Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pootle

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran
  1. I'm amazed that I remembered my password.... don't think I've logged in here since Northern Rock went base over apex....
  2. Slightly OT, but ... Population of London at a guess ~10M, population of NI ~1.7M ... I don'k think I need to do the maths for you.
  3. It will possibly say that that we will see that house prices will rise by double digits next year ... it's unlikely that it will say that and impossible that it would be true ... but having read the shite that they came out with for the past few year I would say that it is still possible that they might say it
  4. That graph shows nicely that prices have been falling in Northern Ireland since the middle of 2007.
  5. Ah, the good old Northern Ireland Thread ... how times have changed. Your edgy, tempestuous thrashing has lulled to a restful dream of a better future ... a future where we live in a world without EAs.
  6. I think I'm going to have to poke my flumping eyes out with knitting needles!
  7. That my toothy friend is a very excellent question. I have much experience of their twerpery. This poor flump has weekly councilling for the mental scars.
  8. Anyone know if things are progressing as normal (i.e. all aboard the delusion choo choo!!!) in BSE?
  9. Clegg just quoted on the radio saying that the Conservatives have the clearest mandate and that they should approach him with proposals for electoral reform.
  10. That's probably the most sensible statement posted on this thread
  11. OK, let me be clear for you: If I have something I wish to exchange for something else and the other party wishes to reciprocate the exchange then it is voluntary. If I wish to park in a carpark and to pay for it and the carpark owner is happy for me to park there then it is voluntary. If you read over my posts you will find that I am consistent in this and also in the alternative - that if I do not wish to pay then I park elsewhere. You tried to force fit the analogy until it showed that I had a implicit contract with the government. I refuted this by saying that the equivalent of the parki
  12. STOP MISCONSTRUING THINGS! At no point have I said that I should not pay for entering the carpark. I have said that if I enter the carpark and choose to pay that I do so voluntarily or I leave. All I did in the previous post was point out that the carpark owners have the right to sub-licence the security. My choice remains the same. Your analogy was wrong as I pointed out So your moral framework is "what the majority says"?
  13. So what!?! It is perfectly possible for the two companies to have legitimate claim over the carpark, either because the land is own by the same single entity that operates as two separate companies. Or because one company has subcontracted the security to a second company. Both companies have the right to charge for their services. In this case I would either accept the legitimate conditions or park elsewhere. To keep your analogy to a house purchase correct, the second company (providing the security) would have to be operating on the carpark without having sought or obtained permission from
  14. "It is instructive to inquire why it is that the State, in contrast to the highwayman, invariably surrounds itself with an ideology of legitimacy, why it must indulge in all the hypocrisies that Spooner outlines. The reason is that the highwayman is not a visible, permanent, legal, or legitimate member of society, let alone a member with exalted status. He is always on the run from his victims or from the State itself. But the State, in contrast to a band of highwaymen, is not considered a criminal organization; on the contrary, its minions have generally held the positions of highest
  • 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.