The Wilsons, they have never been so quiet.

Pennywise

ILW wrote: »

So you may argue that they were not very good at running their business, but why do so many seem to hate them and take great pleasure at the thought they may be failing?

Simply because they turned themselves into celebrities and making themselves look oh so clever became their way of life, looking down on everyone else as if they were stupid for not doing the same.

Pennywise

wotsthat wrote: »

It's the UK - we like to see people taken down a peg or two especially when they've got ideas above their station.

No, that's wrong - we like to see those who big themselves up without substance taken down a peg or two. There are lots of successful people who don't court celebrity status who don't get the bad publicity when things turn sour for them.

People with true ability don't suffer the same fate. If anything, it's because of the UK obsession with celebrity cult status that's wrong in the first place. Some people love to be noticed when things are good but then want to be ignored when things are bad. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. Most sensible people keep their head down in the first place so when something goes wrong, it's not newsworthy.

ILW

Pennywise wrote: »

Simply because they turned themselves into celebrities and making themselves look oh so clever became their way of life, looking down on everyone else as if they were stupid for not doing the same.

From the little i saw of them, I do not recall any "looking down on everyone else". That appears to be a perception from others.

dopester

wotsthat wrote: »

It's the UK - we like to see people taken down a peg or two especially when they've got ideas above their station.

Loads of people won't get off their fat behinds and when they see others fail it allows them to continue to justify their lack of ambition and get up and go.

It's jealousy, plain and simple.

Ambition? Get up and go?

You do realise that mostly all they ever did was borrow money? Lot of get up and go required for that? And simple landlord tasks. Buying up more and more houses for decades, as prices continued to go up and up and up... which saw them at one point worth many tens of millions of pounds? Sounds like a lot of hard work.

The risked and risked and risked, happy to show off to the papers how smart they thought they were. First breeze of the recession they'd left themselves so exposed, even with interest rates cut hard.. that their empire fell despite starting way back in 1990-1992.

To borrow money, acquire hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundred of houses by one couple? A couple who don't give a toss about being landlords but have explicitly claimed its all about the money.

According to the Office of National Statistics, in 2002 there were around 25 million dwellings in Great Britain. Lets round it up to 27 million for 2011.

It would only require 30,000 couples like the Wilsons having 900 properties to own all the housing stock of Great Britain. (laying claim to via debt, rental income, equity release, and continual buying).

You consider that "get up and go" healthy? To see the country enslaved by a few thousand boomer couples who are only interested in MONEY?

"Not in it to be landlords" so no social conscience there. Extract maximum market rents where they could for the most part. He has put it down to like being a commodities trader. It would have been much better if they'd traded commodities on the market. He bought and didn't do much selling (trading), continuing to buy and buy - reliant on debt. It's now the taxpayer banks absorbing losses from their actions and risks they took. Taxpayer banks involved in taking over these properties.

ILW

dopester wrote: »

Ambition? Get up and go?

You do realise that mostly all they ever did was borrow money? Lot of get up and go required for that? And simple landlord tasks. Buying up more and more houses for decades, as prices continued to go up and up and up... which saw them at one point worth many tens of millions of pounds? Sounds like a lot of hard work.

The risked and risked and risked, happy to show off to the papers how smart they thought they were. First breeze of the recession they'd left themselves so exposed, even with interest rates cut hard.. that their empire fell despite starting way back in 1990-1992.

To borrow money, acquire hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundred of houses by one couple? A couple who don't give a toss about being landlords but have explicitly claimed its all about the money.

According to the Office of National Statistics, in 2002 there were around 25 million dwellings in Great Britain. Lets round it up to 27 million for 2011.

It would only require 30,000 couples like the Wilsons having 900 properties to own all the housing stock of Great Britain. (laying claim to via debt, rental income, equity release, and continual buying).

You consider that "get up and go" healthy? To see the country enslaved by a few thousand boomer couples who are only interested in MONEY?

"Not in it to be landlords" so no social conscience there. Extract maximum market rents where they could for the most part. He has put it down to like being a commodities trader. It would have been much better if they'd traded commodities on the market. He bought and didn't do much selling (trading), continuing to buy and buy - reliant on debt. It's now the taxpayer banks absorbing losses from their actions and risks they took. Taxpayer banks involved in taking over these properties.

Of course they were in the business for the money, why else?
Still cannot see what you have against them.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Even people in the horse racing world (who have a lot more money* than the Wilsons) don't like them.

*money = money they actually have; not money with lots of debts.

Yes, they are considered tiresome and classless within the racing world. They like to enter useless no-hoper nags into top races like the Derby and Grand National for the prestige of a day out, without a thought for the risk to their horses or others. You can forgive an owner doing this once for the thrill, but to consistently do so makes them look crass and vulgar. It also begs the question why they don't just buy some half-decent horses if they are so rich.

The British generally love a rags to riches story, especially if it involves hard work and initiative to get to the top (eg Alan Sugar). The Apprentice and Dragons Den are popular because it's good to see talent rewarded, but we also love to see cockiness and brashness smacked down. Clever, resourceful businesspeople expand and diversify and know when to sell and move on. They are usually too busy getting on and doing it to give interviews about their work.

ILW

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Yes, they are considered tiresome and classless within the racing world. They like to enter useless no-hoper nags into top races like the Derby and Grand National for the prestige of a day out, without a thought for the risk to their horses or others. You can forgive an owner doing this once for the thrill, but to consistently do so makes them look crass and vulgar. It also begs the question why they don't just buy some half-decent horses if they are so rich.

The British generally love a rags to riches story, especially if it involves hard work and initiative to get to the top (eg Alan Sugar). The Apprentice and Dragons Den are popular because it's good to see talent rewarded, but we also love to see cockiness and brashness smacked down. Clever, resourceful businesspeople expand and diversify and know when to sell and move on. They are usually too busy getting on and doing it to give interviews about their work.

Like Richard Branson or Simon Cowell?

abaxas

ILW wrote: »

So you may argue that they were not very good at running their business, but why do so many seem to hate them and take great pleasure at the thought they may be failing?

They are a hate figure and is Brits love that.

We like to see people suffer, it's in our genes.

Running_Horse

ILW wrote: »

Like Richard Branson or Simon Cowell?

Two people sitting near the top of my personal irritation list. Especially Branson.

I could understand if the Wilsons had used some of that fabulous wealth to build their village scouts a new hut, instead of trying for planning permission. They are hated even in their own village.

abaxas

Running_Horse wrote: »

Two people sitting near the top of my personal irritation list. Especially Branson.

I could understand if the Wilsons had used some of that fabulous wealth to build their village scouts a new hut, instead of trying for planning permission. They are hated even in their own village.

Simon Cowell is great. He's a !!!! of the highest order but at least he admits to it.

Branson, kill him now.