snowychap

Doesn't necessarily matter, does it? It would seem likely that a block of 200-plus BTL's will go on the block at fire-sale type prices. If there aren't problems in the Welsh BTL market, that kind of action would seem likely to create them. Fair point. Though if it were the latter reason and that area of the market wasn't in too bad a shape then this one-off flooding (maybe at an auction specifically for these properties) might not have as detrimental effect as if the buy to let area were already not in good condition (where it would just exacerbate the problem already there).

That doesn't sound as though these are actions consistent with the sort of behaviour trying to be promoted by the Insolvency Acts. :winkold:

Gringo, do we infer from this that there is actually a bit of a prob in the buy to let area? Or that this was just a badly managed firm? If it's the former then it puts the other side to the CML optimism.

I'll take issue with that. It is. There is no constitutional requirement for an election if thegovernment changes leader, I agree. When that government campaigned on the premise that the intended change of leader would not take place during the next term of office, I think there was a moral obligation to either see that through or ask the electorate.

I don't think it is the worst piece ever. It's not even the worst piece for which this current government is responsible. As pointed out by me on other legislation in other threads it is up against pretty serious competition. On forcing one section of society to carry and produce on demand ID cards/documents/passes - I'd say: South Africa Germany in 1939 (mentioned with a sly acknowledgement of Godwin's law) but I'm not sure whether that was a card only applying to Jews or a universal card with an identification of ones Jewishness on cards

Well - I could see them dragging Al Fayed off occasionally. How can they know they'll be fining the right people if they haven't got their ID card to prove to the authorities who they are?

Edited my post for you - I hope that helps. :winkold:

Surely there are not many landlords with 25m+ portfolios in the buy to let sector? I was of the same opinion as you about the second part of your post. It will especially be true of those coming to the end of (or who recently came to the end of) their fixed term, will it not?

I would guess the BTL market is picking up quite a few repo's and so the shift between ownership and renting continues. I find it interesting that the number of mortgages is now the thing discussed rather than the overall value in £ of that sector of the market. In monetary terms I think the increase is around 13% as opposed to the 23% relating to the numbers. Does this suggest a change in property values overall? Does this suggest a change in the type of property in the buy to let portfolio? Does this suggest a change in the amount being lent in this sector? A question for anyone: Which measure of LIBOR are buy to let mortgages aligned to? Is it the 1 year rate. This fell dramatically from 4.2% to 2.8% in the last month - which I'd imagine was more down to the Fed's two cuts rather than the BofE's cut? It brings me quite nicely back to Stiglitz's interview last night when he spoke about the Fed in less than glowing terms in the fact that stimulation of growth seems to be its only driver.

Maybe we should start stealing their houses then because we're obviously not stealing enough oil! IIRC, he was pretty scathing about the idea (in the very early stages) that the Iraq invasion, occupation, &c. was going to pay for itself. Was that Wolfowitz's call? I can't remember.

Well for that quote she wouldn't be getting the thumbsup from Joe Stiglitz who was interviewed, briefly, on Newsnight last night about a book due out next month called The Three Trillion Dollar War (The true cost of the Iraq conflict). He seemed very firmly of the opinion that the current and future economic struggles were in some considerable part a result of current conflicts.

I think that's very much taking the glass is half full notion to the extreme. :winkold:

Father and Son - Cat Stevens

Bank mortgage lending 'subdued' Well, I'd be a bit confused and concerned if the lending was bullish. :winkold:

Looking at the property section in the local rag this week, I would say that about 20 per cent of properties were being advertised as 'NEW PRICE'. I can only infer from this that they have been reduced in price and a large number of these properties I recognize from being in the paper for the last two or three months, at least (one has been on the market for well over six months). There also appears to be a flood of properties coming on to the market as 'NEW INSTRUCTION'. Now this is not representative of anything in itself but, along with the fact that existing properties on the market in the area are not selling, it would not suggest the most bouyant and healthy of market places, surely? Round the corner from me an old victorian building was rennovated and made in to flats and at the same time a new building was built next to it (same plot) containing 'apartments'. There have been 'only three remaining' since well before Christmas. I can only deduce that i might not be the ideal time to purchase a property in the Malvern/South Worcestershire area at the moment - especially as a short term investment and when you factor in the expected Qinetiq redundancies and work force trimming (at least half of which are thought to be happening at the Malvern site).

I'm interested, going back to these questions, what your answers to your own questions are. Are you comfortable with the idea of analysis of genes in order to predertimine those who might have a tendency to a particular type of behaviour and prejudge them? If so - what is the next step on that road? What do you do with this information? Are people then categorised according to their genetic make-up? On the wider question: What do you see as the raison d'être of the DNA database? Is it to improve detection rates for criminal activities or to protect the public or both or something else? Does the principle of proportionate response have any relevance to the database? If the argument for a universal DNA database is predicated upon the principle that prevention and detection of crime is king, then all sense of whether it is proportionate is irrelevant. We are then only in the position of finding the most effective method and system for achieving those ends and anything that gets in the way of those ends is at best a distraction. That being so - there is no point in drawing any line beyond which we will not cross. Ergo we have our justification for either pharmaceutical or genetic control of actions, thoughts and behaviour or the necessity to ask permission from authorities to act or behave in a particular way (that is otherwise not proscribed).

It isn't my expected use but rather an indication that there are multifarious uses for DNA where there are not for fingerprints. If you can show me someone who can DETERMINE the mext Mr Wright from Ipswich, I'll show you someone who doesn't understand the implications of what they are saying. If you have some sort of database specifically for one purpose then that is the purpose for which it should be used. No other. On te database for convicted criminals - I agree that there is an issue with even those convicted. Does being convicted of nicking a loaf of bread from Tesco mean that for the rest of your life you should be viewed by the state differently to others or the same as Mr Wright of Ipswich? I would draw a parallel between the retention of DNA on a database (for the purpose of assistance in detecting, solving and prosecuting crimes) and the spending of convictions (i.e. under the Rehablitation of Offenders Act).

Surely, you understand that there is a big difference between the potential uses of DNA and the potential uses of fingerprints? :shock: For the sake of completeness, such as what exactly? Not being a scientist (and in particular a genetic specialist), I am not going to even attempt a list of all possible uses for a sample of DNA though I can envisage them being multifarious. I can't see that a fingerprint would carry any potential details about hereditary disease, say. Could a fingerprint state with any degree of probability of a familial relationship between two people (obviously blood relationship)? I thank Gringo for clarifying my position in his post. The clarification was spot on. I have no problem with the use of DNA evidence as a tool - indeed it is a good thing - but I do wonder how long it will be before CPS guidelines are questioned (somewhere in the back of my mind - there is a case where I think this has already happened).

Surely, you understand that there is a big difference between the potential uses of DNA and the potential uses of fingerprints? :shock:

Can you refrain from the continual and unnecessary calling of people 'silly'. It adds nothing to your viewpoint and is for no other purpose than to wind someone up. On the second point, I refer you to: Now, I am not saying that you believe that a DNA match equates with guilt because I give you much more credit than that - however, the kind of comment that you used is being used in various media to give the impression to the populace that these two things do go, necessarily, hand in hand.

The sentence to which you refer was noted in the references of the 58 page document procuded by Gene Watch UK. The sentence referred to: 17. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Human genetic databases: Challenges and opportunities (2001) London: The Stationery Office. Yes these people have an agenda as does eveyone (they don't seem to hide it). They also appear to concentrate specifically upon technological 'advancements' based upon genetic science and looking at them from a public interest point of view. So I might give them, their reports and their references of other scientific/official sources more credence and respect than to just refer to them as 'science fiction'.

Erm... I know I'm not allowed to join in with drat01 in a discussion because he believes that I am unworthy of anything other than insults but I don't see you falling in to this category (I hope). So at the risk of incurring wrath, I do question HOW it is being used as evidence. There seems to be an assumption that this is so unique that it is incontrovertible evidence and that the mere appearance of somone's DNA at a crime scene makes them, without doubt, the guilty party. The appearance of someone's DNA at a crime scene only prove that their DNA is at the crime scene. It is a tool - it is being promoted as some sort of miracle cure for bad detection rates.

Times article Beeb article - admittedly from 2003 but the quote expresses the reservations about the total reliance upon DNA evidence that some have. Excerpt from a document on the Police DNA Database from Gene Watch UK .

What on earth do you mean about my 'eating habits'? And possibly I will keep trying if someone hiding behind their keyboard has seen fit to not comment about the content of my posts but pass judgement on my suitability to join the conversation they are having and thereafter start to mak some sort of insinuations which it seems only they understand.

You did choose to ignore my contribution about the thought that DNA evidence was sound enough in the opinion of some people to prosecute and/or convict on its basis alone and chose to focus on a light hearted comment in order to make a point. It seems that you wish to have a debate solely on your terms and wish to belittle other people in order that they are put off from intruding in to your conversation. If it bored you why did you go to the trouble of posting a yawnnnnnn? And I am interested in the inference I am expected to draw from the 'time for tea' comment.