Get one of those helicopter drone things.

Therefore killing certain guilty people may not be wrong?

If locking people up is wrong then punishing people by locking them up is also wrong. Just logic that is all.

No, an argument given here is that we mustn’t kill people as a punishment as we say killing people is wrong. There are other, correct, reasons for this.

Or fine thieves? Do the reason not to kill murderers is not because killing people is wrong.

Maybe this is why we used to send bad people to Australia in the 1800s, saved this sort of paradox.

Mine asks if I want to navigate to the start point.

Can’t you just look at the route online and see where the start is before you drive out?

If it’s wrong to put to death a murderer is it also wrong to lock up a kidnapper?

I have an invitation – not much use for my Windows phone 🙁

I salute anyone about to play AC/DC in work.

Charles De Menzies – it wasn’t just the policeman’s decision though was it? All a bit of a c0ck up but our legal system says it’s OK to kill someone who is believed to be about to kill others.

Killing is wrong unless a judge/jury decide it’s appropriate.

Did killing Bin Laden do any good?

You can’t have much confidence in our police officers if you think they’re at threat from a pensioner

Is this pensioner armed?

Who else is willing to pay what he’s worth?

I dunno, police are working to protect us, if(!) greater sentences makes them safer then would help them with their job.

Give big punishments to the police that abuse their position though.

Pyschopaths can only ever be controlled not rehabilitated.

How much time at this level? Need to spend time proving yourself – maybe you have. Thing is you’ll be in a great position to move into a more senior role soon, play the long game.

An article looking at net asset value rather than income – £1m for top 10%

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/21/british-household-1m-assets

Talk to a contractor mortgage specialist maybe? I was with Woolwich/Barclays before I contracted, they wouldn’t talk to me when I wanted to move house so I got a contractor mortgage person to sort out for me – still with the Woolwich/Barclays.

BTW, my fab mortgage calculator:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al-Bq4gR-Hn7dHdROXVlaFJtYnFQSlVoZzI2c085R0E&usp=sharing

Those setting the fixed rates build in their expectations of where rates will go over the time of the loan. So they expect to make money out of the fixed rate deal – those taking out a fixed rate deal should see it as paying for insurance so that if something unexpectedly nasty does happen you’re covered.

I’ve never taken out a fixed rate since my 1st house in 1996 and have come out on top.

There should be some governmental plan that says if prices rise by X% then we encourage (make planning permissiona available, cut tax for builders, whatever) the building of Y houses to prevent that.

It seems that one problem is builders are holding onto land that could be developed – are they waiting for the time when developing it will be hit some profitability threshold? Or whilst they have easier/cheaper developments? I don’t know but in the SE they want to build on the greenbelt as that’s where some high selling prices can be achieved easily. Big debate about whether this will be allowed. Apart from brownfield sites (how much is there?) there isn’t anywhere much to build around London that isn’t going to reduce the green space that so many value so highly. We do need a lot more housing and it’s going to upset a lot of people. Got to push jobs away from London, having a single key city is not great – may countries have Gov’t located in a separate city from the financial centre; no idea how that came about though.

But what are you going to do with it? Move out and be homeless? You cant access the money, even if you look at it like an investment it doesn’t work as every other house os going up at the same rate and you always need one. Rising prices havent benefited anyone, they just suck money out of the economy, we’d be in a whole lot less trouble if we built some more houses, halved their value and everyone had another £500 free to spend each month.

Well you could move somewhere cheaper – people in London often move out to cheaper spots. They could buy a cheaper house and also a BTL and suddenly they have more income so by this measure they are better off. Those that have no mortgage must surely be considered better off than those that do on similar incomes.

If property prices half then lots in negative equity; not good. Perhaps a significant adjustment in hot spots might be useful as hits the better off more than others but hard to see how to engineer that.

Yes that makes sense.

Doesn’t Kensington and Chelsea have one of the lowest council tax rates in the country ?

Does that have anything to do with the fact that most properties are in the top band?

Do people think of assets or income when considering how rich someone might be? Even if the assets aren’t generating a great return you could live just by burning through it – try not to end up like a bankrupt footballer though….

Simplistic? yes. Random? no. Accurate? Dunno – watch the show.

Maybe it’ll help some people understand that as much as a struggle things seem for them there are those who are worse off – and those need benefits we throw at them.

They have a greater disposable income they are not better off as they still get the same amount of money.

So having a, say, £500k asset isn’t relevant?

Well it obviously it is as if I rented out my property I’d now have an additional income but have to pay rent/mortgage on another place. Reduced outgoing is as good as increased income – better as no tax.

ignoring property seems odd for sure

Why ? In order to have an outgoing you need to be able to afford it and the bigger the mortgage you can afford the richer you are.
Why is this confusing people?

It’s the other way around IMO. Some have nice houses and low mortgage (so own most of their house), they are better off than most who have the same income.

I’m hoping the programme discusses why they’ve chosen this approach, ignoring property seems odd for sure – other assets might provide an income but property/no mortgage saves on outgoings.

Seems to me capital is ignored but relevant – those who have had a property for a few years are in a far stronger financial position than those without.

Seems I have quite a talented tongue…I see from googling that there’s a thing called a tongue clover that I can do.

Don’t want to go all the way through?

Yep – can all toungue rollers also fold it back on itself?

Here is my rather useful mortgage calculator I share on here sometimes:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al-Bq4gR-Hn7dHdROXVlaFJtYnFQSlVoZzI2c085R0E&usp=sharing

Bit of a scraping perhaps, would be fine with marmalade.

I try to book hotels when working away that provide black pudding for breakfast – sometimes it isn’t so great but I still enjoy.

‘Black puddings are no good to us. I want something’s flesh!’

Tenuous?

Held the door open at my Chiswick gym for Janine Butcher actor from Eastenders – shared a smile.

Will Mellor stopped at at a zebra crossing for me – shared a smile.

It’s all art just much of it is worthless and we don’t want it spoiling our environment. Banksy’s output is deemed desirable and valuable – but he was having a go at them!

Bit of a mix:

1989 – Renault 14
1995 – Nissan Micra
2000 – Ford Puma
2011 – Skoda Roomster

I was under the impression that as a charity they’re only allowed to retain a couple of years running costs in the bank, so they spend what they can otherwise they lose it??

How would that work?