Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
exiges

Countryfile Now - Bbc1

Recommended Posts

Article coming up in the Cotswolds about people being unable to buy houses in their home towns due to the difference between house prices & earnings.

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betcha he pushes shared ownership......after all if ftbers dont pay to keep the banks assets, the bbc btl executives apartments massively overpriced. Who else will!?

Ftbers know your place! Take on debt which is not your own you filthy little proles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seemed fair enough from what I saw.

Not finished yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betcha he pushes shared ownership......after all if ftbers dont pay to keep the banks assets, the bbc btl executives apartments massively overpriced. Who else will!?

Ftbers know your place! Take on debt which is not your own you filthy little proles!

Wahey! Bingo, shared ownership it is!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article coming up in the Cotswolds about people being unable to buy houses in their home towns due to the difference between house prices & earnings.

IIRC Britain has some 22 million houses, 700 thousand empty (around 3%), and 200 thousand second homes (around 1%) . I knew they would blame 2nd homes, but this is a very minor factor. here

The situation there, in that area they were talking about in the programme, is very similar to here, West Sussex.

The main problem here is planning authorities forbidding virtually everybody from having their own homes built. Plenty of land here. It is virtually empty. Just too many fecking NIMBY b@starsds. That is all. And the local serfs can't even see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a concerted vested interest BBC programme to steal money from the bumpkins.

There will be people in their twenties having watched the programme talking to their parents right now about shared ownership

Especially devious and low of the BBC considering they had the lovely warm trustworthy mr craven presenting it.

How many of the hundreds upon hundreds of overpaid BBC executives (each 'earning' over £100,000.00 pa) own BTL properties?

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just too many fecking NIMBY b@starsds. That is all. And the local serfs can't even see that.

They are not NIMBYS they are HYPOCRITES anyone who lives in a house but complains about other houses being built unless they really do have an overbearing presence on their house is a HYPOCRITE .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a concerted vested interest BBC programme to steal money from the bumpkins.

There will be people in their twenties having watched the programme talking to their parents right now about shared ownership

Especially devious and low of the BBC considering they had the lovely warm trustworthy mr craven presenting it.

How many of the hundreds upon hundreds of overpaid BBC executives (each 'earning' over £100,000.00 pa) own BTL properties?

I completely disagree. I think you are guilty of simply seeing everything through the prism of your own bitterness. A bitterness that is entirely understandable, to be sure. But, it is clouding your objectivity.

As far as I could see, this piece showed the absolute insanity of house prices in the countryside. Indeed, the look of absolute despair in that young lad's eyes when he conceded that he and his partner would never stand a chance of owning their own home in the place where they grew up was almost to much to bear.

In addition, the couple who were buying shared-ownership were shown in direct contrast to the holiday home-owners and slimy property developer immediately before them. I don't think this was an editorial coincidence and it showed the stark contrast between the peacful rural idyll that rich outsiders were getting and the rabbit-hutches next to a busy roadside that the locals were forced to take.

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not NIMBYS they are HYPOCRITES anyone who lives in a house but complains about other houses being built unless they really do have an overbearing presence on their house is a HYPOCRITE .

Amen/+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. I think you are guilty of simply seeing everything through the prism of your own bitterness. A bitterness that is entirely understandable, to be sure. But, it is clouding your objectivity.

As far as I could see, this piece showed the absolute insanity of house prices in the countryside. Indeed, the look of absolute despair in that young lad's eyes when he conceded that he and his partner would never stand a chance of owning their own home in the place where they grew up was almost to much to bear.

In addition, the couple who were buying shared-ownership were shown in direct contrast to the holiday home-owners and slimy property developer immediately before them. I don't think this was an editorial conincidence and it showed the stark contrast between the peacful rural idyll that rich outsiders were getting and the rabbit-hutches next to a busy roadside that the locals were forced to take.

It was this stark contrast that caused the Welsh fire bombing campaign

'Come home to a real fire!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of towns like onions - every layer gets sold with the promise of "views over open fields". :lol:

When people buy houses or flats they buy the area inside the red lines on the plan that their solicitor points out to them and then gets them to sign. They do not buy the views or the right to the views . If they buy on a promise of the view that is their lookout.

The flip side of the coin is people who buy in cheap shit areas ( take East London ) about 15 years ago . Things change in those areas better public transport or big companies move into the area and their properties go up in value due to the enhancements in the area. No one knocks on their door and asks them to pay any extra money because of this. Like so many things in life you pay your money and take your chances when you buy that area inside the red lines on the plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people buy houses or flats they buy the area inside the red lines on the plan that their solicitor points out to them and then gets them to sign. They do not buy the views or the right to the views . If they buy on a promise of the view that is their lookout.

The flip side of the coin is people who buy in cheap shit areas ( take East London ) about 15 years ago . Things change in those areas better public transport or big companies move into the area and their properties go up in value due to the enhancements in the area. No one knocks on their door and asks them to pay any extra money because of this. Like so many things in life you pay your money and take your chances when you buy that area inside the red lines on the plans.

Do you consider that there should be no limits whatsoever to developmnents around that red line?

What about noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution or blocking of access to light?

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.] I completely disagree. I think you are guilty of simply seeing everything through the prism of your own bitterness.

A bitterness that is entirely understandable, to be sure.

But, it is clouding your objectivity.

As far as I could see, this piece showed the absolute insanity of house prices in the countryside. Indeed, the look of absolute despair in that young lad's eyes when he conceded that he and his partner would never stand a chance of owning their own home in the place where they grew up was almost to much to bear.

In addition, the couple who were buying shared-ownership were shown in direct contrast to the holiday home-owners and slimy property developer immediately before them. I don't think this was an editorial coincidence and it showed the stark contrast between the peacful rural idyll that rich outsiders were getting and the rabbit-hutches next to a busy roadside that the locals were forced to take.

Considering the programme a fresh, TallGuy, I still disagree with your interpretation . [Yes I'm bitter....and then some]

But as Far as I could see the BBC began by:

A.] Showing what the problem was. High House Prices.

B.]Offering a solution. Shared Ownership.

How many BBCs programme, regarding the plight of FTB'ers, have been made, where they have not done that? [Which is why it was sooo predictable]

If the BBC wanted to make a programme, for instance, answering some of the many questions, or points raised on this forum, and others, I would consider the organisation to be performing their duty of equal representation.

But as they clearly do not. All I can think to do is keep banging out the same questions, and points to as many people as possible. [in the hope that some FTB'er will come across some of our points and realise how he/she is being right royally shafted.]

[And apologise to those subscribers to HPC who are mightily bored by my our inane repititon....:D]

The bankers have "privatised profits and socialised losses" of BTL speculators, [Debtors] who continue to benefit from profits, by not taking any losses, and by pushing those losses onto society at large via the government.

So FTB'ers money is being stolen, by our government, to pay to keep the banks assets, or other peoples houses, massively overinflated, ensuring FTB'ers can never afford their own house.

We know it was undisputed fraud behind the manipulation of rising house prices. [As has been reported by the BBC. Peston etc.]

But without the bank bailouts, house prices would have crashed by over 50% And returned to their long term median affordability. Instead the VI's are trying to transfer this debt onto FTB'ers. Thats just theft isnt it?

Why should FTB'ers pay for others toxic mortgage debt?

Why should people who do not own property bail out the banks?

[When Those FTB'ers priced out for over a decade have already been forced to waste tens of thousands in rent.]

Should we work for another decade for nothing?

No Capital?

One of the key measures needed from the coalition was to tax capital gains at the same rate as income, a return to the system which operated under Margaret Thatcher's government. And Raise IR

Why isnt the government committed to tax changes that spread the pain of deficit reduction fairly?

Why have Ministers been allowed to profit from HPI in a secret expenses system, when these very minister's were a direct cause of the Housing Bubble? Etc. Etc Etc

The BBC have not made a programme presenting cause and effect of, the Banking bailouts, mortgage fraud, how Vested Interests have profited, HPI, the massive market manipulation which took place, the biggest fraud in history, etc etc

Followed by [many] questions like the ones above.

I want MPS to answer these questions. And more. Questions we have a right to ask. Which have not been answered.

Moral questions. Showing the persepctive of many disgruntled FTB'ers, from the FTB'ers point of view.

But the BBC dont want to present the 'complete' picture to the public.

They dont want the general public to link all these things together and come to the same conclusion which we have been forced to accept.

Instead you'll see lots of vague detached pieces......

[Whereas considering the debt transfer which has taken place. It is the FTB'ers who are being given no choice but to accept this debt, we should have the loudest voice in a programme regarding the subject.]

The BBC spin it. The BBC are VI's.

That suggests to me that they are trying to stop house prices crashing back to their long term median affordability.

And at the end of the day, its every man for themselves amongst all these fake lefty 'champagne socialists'

For them to win we have to lose. And they dont care it that means stealing our money.

[...........must................stop.................editing...........to.............post................more...........rant...............Arrrghhh]

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you consider that there should be no limits whatsoever to developmnents around that red line?

What about noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution or blocking of access to light?

From memory, the Dutch Embassy in Tokyo sold its rights to cast shadows to the Mori Group for enough money to pay for two years' worth of national deficits because they had a very large plot and small buildings.

There is a constant tussle between market solutions and regulations to solve problems. I prefer the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more of that kind of thing

A LOT MORE

Do you realise that in democratic, free Britain, you have just committed an offence?

No joking, I got banned from a forum for saying much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.