Also in the News - Part 2

[Zear0]

Power cycle should fix it. 

[Leeds Fox]

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

Just looked on the flight radar and planes are coming and going from Heathrow/Gatwick as usual. 

Airspace can be managed without NATS mainframe for essential flights so traffic will be present, just not as normal.

 

6 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

I wouldn't be surprised if some country might have something to do with it...naming no names 

 

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

Hmmm seems a bit sus. Russian ICBM’s on the way? 

From what I’ve heard, it’s genuinely just technical issues with the system. There are redundancies available for failures; having each RADAR feed amalgamated into a wider air picture but it unlikely to get it within CAA regs (after flight testing when used operationally at short notice) within the time it’d take to get the system back functional. 
 

Edit: I’ve pretty much just said the redundancy isn’t sufficient, but it’s capable of getting flights grounded safely in these events which is it’s purpose. 

Edited 28 August 2023 by Leeds Fox

[FoyleFox]

10 hours ago, StanSP said:

UK airspace shuts after air traffic control system failure. What a bank holiday...

Not impacting the police helicopter whizzing around NW Leicestershire this evening. They should update twitter as to why they're out, so nosey gits like me know what's going on!

[Daggers]

Well, this would certainly exp[lain most of the matchday thread posts and 25% of the country's voting intention: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66643241

[Bellend Sebastian]

15 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Well, this would certainly exp[lain most of the matchday thread posts and 25% of the country's voting intention: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66643241

You say that but if we get lucky and the worm eats the parts of people's brains that are responsible for their terrible personality we may yet be winners

[Daggers]

Well I for one welcome them

 

 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

You say that but if we get lucky and the worm eats the parts of people's brains that are responsible for their terrible personality we may yet be winners

Yup, it's all about the specific part. Preferably the part responsible for tribal self interest.

[Foxdiamond]

The government looking to ease regulations to allow more houses to be built. So look forward to more crap entering our rivers and other waterways

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

The government looking to ease regulations to allow more houses to be built. So look forward to more crap entering our rivers and other waterways

All they've needed to do for years now is stop further buy to let purchases.

There are 2.7m landlords in the UK. They buy virtually everything at the bottom end of the market, inflating demand and outbidding first time buyers who would otherwise buy those properties. They are the problem with the market. As individuals they're just trying to what they think it's best for their families but the job of government is to see a problem and stop it affecting society negatively, which is what we now have. 

[dsr-burnley]

50 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

All they've needed to do for years now is stop further buy to let purchases.

There are 2.7m landlords in the UK. They buy virtually everything at the bottom end of the market, inflating demand and outbidding first time buyers who would otherwise buy those properties. They are the problem with the market. As individuals they're just trying to what they think it's best for their families but the job of government is to see a problem and stop it affecting society negatively, which is what we now have. 

The government is already trying to make letting property so unprofitable that it will drive landlords out of the market and tenants out into the streets.  Then there will be lots of empty properties for people to buy.  The fate of the evicted tenants is uncertain.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The government is already trying to make letting property so unprofitable that it will drive landlords out of the market and tenants out into the streets.  Then there will be lots of empty properties for people to buy.  The fate of the evicted tenants is uncertain.

Millions of tenants would be able to buy if they weren't paying swingeing rents and landlords hadn't decided their profits were more important than other people having homes of their own. Government allowing this sort of landlordism has virtually ended the hope of most of a generation from building the sort of wealth the landlord generation have been able to build. 

[Lionator]

19 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Millions of tenants would be able to buy if they weren't paying swingeing rents and landlords hadn't decided their profits were more important than other people having homes of their own. Government allowing this sort of landlordism has virtually ended the hope of most of a generation from building the sort of wealth the landlord generation have been able to build. 

The government have really destroyed the future of the country in order to keep their voter base happy. They’re obviously running out of time and good will now but they’ve done their job where they’ve stacked all of these assets in the hands of the older and richer. Those younger or those with less of a leg to stand on have very little of their own. A proper two tier society, less of a class system and more of a have and have not society. 

[dsr-burnley]

35 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Millions of tenants would be able to buy if they weren't paying swingeing rents and landlords hadn't decided their profits were more important than other people having homes of their own. Government allowing this sort of landlordism has virtually ended the hope of most of a generation from building the sort of wealth the landlord generation have been able to build. 

And millions more wouldn't.  How is a single parent on benefits supposed to get a mortgage?  Or pensioners, or people with bad credit records, or people who just can't cope with the responsibilities of home ownership?  It's all very well working towards the idea of the council, and ONLY the council, providing housing for those that can't pay for it themselves, but (rather like the schools thread) it puts people - the poorer people - into a position where they have no choice at all where to live.

 

The prime reason house prices are so high is because too many people want to live in too few houses.  Simple answer - build more, in places where people want them.  

[dsr-burnley]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The government have really destroyed the future of the country in order to keep their voter base happy. They’re obviously running out of time and good will now but they’ve done their job where they’ve stacked all of these assets in the hands of the older and richer. Those younger or those with less of a leg to stand on have very little of their own. A proper two tier society, less of a class system and more of a have and have not society. 

Are you harking back to a happier time when the young were as rich as the old and there were no poor?  When was this exactly?  

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

Are you harking back to a happier time when the young were as rich as the old and there were no poor?  When was this exactly?  

Most twenty somethings don’t own houses unlike their parents who bought them with a much lower ratio mortgage compared to salary. 

[dsr-burnley]

10 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Most twenty somethings don’t own houses unlike their parents who bought them with a much lower ratio mortgage compared to salary. 

That's because there aren't enough houses, not because the wrong sort of person is buying them.  Build more houses and the price will drop.  

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

33 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And millions more wouldn't.  How is a single parent on benefits supposed to get a mortgage?  Or pensioners, or people with bad credit records, or people who just can't cope with the responsibilities of home ownership?  It's all very well working towards the idea of the council, and ONLY the council, providing housing for those that can't pay for it themselves, but (rather like the schools thread) it puts people - the poorer people - into a position where they have no choice at all where to live.

 

The prime reason house prices are so high is because too many people want to live in too few houses.  Simple answer - build more, in places where people want them.  

House prices are so high because 2.7m landlords have bought tens of millions of properties at the bottom end of the market. 

I haven't suggested we don't need any landlords, but that number is vastly smaller than what we have and without them prices would be very much lower.

Landlords have benefited from zero risk investments handing them huge profits for zero skill set the expense of whole generations.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

House prices are so high because 2.7m landlords have bought tens of millions of properties at the bottom end of the market. 

I haven't suggested we don't need any landlords, but that number is vastly smaller than what we have and without them prices would be very much lower.

Landlords have benefited from zero risk investments handing them huge profits for zero skill set the expense of whole generations.

Being a landlord isn't zero risk.  Not all tenants are angels; rented properties have been known to be handed back in a worse condition than they were let.  

 

I don't see why property being owned by landlords makes such a vast difference to the housing market.  If the tenants are paying enough rent to cover the mortgage, then the tenants could in many cases have bought the property themselves.  Are perhaps the tenants getting the rent paid by social security and that's distorting the market?  Even if that is so, then either they would have to have their mortgage paid by the state after they were forced to buy, or else the councils would be forced into a mass buying spree when they were forced to rehouse the evicted tenants, so the market would still be distorted.

 

Build more houses, and prices will drop.  The number of households is going up faster than the houses to fit them.

 

(There are fewer than five million rented homes in this country, so landlords haven't bought tens of millions of them)

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Being a landlord isn't zero risk.  Not all tenants are angels; rented properties have been known to be handed back in a worse condition than they were let.  

 

I don't see why property being owned by landlords makes such a vast difference to the housing market.  If the tenants are paying enough rent to cover the mortgage, then the tenants could in many cases have bought the property themselves.  Are perhaps the tenants getting the rent paid by social security and that's distorting the market?  Even if that is so, then either they would have to have their mortgage paid by the state after they were forced to buy, or else the councils would be forced into a mass buying spree when they were forced to rehouse the evicted tenants, so the market would still be distorted.

 

Build more houses, and prices will drop.  The number of households is going up faster than the houses to fit them.

 

(There are fewer than five million rented homes in this country, so landlords haven't bought tens of millions of them)

If you don't think landlords buying everything within sight at the bottom of the market affects the market, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance. 

 

The issue for first time buyers is not the monthly payment. It's the ability to save a deposit when prices have risen beyond what is remotely reasonable and rent costs keep increasing.

 

Being a landlord is absolutely zero risk. Constantly rising house values, effectively underwritten by the taxpayer through various schemes over the years, means their houses are getting bought for them by their tenants. Having to pay for clean up really isn't a huge cost Vs the guaranteed profits of housing investment. But somehow the actual house being bought and paid for by rental payments gets missed when landlords complain about having some costs. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66647445

 

Carlsen and Niemann settle their dispute.

 

Given the advances of tech and the way that computers have been stronger than the strongest players for the last two decades, however, cheating is something the chess authorities should need to be watchful for.

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

The government have really destroyed the future of the country in order to keep their voter base happy. They’re obviously running out of time and good will now but they’ve done their job where they’ve stacked all of these assets in the hands of the older and richer. Those younger or those with less of a leg to stand on have very little of their own. A proper two tier society, less of a class system and more of a have and have not society. 

I've said before, this is like a heist film where it's all gone wrong and the cops are on the way, so they just grab whatever they can while they can. They're ****ing crooks.

[urban.spaceman]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66647445

 

Carlsen and Niemann settle their dispute.

 

Given the advances of tech and the way that computers have been stronger than the strongest players for the last two decades, however, cheating is something the chess authorities should need to be watchful for.

[Footballwipe]

14 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

All they've needed to do for years now is stop further buy to let purchases.

There are 2.7m landlords in the UK. They buy virtually everything at the bottom end of the market, inflating demand and outbidding first time buyers who would otherwise buy those properties. They are the problem with the market. As individuals they're just trying to what they think it's best for their families but the job of government is to see a problem and stop it affecting society negatively, which is what we now have. 

Indeed. New Lubbesthorpe had a couple of occasions where the "to let" sign appeared next to the house even before the developers had finished building it. Suddenly a great first-time buy was up for £900pcm.

 

The right-wing element on here will obviously be protective of landlords and no-one is saying there should be zero private landlords, but having so many skews the very market those who don't want to be renting.

 

My younger colleagues bemoan the housing market and the more and more it goes on I realise it really is down to pure luck and it shouldn't be. My first three-bed semi house was just short of £160k in 2015. That sold for a decent profit in late 2020 to another first time buyer and I went up the ladder to a bigger house. It was sheer luck when I was born that the market hadn't quite exploded, coupled with 0.1% base rate that got me to my house now.

 

Back in 2015 my mortgage in principle was for £170k max. A search on Rightmove now for the same area I bought then sees me getting a two bed flat or shared ownership, rather than an outright purchase of a three-bed semi.

 

I just wish the "less Netflix and night out" brigade who sit in their £££ houses appreciate the good luck they had to get the house they did for the price they paid back then (even just a few years ago like me.) The market is far harder now than it was in the 70's, 80's and even the early 2010's, and something needs to be done about it.

[Grebfromgrebland]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Are you harking back to a happier time when the young were as rich as the old and there were no poor?  When was this exactly?  

Yes he is. This generation onwards will be the first in a very long time where they don't expect to be as prosperous as their parents.

[Raj]

7 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

If you don't think landlords buying everything within sight at the bottom of the market affects the market, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance. 

 

The issue for first time buyers is not the monthly payment. It's the ability to save a deposit when prices have risen beyond what is remotely reasonable and rent costs keep increasing.

 

Being a landlord is absolutely zero risk. Constantly rising house values, effectively underwritten by the taxpayer through various schemes over the years, means their houses are getting bought for them by their tenants. Having to pay for clean up really isn't a huge cost Vs the guaranteed profits of housing investment. But somehow the actual house being bought and paid for by rental payments gets missed when landlords complain about having some costs. 

I'm using this next time the Mrs says something daft!!!