ensure the economic well being of the country as a whole and that we, as a country, continue to be productive and forward moving A nation that outsources its entire food production is placing itself in grave danger indeed, hence the farming subsidies. What if there were a war or some other event that cut off the supply of food, the health and social implications mean its a neccesity. Without Eastenders we'd all go mad and the nation would collapse, or perhaps not I respect your argument, I just don't agree with it. Just because I'm anti-BBC it doesn't mean I'm anti-public services in general
  22. I don't use private healthcare and I have no particular stance on the issue you are making. I think you haven't taken into account the vital word in the statement you quoted As I stated in that thread, I simply refuse to pay the license fee as there is no justification for forcing people to pay for a service they neither want, need or use. I may not currently use the NHS(I'm not sick), I may even think I don't want it(I'd be mistaken) but the simple fact is that we as a country need it as a health provision. I fail to see how countless episodes of Eastenders can be used in comparison.
  23. You can make a list of shows 100ft long but it doesn't address my issue.. What if I do not want to watch these shows? Why should I pay for them? How about I list all of the possible application of a household kettle and then use this as a justification that every household in the UK must have a "kettle license" to be renewed annually?
  24. This very topic was discussed here yesterday(link below) http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=22804 As I stated in that thread, I simply refuse to pay the license fee as there is no justification for forcing people to pay for a service they neither want, need or use. If the state published a newspaper and attempted to force you to buy it, would you be happy with that? How is that different from what the BBC effectively is? A state controlled media outlet that you are forced to pay for, whether or not you want it is irrelevant. Isn't it time the BBC either sinks or swims based on its own merits as a broadcaster?
  25. This is the situation I am in. He has to phone me on the intercomm first, then I decide whether I can be bothered to go down and speak to him. If I'm busy I tell him on the intercomm to go away, if I fancy a laugh I'll go down and provoke him. So long as they have no proof and obtain no signature they can do nothing. You could sit in your front room in plain sight of the EO while hes knocking at the door and simply not respond, eventually they get the message and sod off. I've had 4 visits in total from the TVL, I suspect I shall receive many more
×
×
  • 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.