Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Selling up

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Selling up

  1. When the crash is this boring it almost makes me curse my addiction to this site.
  2. If so it would be the first bubble in history to give up a small fraction of its gains then settle to a steady state.
  3. Quite enjoying it. Bloody slow though. Plus my life plans have changed (nothing to do with the crash). I am going to be moving to London so instead of being on course to afford a lovely house in the Lancashire valleys I'm now on course to afford a crappy little flat in the big smoke.
  4. Oops, this debate is driving me mad. I do work with children, I said so in a post higher up in the thread!! What I meant was, this legislation is not about my work with children which is very sensitive and for which I am perfectly happy to be vetted. This legislation is about my volunteer work, which provides no scope for abuse... or at any rate infinitely less scope than a family member or family friend would have. So why should volunteers be vetted but not family members / friends?
  5. No. Two reasons, as I made clear above, why this legislation is unacceptable. One: I do not work with children. I do not live with children. I "have contact" with children two hours twice a week as a volunteer in a group of 20 children and 2 other adults. I am never alone unchaperoned with a child. Yet this legislation says that I must pay for a criminal check to certify that I am safe to be in this situation, despite not requiring the same checks of those who live 24/7 in the same household as a child, who are in a position of trust and alone with a child for hours at a time, and who are statistically ten to twenty times more likely to abuse the child: family members. Two: As the link in the OP shows, inaccurate entries on government databases run at a rate of about 10%. There is no way I will submit to the risk of inaccurate information being flagged up with ruinous consequences.
  6. God, what a wonderful vision you have just inspired: Compulsory lessions in critical thinking. EG "Last week in the chapter on Einstein's views on neuroscience, we looked at the problem of illegitimite authority*. Today we will deal with the motive fallacy. That is to say, we will consider why people's motivation for making a statement is irrelevant from the truth or falsity of the statement, which must be assessed on its own merits. We will then analyse this article from the Daily Mail and count the number of logical errors it contains." *This refers to Einstein's statement that the average human being uses 10% of his mental capacity. Or is it 30%? It is backed by no research but is frequently believed and repeated because Einstein said it and Einstein woz clever. He was indeed a legitimate authority on astrophysics but he knew no more about neuroscience then I do. Well, less, actually, since I have had some training...
  7. Are you serious? I think it's great that I can log on and find threads on all the day's relevant news articles. To me that is as worthwhile as any 46-page thread on the ramifications of fiat money / bi-flation / Andrea Turner. Long live short threads linked to news articles. Well done, CiM.
  8. I wonder if some of the hysterical anti-paedo rage is partly to hide the unease that many of us men have felt (and I'm prepared to admit to having experienced it) when we discover that the pretty girl acquaintance we have been picturing in rather intimate scenarios is under the age of consent! Hang on, must stop for a minute... there are voices on the stairs... footsteps.... [selling up has been detained for re-education purposes.]
  9. Mixed feelings if this is true. Can't help feeling a little sorry for the coming "victims"... but rationally I know that the mess that the financial system is in can only be addressed by deleveraging and marking-to-market... IE selling off assets. And as a buyer-to-be it will benefit me personally.
  10. Good... calmed down now! This issue makes me cross. Ironically, I already happily submit to a CRB check for my GP job so this is pretty much entirely a matter of principle for me. It seems entirely appropriate that in a role where I am required to undress children, touch them - even genitally on occasion, that I should be required by law to disclose any criminal background. It makes me furious that I should be told that I need a comparable level of clearance to stand chaperoned in front of twenty young singers. I can't explain why it bothers me so much except that it seems to represent paranoia and crowd-pleasing nonsense over rationality and proportionality... and yet another example of the growth of the database state.
  11. In this context I think it is entirely unreasonable. They are talking about requiring a check for people such as visiting speakers, or myself, musical director of a children's theatre group twice weekly, who are already allowed no unchaperoned contact with children. Now I have no problem with these two propositions: 1) People who have access to children on a 1-1 basis, unchaperoned, might have to have their criminal background checked. On the other hand, I would dearly love somebody to explain why this should be applied only to statistically low-risk adults (teachers, doctors, musical directors of amateur operatic societies) and not to the statistically higher-risk adults (family friends, uncles, parents). 2) People such as me who are not willing to let the state investigate our backgrounds should not be given unsupervised access to children. Fine. Such was the status quo before this lunatic legislations which now says: I will not be allowed to stand at the front of a roomful of 20 children and 2 other adults (the minimum the society feels is safe) without submitting to government checks. It is preposterous. And before anyone says: "If you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about" I ask them to consider database errors, and the personal cost to me of being inaccurately identified as a paedophile. On the guardian thread, someone raised the objection that children might come to trust me and then Facebook me or chat to me alone from the group EG if we met in the audience at a concert (both of which they do in fact). But that applies to the staff at the sweet shop, the bus driver, dad's friend from work and every other adult they would ever come into contact with. So why should I accept being singled out for investigation? If this becomes law I will be resigning as musical director, and I expect thousands of other volunteers will do the same.
  12. There have been excellent threads on this lunacy at the Guardian Comment is Free section.
  13. Is that really acceptable? After all, people who have a stroke and can't earn a living don't get "compensation". "Society" can no more be expected to prevent all crime than to prevent all illness. In the case of illness, the taxpayer is considered culpable if and only if state agencies failed to take "reasonable care" to protect the individual. Which generally translates to medical negligence. Why not the same for crime? If it can be shown that the criminal justice service had been negligent then by all means compensate. If not then I don't feel inclined to compensate victims out of my pocket, thanks very much.
  14. Cells is of course right that all other things being equal, expanding the population faster than the stock of housing will tend to make housing (via rent or purchase) more expensive. However the times were are living in are atypical in so many ways - financial crisis, government deficit, credit unavailability - that I find it hard to see rising property costs. I wonder instead whether street homelessness will become a major phenomenon again. "Other things" are not "equal".
  15. I worry about this. Solitude is like oxygen to me. I choose to live alone, rarely hang out with friends (none of whom I consider close), no girlfriend these days (my own choice), the thought of a wife and/or children is a Dolby Digital widescreen nightmare. So as far as it's in my control, my life is how I like it. But I worry that if a parent becomes ill, then I may end up having to sacrifice my solitary lifestyle. (To those who think my life sounds depressing, it's the best in the world. In the day I work at a rewarding, sociable job - GP - and in my free time I write musical theatre and promote my writing - which involves watching shows and schmoozing in the bar with directors etc. However this is definitely work, albeit very pleasant - I wouldn't be hanging around the theatre bar trying to be charming if I didn't have an agenda. So it's not that I dislike human contact. Just that I like it to be within clear limits where at the end of the day I go home and escape from it.)
  16. If there are to be compensation payments then it is silly that they can be affected by speeding offences. But, at risk of sounding like a right-wing barstard: Does it strike anyone else that the whole nature of the compensation system is rather peculiar?: Criminal breaks victim's arm. Victim rightly receives medical treatment at taxpayer expense. Victim usually receives sick pay / incapacity benefit (or whatever it's called now) at expense of either employer or taxpayer. Is it also necessary for the victim to recieve a lump sum of "compensation" from the (innocent) taxpayer? Fair enough that the criminal should be liable if (s)he has any money to hand over. But why the taxpayer? After all, shit happens.
  17. There is a serious debate to be had here, but I disagree with the way you're heading. The counter-argument (which I think is stronger) is that wherever you make help only available to the badly-off, then it removes the incentive to behave prudently. EG If help with care costs is available to all, then people who have saved all their life will have a more comfortable old age, being able to spend their money on discretionary purchases. Therefore there will be an incentive to save. Whereas if help with care costs is only available to those without savings, it removes the incentive to save. Why save and live to see your savings used up in paying for your personal care, when you could blow the money on women and drugs, and live on knowing the state will pay for your personal care? For this reason I would favour more benefits being universal or contributions-based, and fewer being means-tested.
  18. Speed cameras are on your list. However I think they are not a net government expenditure but a net source of income. If I'm right then they don't belong on the list.
  • 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.