RA Dunk

lol, excellent come back Tony!

Carnut

I've got a few houses to rent if anybody is interested? I don't have many to offer at the moment so you would have to choose between a swimming pool or a tennis court.

Dingdongler

The end result is the same though isn't it? You are making somebody pay money for the right to be not thrown out of a property (as you put it)

So if you would be happy to rent your own home out under certain circumstances I'm not sure how that makes you better than any other responsible landlord out there.

Or is it just ok for you to do as you are righteous?

Dingdongler

Yes but who actually owns this petroleum? Doesn't it belong to all of us in the same way as you feel land does? The petroleum does after all lie under the very land that we are discussing.

The companies you work for have turned it into a tradeable commodity, they have been granted a license to be rentiers. What if they did the same thing with the air we breathe?

You have made your living by working for companies that steal from our pockets by making us pay for a naturally occurring product.

This is NOT wealth creation

Carnut

Not to sure what people are saying about petroleum but even if we could just go and help our self's how would you get it . I am not sure about you guys but I don't have my own oil refinery. The way I see it is that the oil companies do all the hard work then I give them next to nothing per ltr. I am not saying I feel sorry for them but oil is VERY cheap if you compare it to let's say a bottle of water or a ltr of tomato sauce or most liquids come to think of it. Its the government that step in and takes the pi** for not a lot.

Dingdongler

Yes but I don't know about you but I couldn't build a block of flats from the ground up either

Mouser

Not surprising that TdW has hijacked a thread yet again to have a go at landlords. I wonder how many people read the newspaper report and thought at the end of it " that ******* is a landlord"?

Turbohot

It's not just Tony who is a selective reader and picks on what gratifies him the most. Look at the very roots of this thread. Without reading the article properly (me included- ref:#18) people go all emotive about what doesn't sit right with them. Judge clearly expects this man to pay court costs, but what people are wound up about is that his family members continue to live in their own house, and get the income of BTL properties while he rots in jail. No one thought that if his family were to become homeless, they would have the right to apply for council housing and go on benefits, which will be another drain on the society and exploitation of British Social Security system.

I think people want his relatives to be just deported, and their habitat snatched off them in order to make up the trial cost; even if there's no evidence of any crime against them.

You do get criminals from the same blood and family- fact. Look at that recent California shootings incident. Should the whole family of his be punished for what their psychiatric patient son-of-a-b!tch boy did? (no pun intended)

Whoever wants the whole family punished for this man are prejudiced. I'm sure his family members are under surveillance, anyway; due to his deeds.

I'm not being Devil's advocate here, just talking facts. Devil is in jail, and I'm ecstatic about that.

In conclusion, Mail Online heading wins the gullible again by highlighting what gets people emotive and all patriotic. Well done to this publication for its mass counter-brainwashing.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yep, they're Muslim ergo they're scum! The mantra of the Daily Mail and most of NSR basically!

Turbohot

That's it. Muslim bashing with any excuse.


There was another baseless thread like this one on the Conservatives' leaflet, which had no other motive but to cause divisive commotion.

I am not saying that people should keep their mouths shut about the flaws in ANY religion and terrorism with its excuse. Everyone has a right to discuss such topics. That's something where ALL religious people here need not get too jumpy and defensive about, either.

But on every damn opportunity slating a particular religion is simply nothing but a vendetta against not just that religion but also against the race that follows that religion. That shouldn't take place. Not every religious person takes everything from their ancient books too literally.

IMO^. Not imposing it on anyone.

Mouser

Under Clause 23a of the Terrorism Act 2000 a convicted terrorist can have their assets seized by the state under a forfeiture order.

The Judge is applying the law one would imagine.



As far as I am aware nobody on here (until a few posts ago) or in the Mail Online article mentioned Muslims, so how is it Muslim bashing?

Turbohot

Ok.

So despite of the law you quote up there, the judge is applying the law. OK, please explain..............


...............why is Britain a 'soft touch' on this thread? Why is Britain 'spineless' on this thread? Why are the family's costumes subject to ridicule on this thread?


Expand. You or anyone.


Also, look at that another mindless Conservative Leaflet thread. I tried finding that thread, but I don't know where it's gone.

Edited to enter> Here it is>https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...e-council.html

This^ was the link an OP quoted on that thread http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news...lice_1_3608045 and said that it was another reason to vote UKIP. Without reading the contents and checking out the facts he was jumping at the conclusions, and displaying his sentiment on the Tory party's 'special treatment' to certain ethnicity.

So no denying that Muslim and immigrants bashing goes on here; one way or other. It does.

Mouser

The Judge is applying the law after taking all the circumstances into account I would imagine.

Turbohot

Ok, thanks.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

You're wasting your time, people on here are quick enough to play the innocent when it suits them!

Turbohot

As I say in my #70

That's applicable to Mouser or anyone whosoever it may concern IMO.

It's the misread and misinformed halfhead discussions to bash a particular faith and its followers, with any absurd excuse to hand seem unreasonable to me. One's lack of tolerance to other cultures and their ways of life simply shows how under-exposed one himself/herself is.

tony de wonderful

I've no plans to rent out my future home if that is your question.

But I would still say that renting out YOUR home is different than owning other people's homes and charging them rent for the privilege of living in their house.

Furthermore the BTL revolution which you are so enamoured with actually makes it harder for the poorer and weaker to own their own home (and this avoid ground rent). The poor and weak become a resource to be farmed by those with access to credit and capital. The whole exercise is vile.

neil-h

If the resident is paying rent then how is it their house (unless of course we're talking shared ownership etc)?

Dingdongler

Tony, you would be surprised how many 'accidental' landlords there are out there. Just like you admitted that you would rent out your own home if you went abroad this can happen to many people. If not working abroad they might be sent to the other side of the country to work for example.

So you agree there is at least one set of circumstances under which you would indeed rent out a property for profit.

May I ask another? Let's say you meet a beautiful young lady and you really hit it off. After a few months of a whirlwind romance she asks you to move in with her so you can both figure out if it could be forever.

Being a sensible guy you decide that you shouldn't immediately sell your house just in case. Would you consider renting out your house under those circumstances?

Cheers