General Election 2015

How would they help?

 

What are you going to do with them?

 

Y'know, if I suspected you had any fúcking interest in said figures, I'd call the number or send something to the email address on the doc (you could too!).

 

However, we can both see that this is a man with no facts of his own trying to dump on what someone else has provided.

From what I can see it is one man who has obviously researched to an extent, presenting his findings as gospel, even though he can't back it up with hard figures, against a man who has done less research, who wants to question said other man's findings, because he hasnt provided any hard figures.

It seems like it will be a self-perpetuating loop until then. I am sure if you could find figures saying that half of the 30% that are now in private landlords hands then Wes would agree on how much of an issue it is. Until we know whether it was 10, 100, 10,000, 1,000,000 houses it's difficult to see whether this is/was a serious problem.

From what I can see it is one man who has obviously researched to an extent, presenting his findings as gospel, even though he can't back it up with hard figures, against a man who has done less research, who wants to question said other man's findings, because he hasnt provided any hard figures.

 

It seems like it will be a self-perpetuating loop until then. I am sure if you could find figures saying that half of the 30% that are now in private landlords hands then Wes would agree on how much of an issue it is. Until we know whether it was 10, 100, 10,000, 1,000,000 houses it's difficult to see whether this is/was a serious problem.

It is a serious enough problem for the govt to have included four new safeguards against the practice in 2012.

It's only a self-perpetuating loop because you won't accept that.

In other news, UKIP have said they would 'review' funding for any public body (presumably schools, hospitals etc) that promotes diversity.

F*cking scary.

It is a serious enough problem for the govt to have included four new safeguards against the practice in 2012.

 

It's only a self-perpetuating loop because you won't accept that.

The government thinks many things are big issues, so put safeguards in place. Similar to what they have done with disability allowance so that people can't cheat it. However, a lot of people don't think people cheating it is a big issue.

It's a self-perpetuating loop, because you have presented an opinion that we all should take as gospel, just cos you ****ing say-so. If we applied this to everything you said then the 9/11 thread would actually be something to take notice of.

Cos you said it was a big issue, it doesn't mean it is. It means it is an issue, but you don't know how big.

In other news, UKIP have said they would 'review' funding for any public body (presumably schools, hospitals etc) that promotes diversity.

 

F*cking scary.

WTF??

The government thinks many things are big issues, so put safeguards in place. Similar to what they have done with disability allowance so that people can't cheat it. However, a lot of people don't think people cheating it is a big issue.

 

It's a self-perpetuating loop, because you have presented an opinion that we all should take as gospel, just cos you ****ing say-so. If we applied this to everything you said then the 9/11 thread would actually be something to take notice of.

 

Cos you said it was a big issue, it doesn't mean it is. It means it is an issue, but you don't know how big.

Where did I say it should be treated as gospel?

Please stop lying, mate.

Where did I say it should be treated as gospel?

 

Please stop lying, mate.

Ok, so what you're saying isn't true then?

Ok, so what you're saying isn't true then?

Priceless.

Priceless.

You said it's not gospel, which is defined as 'absolutely true'. If you're saying what you have said about this isn't gospel, then you are saying that parts of it are untrue, or unsubstantiated. It stands to reason.

So I'll ask you again, is what you have said true?

I know you've been trying yourself in knots all day, which is why you try to lead off on tangents rather than answering the actual questions/strawmans put to you, but if you want people to take this seriously as an issue you have to be able to quantify how big an issue it is surely? That is literally all that is being asked of you.

In other news, UKIP have said they would 'review' funding for any public body (presumably schools, hospitals etc) that promotes diversity.

 

F*cking scary.

Is that from a newspaper headline or via in-depth analysis of an 80 page document?

You said it's not gospel, which is defined as 'absolutely true'. If you're saying what you have said about this isn't gospel, then you are saying that parts of it are untrue, or unsubstantiated. It stands to reason.

 

So I'll ask you again, is what you have said true?

 

I know you've been trying yourself in knots all day, which is why you try to lead off on tangents rather than answering the actual questions/strawmans put to you, but if you want people to take this seriously as an issue you have to be able to quantify how big an issue it is surely? That is literally all that is being asked of you.

I was simply pointing out that once again, Unbelievable Jeff was lying.

Good luck with your new found, but thoroughly established reputation for mendacity.

Cameron gets serenaded by a busker.

 

"F**k off back to Eton, with all your Eton chums"

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-13/busker-playing-ukulele-tells-david-cameron-f-off-back-to-eton-with-all-your-eton-chums/

 

Takes one to know one I suppose...

http://order-order.com/2015/04/15/eton-ukulele-loon-was-privately-educated/

Takes one to know one I suppose...

 

http://order-order.com/2015/04/15/eton-ukulele-loon-was-privately-educated/

up there with getting egg'd by someone

I was simply pointing out that once again, Unbelievable Jeff was lying.

 

Good luck with your new found, but thoroughly established reputation for mendacity.

Deflection again. Tut tut.

I assumed you were telling the truth. If you weren't, I apologise.

Turns out, as usual, that you just can't back up what you say. Shame.

Not sure, but then you knew that anyway.

Actually pap, given that you've obviously researched the subject in some depth, and even written a blog on it, I did actually expect you to be able to tell us.

You are quite right. I haven't got the time nor inclination to provide complete figures, but then, I was never relying on a specific claim about figures. You introduced that requirement, presumably to narrow the argument in your favour. "Give me all the facts now or you're wrong!" is a shíte debating tactic.

It's not really. You've repeatedly told us about all the former council houses now in the hands of slumlords, and the companies aggressively targeting those with the right to buy to enter into an underhand agreement to turn a quick profit, so it's actually really rather pertinent to get some idea of how common this actually is so that we can all gauge it's relevance to the debate. There's little doubt it happened, but it makes a huge difference if it happened 30 times or 30,000 times. You don't seem to know this, yet expect other to accept your assessment that it's a significant issue.

That's a shíte debating tactic.

Actually pap, given that you've obviously researched the subject in some depth, and even written a blog on it, I did actually expect you to be able to tell us.

 

 

 

It's not really. You've repeatedly told us about all the former council houses now in the hands of slumlords, and the companies aggressively targeting those with the right to buy to enter into an underhand agreement to turn a quick profit, so it's actually really rather pertinent to get some idea of how common this actually is so that we can all gauge it's relevance to the debate. There's little doubt it happened, but it makes a huge difference if it happened 30 times or 30,000 times. You don't seem to know this, yet expect other to accept your assessment that it's a significant issue.

 

That's a shíte debating tactic.

Exactly.

Deflection again. Tut tut.

Sorry mush, but I refuse to explain myself over things you've invented.

All I said was that I never said what you'd attributed to me, which is true. At no point did I say, or have I ever said, "take my opinion as gospel".

When I pointed that out, your limited project manager brain decided that meant that everything I had said up until that point therefore wasn't gospel, and therefore lies.

Are you starting to see why you never made the cut as a coder?

To help out a little ...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/right-to-buy-housing-scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25710150

http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf

Whether London is representative of UK at large on this, I've no idea.

Without going off on a tangent, why do you so often feel the need to get personal in your responses to others, pap? It's not particularly dignified.

Actually pap, given that you've obviously researched the subject in some depth, and even written a blog on it, I did actually expect you to be able to tell us.

 

It's not really. You've repeatedly told us about all the former council houses now in the hands of slumlords, and the companies aggressively targeting those with the right to buy to enter into an underhand agreement to turn a quick profit, so it's actually really rather pertinent to get some idea of how common this actually is so that we can all gauge it's relevance to the debate. There's little doubt it happened, but it makes a huge difference if it happened 30 times or 30,000 times. You don't seem to know this, yet expect other to accept your assessment that it's a significant issue.

 

That's a shíte debating tactic.

I find this post amusing, given that you have presented nothing in the way of facts and figures yourself.

I did actually do a FOI request in 2012 in support of that blog piece. Believe me, I wanted some of this information just as much as you do. The figures we all want aren't there.

6th July, 2012

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thank you for your FOI request of 25th June, 2012 requesting information on

Housing Benefit expenditure specifically on former council property.

I have, where appropriate, responded under each of the questions posed.

 Total amount spent on Housing Benefit for tenants in privately-rented former council housing.

Data not held.

 Total amount spent on Housing Benefit for tenants in existing council stock.

£36,898,098

 Total number of former council properties now rented to DSS claimants by private landlords

Data not held.

 Total number of existing council properties rented to DSS claimants.

7387 claimants are receiving state benefits from Department for Work and Pensions.

 Total number of council properties prior to introduction of right-to-buy schemes

Approximate figure 30,000 as Right to Buy was introduced in 1980 and exact data no longer held.

Now let's see your fúcking research and figures

Sorry mush, but I refuse to explain myself over things you've invented.

 

All I said was that I never said what you'd attributed to me, which is true. At no point did I say, or have I ever said, "take my opinion as gospel".

 

When I pointed that out, your limited project manager brain decided that meant that everything I had said up until that point therefore wasn't gospel, and therefore lies.

 

Are you starting to see why you never made the cut as a coder?

See, now who's lying:

You said it's not gospel, which is defined as 'absolutely true'. If you're saying what you have said about this isn't gospel, then you are saying that parts of it are untrue, or unsubstantiated. It stands to reason.

 

I would never have made it as a coder, nowhere near socially inept enough. And why would I want to be? Paid less, respected less, spend all day in front of a screen without interacting with real people? No, I certainly made the correct decision with what to do with a non-computer related degree.

Is that from a newspaper headline or via in-depth analysis of an 80 page document?

Their manifesto.

Without going off on a tangent, why do you so often feel the need to get personal in your responses to others, pap? It's not particularly dignified.

It happens when he starts losing an argument. It's a shame because as soon as he starts insulting, it descends into name-calling, which means he doesn't have to answer the questions asked. Great deflection tactic though I have to say.

To help out a little ...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/right-to-buy-housing-scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25710150

http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf

 

Whether London is representative of UK at large on this, I've no idea.

I'd suspect it's not, given the variance in average house price between London and the national average, but that is only my suspicion. What we don't get from these pieces are any numbers on the number of purchases that were contrived in order to provide profit to dodgy companies.

I'm not surprised that a large % of those former council homes are now in private ownership. I know plenty of people in London who rent or own former local authority houses and flats. That not necessarily a bad thing though.

I'd suspect it's not, given the variance in average house price between London and the national average, but that is only my suspicion. What we don't get from these pieces are any numbers on the number of purchases that were contrived in order to provide profit to dodgy companies.

 

I'm not surprised that a large % of those former council homes are now in private ownership. I know plenty of people in London who rent or own former local authority houses and flats. That not necessarily a bad thing though.

My sister bought an ex local authority place in Tooting last year, the block is a mix between both ex and current council tenants.

See, now who's lying:

 

I would never have made it as a coder, nowhere near socially inept enough. And why would I want to be? Paid less, respected less, spend all day in front of a screen without interacting with real people? No, I certainly made the correct decision with what to do with a non-computer related degree.

Let me get this straight. You're using your post as proof of something I've said. Right.

Additionally, thou doth protest too much.

Let me get this straight. You're using your post as proof of something I've said. Right.

 

Additionally, thou doth protest too much.

Sigh, this is going to be a really long afternoon if you keep on like this. Read the bold bit.

You're the one that seems to have an issue with what I do. Perhaps you feel bad that you have to take orders from people like me, I don't know. Can't have you feeling inferior can we, not with all the high horse bravado bull**** you show on here.

Their manifesto.

Which page? You seem to have got hold of a copy before me

I find this post amusing, given that you have presented nothing in the way of facts and figures yourself.

 

...

 

Now let's see your fúcking research and figures

Alright Sweary Mary, calm yourself down first.

I've not made any assertions on the subject that demand to be backed with facts and figures, but be sure to ask if there's something I have asserted that you'd like a little more clarification on and I'll see what I can do.

As for you actual figures presented, well, they don't really tell us anything do they? And they certainly don't do anything to support your warnings of these houses being hoovered up by slum landlords and sold off en masse to tenants working clandestinely with dodgy companies intent on turning murky profits.

I've no doubt that there have been some cases of this, but without knowing how many it's impossible to make an informed decision on whether the costs outweigh the benefits. But then, I suspect you knew that and just hoped that you'd get away with it.

Sigh, this is going to be a really long afternoon if you keep on like this. Read the bold bit.

Those bold two words? Oh yeah, makes all the difference

You ask me for facts and figures to prove my case, but offer nowt in return. What is your counter-evidence to something that the govt itself has recognised as "a major enough" problem to introduce four additional safeguards in 2012?

You're the one that seems to have an issue with what I do. Perhaps you feel bad that you have to take orders from people like me, I don't know. Can't have you feeling inferior can we, not with all the high horse bravado bull**** you show on here.

Don't think so, mush. I think it's you with the real problem. Btw, I very have very much enjoyed your sweeping generalisations about coders, especially the socially inept part. That's a man with his finger on the pulse

Not as accurate as my PM generalisations, but you can't have everything.

Alright Sweary Mary, calm yourself down first.

 

I've not made any assertions on the subject that demand to be backed with facts and figures, but be sure to ask if there's something I have asserted that you'd like a little more clarification on and I'll see what I can do.

 

As for you actual figures presented, well, they don't really tell us anything do they? And they certainly don't do anything to support your warnings of these houses being hoovered up by slum landlords and sold off en masse to tenants working clandestinely with dodgy companies intent on turning murky profits.

 

I've no doubt that there have been some cases of this, but without knowing how many it's impossible to make an informed decision on whether the costs outweigh the benefits. But then, I suspect you knew that and just hoped that you'd get away with it.

No the figures don't tell us everything. I wish they did.

But perhaps we can move away from the default fúcking assumption that I've done as much research as yourself, which is zero.

Ta.

Which page? You seem to have got hold of a copy before me

I'm sure heads would roll, Lord T.

From that left-wing bastion the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905827/The-tenants-benefits-buying-council-house-one-five-applicants-receive-handouts.html

and from the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3cdcb00-d161-11e4-98a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XOLhfhgk

From that left-wing bastion the Daily Mail

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905827/The-tenants-benefits-buying-council-house-one-five-applicants-receive-handouts.html

 

and from the FT

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3cdcb00-d161-11e4-98a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XOLhfhgk

Hmm. Doesn't look like those safeguards are working.

60,000 tenants targeted by a private firm and a 400% increase in right to buy fraud.

Since the reforms.

Those bold two words? Oh yeah, makes all the difference

 

You ask me for facts and figures to prove my case, but offer nowt in return. What is your counter-evidence to something that the govt itself has recognised as "a major enough" problem to introduce four additional safeguards in 2012?

 

 

 

Don't think so, mush. I think it's you with the real problem. Btw, I very have very much enjoyed your sweeping generalisations about coders, especially the socially inept part. That's a man with his finger on the pulse

 

Not as accurate as my PM generalisations, but you can't have everything.

:lol:

My word. So you call me a liar for me saying that you 'said it as gospel', and then say that I can't call you a liar for misquoting me? Glad to see Pap the hypocrite is making ANOTHER appearance on this thread.

Considering I never bring up you being a coder without you prompting me first, it's quite funny that you seem to think I pine to be a coder, but ok then. To be honest, I don't really care what you think of PM's, it's not what I do, and it's not even really that close to the skillset needed to do the job I do. It's a bit like me describing you as a tester, but to be honest I don't think you have the attention to detail of that.

No the figures don't tell us everything. I wish they did.

 

But perhaps we can move away from the default fúcking assumption that I've done as much research as yourself, which is zero.

 

Ta.

What is they say about assumptions?

Come and join me on the other thread - "Why seatbelts should be banned" - where I'm telling everyone that will listen, and plenty that don't want to, that we must ban seatbelts from cars because they kill people involved in accidents. I'm not going to tell anyone how many they kill (between you and me, pap, I don't know, but I'm not letting on!) and I'm refusing to accept that they save lives too. Wade in on my side of the debate, you'll feel right at home.

What is they say about assumptions?

 

Come and join me on the other thread - "Why seatbelts should be banned" - where I'm telling everyone that will listen, and plenty that don't want to, that we must ban seatbelts from cars because they kill people involved in accidents. I'm not going to tell anyone how many they kill (between you and me, pap, I don't know, but I'm not letting on!) and I'm refusing to accept that they save lives too. Wade in on my side of the debate, you'll feel right at home.

:lol:

I don't think that is as relevant as fire prevention, which is far better (e.g. more use of smoke alarms, better fire resistant materials, less people smoking, better electrical safety for instance)

 

Here are the changes over the last decade...

 

Overall attendance at incidents is down 40 per cent

Attendance at fires is down 48 per cent;

Building fires, down 39 per cent;

Minor outdoor fires, down 44 per cent;

Road traffic collisions, down 24 per cent;

 

I am sorry, but how can anyone expect to have the same numbers of firefighters and pay them more money, based on the above stats??

 

That doesn't stop the FB unions (flying in the face of common sense), to continue bashing the nasty wasty tories...

Like I said, it's probably more about response times than workloads.

For example could probably do away with all current fire stations and have one massive one based in Birmingham and cover the workload - except in Cornwall you would have an average response time of 4 hours. That would keep you Tories happy but wouldn't be an effective service for Cornwall.

What is they say about assumptions?

 

Come and join me on the other thread - "Why seatbelts should be banned" - where I'm telling everyone that will listen, and plenty that don't want to, that we must ban seatbelts from cars because they kill people involved in accidents. I'm not going to tell anyone how many they kill (between you and me, pap, I don't know, but I'm not letting on!) and I'm refusing to accept that they save lives too. Wade in on my side of the debate, you'll feel right at home.

:lol:

Given that all your content is assumption, and I've made an earnest effort at discovery, I'm happy enough.

I know what they say about assumptions. Yes, you both are

Like I said, it's probably more about response times than workloads.

 

For example could probably do away with all current fire stations and have one massive one based in Birmingham and cover the workload - except in Cornwall you would have an average response time of 4 hours. That would keep you Tories happy but wouldn't be an effective service for Cornwall.

Surely it's more about reducing staff to sensible levels needed to cover the fires, rather than keeping an underworked, larger staff in work.

Like I said, it's probably more about response times than workloads.

 

For example could probably do away with all current fire stations and have one massive one based in Birmingham and cover the workload - except in Cornwall you would have an average response time of 4 hours. That would keep you Tories happy but wouldn't be an effective service for Cornwall.

Sounds like there might be a happy medium somewhere between the two extremes though, maybe?

Given that all your content is assumption, and I've made an earnest effort at discovery, I'm happy enough.

 

I know what they say about assumptions. Yes, you both are

Brilliant!

Today's been entertaining, so thank you for your 'insight'.

I know what they say about assumptions. Yes, you both are

Should I now expect to be called a poohead, or similar?

I'll be back in the morning to find out.

Laters, all.

Brilliant!

 

Today's been entertaining, so thank you for your 'insight'.

No worries, Jeff.

Got to have something to do while you wait for your devs to humour you

 

Should I now expect to be called a poohead, or similar?

Ah, c'mon.

You can hardly moan. You set it up, FFS!

Like I said, it's probably more about response times than workloads.

 

For example could probably do away with all current fire stations and have one massive one based in Birmingham and cover the workload - except in Cornwall you would have an average response time of 4 hours. That would keep you Tories happy but wouldn't be an effective service for Cornwall.

Why not have a fireman and appliance based in every house? Instant response. The would keep the FB unions and lefties happy?? Hey, we could see if Gordon Brown's magic money tree is still in his back garden. Now there's a fully costed and funded policy. You know it makes sense.

Or why dont we educate people and do more on fire prevention to reduce the number of incidents, so that the need for fire services are reduced. Oh, wait a minute...

Why not have a fireman and appliance based in every house? Instant response. The would keep the FB unions and lefties happy?? Hey, we could see if Gordon Brown's magic money tree is still in his back garden. Now there's a fully costed and funded policy. You know it makes sense.

 

Or why dont we educate people and do more on fire prevention to reduce the number of incidents, so that the need for fire services are reduced. Oh, wait a minute...

Good idea. Let's extend it to health, safetly, lifestyle, handling budgets....

Right to Buy = Buy To Let in London.

http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf

This is before the latest proposed change. UJ and Torres will be pleased to know that facts and figures are provided in some detail.

I am looking forward to their detailed analysis. Go boys!

I always though Pap and Jeff were mates?

Right to Buy = Buy To Let in London.

 

http://tomcopley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/From-Right-to-Buy-to-Buy-to-Let-Jan-2014.pdf

 

This is before the latest proposed change. UJ and Torres will be pleased to know that facts and figures are provided in some detail.

 

I am looking forward to their detailed analysis. Go boys!

What an excellent piece of work!