pap

Oh, ok. buctootim was replying to my post, not JonnyBoy's. Then you replied to that. You can see how a man might get confused.

Breaking Bad Babylon 5 The Wire True Blood

Cool your jets, hypo. No-one is accusing you of being a paedo. I am accusing you of inventing girlfriends, which isn't even punishable by law. On a more serious note, I also find your attitude a little puzzling or at the very least, premature in the light of the more detailed allegations that everybody knew was coming.

I haven't seen Witch Hunt yet. Does it comprehensively debunk all of the personal accounts in the Exposure TV programme?

Super contribution as always, TDD. Not really sure I like the term "liberal" though. What are you if I'm that?

Watched Exposure yet? It's not judicial proof but there are a number of people, not just the alleged victims, going on record. Two real possibilities from this. Either all of these people have decided to add their weight to an untrue story in a grand conspiracy ( what do they get out of it, btw? ) or the accusations have some basis in truth. As for mob mentality / lynching - you're right to point that out, but do at least try self-apply that if you want to sound credible when making the point. I can remember a few occasions when you've ploughed right in with the mob.

I for one admire hypo's impassioned defence of a late TV entertainer accused of child abuse. He must know a lot more than those women who pretty much all accused him of the same thing. Still, because this didn't emerge as a story during his lifetime ( sounds like people wanted to go public ) then we should probably just leave it. From hypo's point-of-view, all the women that complained are probably imaginary.

Isn't one of the key principles of the monarchy that the monarch is the Crown personified? It's odd that these "nominal" rights and powers are so powerful Owns all the land. Law cannot pass without the monarch's assent. Parliament arranged and run at the Crown's invitation. Not bad for "nominal", eh?

It matters because people, particularly monarchists, are keen to point out that the Queen's role is ceremonial. All power still resides in the Crown, all land still belongs to the Crown. Big difference between land seizures for emergencies and the concept of someone owning something forever.

Business Insider thought this last year. http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1 Concept of land tenure still in place, isn't it?

That may well be the case, but then, Obama doesn't legally and personally own all of the US. Elizabeth not only owns everything bit of land in the UK, but also places like Australia and Canada. No private citizen can ever truly own a part of this country. Don't suppose that's factored into the value for money calcs

Certainly makes "now then, now then" sound a bit more sinister.

I wouldn't point to any one cause, but buy-to-let massive factor compounded by the fact it was never adequately replenished. Whitey Grandad makes a decent point when talking about population increases, and you mention immigration, which is also another source of demand in a market short on supply. I completely agree that we need to build more housing stock, yet I also think that not all of it should be allocated based on need. I'd like to see new stock built and a good proportion of it allocated along the same lines as the way mortgages get allocated. i.e. have you held down a job for a couple of years? Needs-based policy has its heart in the right place, but it's totally the wrong message to send out to young families who are out there and actually trying to earn. I reckon building stock for short-term occupation (5-10 years-ish) specifically aimed at people looking to save for a deposit for a house would be an excellent move. You could offer dirt cheap rent coupled with a component that makes the "saving for deposit" thing an integral part of their rental contract. I think we also need to do a lot more to get self-build on the go. Others have mentioned the problems with onerous planning permission. I'm interested in self-build. The difference in price between a place with no PP, outline PP and specific PP varies massively. Your choices boil down to pay through the nose for guaranteed permission or take an educated guess (gamble) on winning planning permission on land that hasn't got it before, with all the costly advice seeking that entails and may fail anyway. Doesn't inspire confidence. Given that PP is one of the biggest barriers, reckon we'd be much better off with a degree of zoning. The government would be onto a winner if it sold half acre plots with utilities wired in and outline PP guaranteed. Ties into your detached house notion quite well.

I feel that once again, this is one of those occasions where you are perhaps seeing the world through the prism of the financially gentler times you experienced. You used to be able to buy a house with 3 times your annual salary. Today, the average house price is £160K, the average salary is £26K. That's just over 6 times the average salary.

Yes. Not really. The key thing is to realise that the Emperor is in the nip, and always has been. 500K mortgages in a land of 25K average salary? We must all be doing well! It's a paper tiger, guv. One of the classic distinctions between capitalist and communist systems is who gets dibs on the means of production. Businessmen normally lay claim in capitalist societies, while your state runs things in pinko-ville. That distinction still exists in places around the world, but Britain has a singular problem here. The collapse of our manufacturing base means that in many areas, we simply don't have the means of production. We're an outsourced economy. Many of the captains of industry are doing all they can to accelerate that, largely to satisfy shareholders who treat their stocks like casino chips. I can sort of understand people's reluctance to point out the Emperor's giant schlong in the good old days of unlimited credit, especially homeowners who were quids in if they opted for a down-size, a cheeky self-build or a move up North Now that we're getting asked to chow down, with big reductions in living standards and loss of public services, I find the slavish support for a clearly broken system a little harder to swallow, so to speak. Some food for thought:- The US is massively in debt. They have a debt clock which counts up alarming speeds, going through money like a Sex in a City fan with a platinum card in a high-end shoe shop. Theoretically, if people stopped lending them dosh tomorrow - they would be f*cked. Some adjustment would be inevitable, but practically, they've got everything they need to initially survive, and eventually thrive in that country. What's stopping them, really?

The money is not going to the tenant, is it? Straight to the landlord, and ironically, the high cost of housing makes it prohibitive for many tenants to ever get off the dole. Something that as you rightly point out, they are getting for free, is actually a lot more difficult to pay for on an honest wage. Properties on the Flower Estates are going for around 1K a month on the private rental market. The cheeky bast*rds are even listing 3 bedroomed houses as four beds ( two reception rooms! ) on Right Move. What do you reckon the chances are of someone presently on DSS in one of those gaffes getting a job that is going to cover their rental costs? The net result is that the tax payer will end up forking out for those properties in perpetuity, with the buy-to-let landlord trousering the readies.

As I alluded to in a previous post, a big part of the welfare bill is going to landlords. The rates they charge are tied to property values, which indirectly influence the cost of the rental market. Property values were inflated by the influx of credit, and are still not really down to their normal levels. I keep banging this drum, but paying for your home, irrespective of whether you buy or rent, is everyone's biggest monthly bill unless you're lucky enough to own outright. The massive rise in property costs means that someone can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still be on welfare. I'd say that's where we've gone massively wrong.

Depends on the definition of "earned" I suppose. Did the Duke of Buckingham "earn" his massive Mayfair estate, for example? What about people who have got buy-to-let mortgages renting to people on Housing Benefit? I consider every pound paid to them to be an utter waste of our money. How about the people who perhaps earn the most, the professional gamblers of the financial services industry? Would you say they've earned their immense fortune, which continued to be paid out after it was revealed that everything they were doing was a complete crock of sh!t? Let's not even start with the brand conscious loan sharks like wonga.com, or indeed, the likes of Provident, who's genius idea was (and still is) "target the desperate". I had some lovely lady phone me up today to tell me that my computer was infected ( infections are worse than virii, apparently ). I don't know what her motive was, but ultimately, someone in that organisation is driven by money, and wants me to go to a nasty web site or buy something I don't need (and potentially harmful) so he or she can get hold of mine. The problem with equating success with money is that money is very easy to make, if you don't give a f*ck about how you go about making it, or indeed, how much tax you pay on it when you are done. A lot of the "successful" people you praise either haven't had to work for it, have had a massive advantage over your archetypal man on the street, in terms of both preparation and capital. Some, like the slum landlords, are wilfully speculating knowing the tax payer will pick up the bill. Others will just trample over people's lives and happiness to get it.

I'd argue that the situation in Northern Ireland is a little different. One of the consequences of the Good Friday Agreement was that all communities would have democratic representation in Stormont. At the time, a lot of people were expecting the likes of the UUP and the SDLP to clean up in the consequent elections, especially since both did so much to get the peace process to where it was. When push came to shove, people ended up voting for the more extreme parties, such as the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein. They ended up getting into power and ministerial posts were divvied out based on who the people had voted for. No-one really voted for Blair to be Middle East peace envoy. The positions lacks democratic legitimacy. Another stark difference is likely participation. Irrespective of what you think of them, DUP and SF will be part of Northern Ireland's future and will have to work together for peace. Apart from helping to kick the whole thing off, Tony is not really part of the fabric of the Middle East, and is more likely to prevent progress than accelerate it.

There is a lot of sympathy with this view. Another huge problem, perhaps related to this, is authenticity of politicians. Seeing a politician on TV espouse the party line and repeatedly refuse to be drawn into any sort of genuine dialogue is one of the biggest turn-offs in politics. It's less about saying what you believe in and much more about parroting the party line and staying on-message.

I think it actually starts with political will. Tony Blair is the perfect appointment for the amount of political will that presently exists, which is close to zero in the countries that actually matter. Like you say, there are so many variables at play when it comes to the Middle East that is almost impossible to untangle them into a coherent plan for resolution. Even so, there are steps that the UK can take to be in a better position to influence things later on. An independent foreign policy would be a start.

Yeah, I'm not proud, Tim. But like Scotty says, quite true. Was reading an interview with Kofi Annan in the Guardian concerning Blair's role. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't done much. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/30/kofi-annan-dont-pick-fight

Yeah, think you'll be getting used to quite a bit. Defending in 12/13 got a different emphasis.

What really grates me about Blair's post PM career is his role as peace envoy for the Middle East. Bit like asking Hitler to be peace envoy for Europe in 1945.

I'm not getting too wound up about it. It's Everton, always capable of being a good side, always capable of being a thorn in our side. Like you say, this particular Everton is impressive, well drilled and when Fellaini can be arsed playing, he's one of the best midfielders in the league. If they've learned something from it, great - but I wasn't expecting points from this fixture.