pap

Going by this logic, you're pitching SOA as a better show than Breaking Bad. Yer right. I agree with this assessment. Sorry Smirkers.

You are to be applauded for your deep political insight.

Slum landlords didn't have the right to buy. They still own the stock. One level of indirection is irrelevant if all parties are in agreement.

Of course I do. Indirectly. Not hard, although I can see why you're having trouble making the leaps. It's ok, I have plenty of experience in explaining things to the less able. 1) I give the old dear money to buy house 2) She buys house 3) Wait three years 4) Deeds transferred to me. Funnily enough, that was the exact same strategy the slum landlords used when hoovering up the homes of the working class so they could rent them back out at three times the cost, funded for by the taxpayer.

Better (shorter), but that's not quite right. Persevere. You'll get it.

Yeah, given that the options are:- a) Buy. Not happening until girls have gone to Uni. b) Live under a motorway bridge I'm happy enough with my decision.

I know my limits. When I post on the main board, I normally qualify whatever amateur opinion I'm about to unleash with "I know fúck all about football...." Might want to try that with your Lounge posts.

Nope, but the old dear does. She still has the right to buy. I can give her the money.

Would I buy a council house? Well, I haven't yet, despite being able to for past 20 years. I think we can call that a "no".

I say again, fark orf. And perhaps ask better questions. If I was very poor I wouldn't have the cash to make the deposit, wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for the balance of payments, and probably wouldn't be considering home ownership. I still know people on the Flower Estates that are in council-owned property, precisely because of the above two facts. This is not for the very poor. Jamie's parents were not lifted out of state-sponsored poverty by this move. It's designed to appeal to the sort of moron that believes that house ownership is the be all and end all. In 30 years, it'll all be in the hands of slum landlords, who'll be charging the equivalent of a grand a month (adjusted for real terms) to housing benefit tenants after convincing the original buyer to sell up. Unlike yourself, I really have thought about this issue. http://frigsociety.com/2012/05/24/the-long-term-effects-of-right-to-buy/ Why don't you come back when you have?

Two seconds. A bit longer to type it all down. Not a bad return for the investment. Let's work your hypothetical through, shall we? Let's say your very poor person gets the chance to buy his or her own property at a discounted rate. Where is the rest of the money coming from? I'd guess it'd be the same place it usually does, the banks. In order to get the loan, the bank would need to have some level of comfort that the money can be repaid. Do you reckon they'll hand it out to your very poor example? What sort of credit rating would this person have?

Fark orf. That would imply there is something to deflect. I simply set out the "I'm alright Jack" trap. You walked right into it.

Depends on where those people are and if they have the money. I wonder if the deal will be as good as it was the last time around, where Jamie's parents ostensibly managed to buy their council house on their benefit payments.

Torres, Batman and Unbelievable Jeff. The Third Truimvirate. Glad you found your peeps, Torres. Rest of the forum; quake at your new political masters.

The coalition cycle code. http://www.alexcorina.com/

How's that then? Did your parents use their benefit money to buy the house?

I used to watch it. The entire series is now done, but I'm not overfussed about getting around to finish it off. It's a mostly good show let down by some terrible acting and writing. There is one season where the gang are in Northern Ireland for most of it. Consequently, you have a lot of Northern Irish characters both in the lead-up and the execution to that season. I think they employed one actor born in the province. The result is laughably crap. What's even crapper is the plot point that gets them there, and it's not even the most ridiculous thing I've seen on the show. For that, I don't think you can beat the character arc of Agent Stahl. Fiction is apparently about suspending your audience's disbelief. Now I'm not the sort of person that'll nitpick on first view, but SOA is at times so ridiculously acted or written that my disbelief is all too evident as I'm watching.

Yeah, but if your choices were:- 1) Your mum can have free money and we won't replace the stock 2) Your mum doesn't get free money at all .... you'd pick option 1), wouldn't ya?

Jamie loves the Tories because they gave his mum free money. True story. They were living in rags beforehand.

Nothing wrong as long as the stock is replaced. However, if we get a repeat of the last house sell-off, it won't be, and we'll more pressure to add onto our housing crisis. Don't think this will be as much of a winner last time around, though. Just doesn't affect as many people.

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/ Check out Cameron's little attack pooch. Lovely stuff.

Didn't like the equality of food rationing policy, apparently. The rest is history.

You have gorged yourselves, gentlemen. Enjoy your temporary Wyman Manderley status. "Too fat to sit ahorse" You starve for the next four weeks. Life is cruel in Westeros.

Greased up for the proverbial barrel, aren't ya, love?

Stick to the XBox One vs PS4 thread, Nolan. You're in the Lounge now, son. Actually, just go and have a go on your XBox. You didn't do very well there either. Full blown socialists. Bwa ha ha ha.