Gringo

blair will serve full term However the tories never said they would ditch the witch half way through her final term, so as such implied that the lady would go on and on and on and on ....

FSA say no mortgages for the poor And the housing repo's are about to ensnare another victim

Well of course, if you can't provide an ID card on the spot and claim to be a UK (or EU citizen - not sure how this will work just yet) then they will demand you turn up at a police station and provide your UK passport or similar proof of entitlement within 14 days. And when John/Paul/Richard Smith/Brown/Humprhies fails to turn up it can be marked down as another closed case. How can you make one set of society compulsorily carry cards and enforce it, when the rest of society don't have to carry cards. Is this the worst legislation ever?

Thin edge of the wedge I can really see the plod leading roman abramovich, lakshmi mittal and al fayed, being led off to deportation centres, nah thought not. Divisive law, and divisive implementation. How are they going to check out the non-dom's to see if they've got an ID card. "Oi you look a bit foreign, got an ID card"? Obviously that wouldn't work, so it would make it much easier to make it compulsory for everyone in the country, and watch the fines roll in, kerching.

I'd say the BTL sector followed the pareto split, 20% own 80%, 80% own 20% etc etc. So whilst not the majority of BTL landlords they own the most property, After all in dat der landun 25m is only 80 flats or so, whereas in darlington it's 300 terraced houses. Though I do wish you hadn't quoted that post, more spelling mistakes than an angry dyslexic on acid.

Only larger landlords with portfololios of 25m+ will have libor inked rates - most of them will be linked to the UK Libor rate as they will have been burnt by the rise of sterling in the past years and euro banks aren't willing to lend against UK property on EU rates, and US banks won't touch at all. The larger landlords aren't the ones who are likely to suffer during this period, it will be the ones who have bought, remortgaged, bought, remortgaged etc etc at 85-89% LTV rates and who are most exposed to any blank rental periods. The larger landlords will have a larger chunk of equity available and more easily available refunding during any down turn.

Not meaning to pull a 'Tony' but I said that earlier in the the thread. Are you still giving out points? Sorry sir, but my opening remark (page 1) included: So whilst I reckon rigsby is going to play a part, and indeed pick up some cheap properties along the way, I still predict that the average house price on jan 1 2009, willbe lower than jan 1 2008. You can have a point for effort though as I've had a few and feeling generous.

The only thing that can save the market now is rigsby et al I would guess the BTL market is picking up quite a few repo's and so the shift between ownership and renting continues.

But surely that means it is not a global phenomenon, if some markets suffer more than others. Yes the global crunch impacts all economies, but the housing markets of different regions and different countries are impacted to different degrees because of the exposure of those markets and previous expansion in those markets. Housing price growth wasn't a global phenomenon, and housing market crash won't be a global phenomenon. Similarly house price boom wasn't a national phenomenon, it was london-centric, and spread. The central london market will be protected to an extent, but the shoeboxes in the sky built in the surrounding commuter belt will suffer when the market correction comes.

The spanish economy will outperfom the rest of the eurozone for the next couple of years, in terms of manufacturing and services, but as mentioned on page 1 of this thread the spanish housing market is on it's arse. Interest rates are however set by the ECB and so will remain low for the rest of the year. Each market is different. This year northern ireland will outperform the republic, scotland will outperform north england, belgium will outperform the netherlands and germany will outperform france. It's not a global phenomenon. The UK housing market is overstretched more than most other european markets, with the other suspected casualties being Ireland and spain, who however will have interest rates at least 100 basis points lower than those available to those in the UK.

Not that I'd trust a woman to understand complicated numbers but....

Phone up their sales office and offer to buy the show house for 20% below. Show house completes first, you complete, and then they'll be paying you rent covering the mortgage for the next 18-24 months. You'll have to make sure they fix all the walk through damage when they leave, but it means you've got a discounted house, and by the time you're looking for tennants, all the roads and landscaping will have been completed.

Putting a brave face on bigger discounts

"This is how it feels to be City, this is how it feels to be small this is how it feels when you'll never win nothing at all"

Inspiral Carpets - This Is How It Feels

Nope. What purpose would that serve. To take away one civil liberty is not an argument to takeaway another. Each infringement should be measured on it's own merits. Someone who has been CONVICTED (not simply arrested) forgoes some of the liberties society would normally allow him. I'm sure that most modern societies accept that. Locking people in prisons is for punishment, rehabilitation and exclusion from society. Storing fingerprints and DNA is for criminal investigation purposes. I don't see what argument is being put forward in making criminals (or the rest of us) carry ID cards.

Who are these some people? Are they perhaps convicted criminals? So by you stating that you are not standing up for the civil liberties of criminals, and then arguing that "some people" (namely convicted criminals) are having their liberties infringed somehow contradicting itself? From my point of view it is quite simple, and due to the fact that I have to keep repeating the same points, I apologise if it might appear like a stutter. If you are convicted of a crime, you tend to lose certain civil liberties, such as the freedom to go to starbucks,. as you're locked in a 6 by 4 with a hungry looking cellmate. So we already accept that convicted criminals lose certain civil liberties. Now some groups wish to see the rest of society lose these same civil liberties. A little bit off topic - I refer you to the last post where you accused me of blindly anit-labour and I pointed out that on the "blair remembrance thread" I was virtually the only person posting positive things about his reign. Good things are congratulated, bad things are vehemently resisted. But let's stick to the debate in hand.

Drat, do you have to be the only to raise spurious points, irrelevant to any arguments raised by other posters. If you have a point to make, make it instead of waffling along in what appears to be (sorry snowy) such a silly manner. ditto And now you're standing up fo the civil liberties of convicted criminals. Next you'll be telling me that sending them to prison is an infringement of their civil liberties. So the argument for a universal ID card now comes down to the fact that to not make it universal infringes the civil rights of criminals. SIlly, silly, silly. (sorry Snowy).

Where is this big distinction? Who is arguing that one should be admissable and another not? I haven't seen anyone raise this distinction apart from yourself. Do we have a national fingerprint database that stores everyone's fingerprints? Nope. Should we have a national DNA database that stores everyone's DNA? No. Storing the evidence acquired from convicted criminals - I don't see anyone arguing with that. The only discenting voice raised is that of Snowy, who quite rightly points out that it is extremely dangerous to use DNA as the sole evidence when convicting someone, which is alongside CPS guidelines, that forensic evidence should always be supported by other evidence and not used to convict by itself.

If you take the time to read back through the thread you can see my point of view on what a DNA database should consist of - shouldn't be hard, you must have read the post in question as you actually replied to (omitting the relevant parts and only commenting on the security aspect). Yes I read AWOL's post and I understand where your points have arisen from, however no one apart from yourself has questioned the use of DNA or fingerprints in tracking or prosecuting offenders. You seem to want to use an acceptance of that argument, to build a case for national 60m person database of DNA (and/or fingerprints), but such a case doesn't exist. If you re-read my original post, it refers to the fact that existing legislation allows for convicted criminals to be sampled and their DNA stored. Your same links above also fall under that umbrella. Nowhere is there an argument for the whole nation to be DNA tested and and a national database created, one that the govt admit they don't want as they can't secure it.

If you take the time to read back through the thread you can see my point of view on what a DNA database should consist of - shouldn't be hard, you must have read the post in question as you actually replied to (omitting the relevant parts and only commenting on the security aspect). Yes I read AWOL's post and I understand where your points have arisen from, however no one apart from yourself has questioned the use of DNA or fingerprints in tracking or prosecuting offenders. You seem to want to use an acceptance of that argument, to build a case for national 60m person database of DNA (and/or fingerprints), but such a case doesn't exist. If you re-read my original post, it refers to the fact that existing legislation allows for convicted criminals to be sampled and their DNA stored. Your same links above also fall under that umbrella. Nowhere is there an argument for the whole nation to be DNA tested and and a national database created, one that the govt admit they don't want as they can't secure it.

Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence.

Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence.

There's a difference between you not understanding the concept of civil liberties and the case not being proiven.

was AWOL's comment, just answering back at that, sorry if it didn't fit in with what you want to hear. So should DNA be permissable as evidence yes or no? Should the police be able to keep it on record? Should they be able to use other evidence such as fingerprints as evidence? What civil liberty is being eroded here? No one has argued that fingerprinst or DNA aren't admissable. No one says that just because you aren't allowed to drive at 145 mph, doesn't mean you go back to the days where you have a little man walking in front of the car waving a little red flag. Your points are spurious and not related to the argument.