Householders, the time for chastisement is over

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I would have assumed, considering your point, that you knew I had.

Alas, just making things up randomly again. Not really surprising.

I know you have, the point was that you don't.

Nice attempt at distraction though, the trouble is that everyone is onto your Mr Muddle tricks these days. Perhaps you need to get a new debating toolkit?

shortchanged_2

And here comes Renoman to try and derail a discussion again.

chewmylegoff

shortchanged wrote: »

And here comes Renoman to try and derail a discussion again.

that is what this thread deserved though.

shortchanged_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

that is what this thread deserved though.

Maybe but he does it all the time.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by stopping lending that was on the whole responsible, prudent and sensible.


.

A narrative developed that cast UK mortgages as a villain to be slain, when it fact it's a myth based on pub hearsay.

Even self cert mortgages have performed remarkably well, with a very low level of dilenquency.

The whole 'lie to buy' thang is based on faulty assumptions by those with no experience dealing in mortgages.

Human Beings are not straightforward and come with all manner of non standard situations, and it is this that drove self - cert.

For example a black cabby making typically about £1000 per week in real take home income, but who's books, like Ken Livingstons or Richard Bransons, will not reflect reality.

Another classic case would be say an agency nurse working for 2 or 3 agencies. Lenders cannot accept a fully disclosed application because if something went wrong with the agency work, the client may then use this as a way of side stepping the mortgage contract - "m'lud, they knew I couldn't be guaranteed work, so they souldn't have given me a mortgage", so again self cert enabled lenders to lend without this fear of people sueing for mis - selling.


Regulation is stifling the market and as such must be affecting many other commerical arenas such as building and trades.

RenovationMan

chewmylegoff wrote: »

that is what this thread deserved though.

Interesting how someone who hasn't actually contributed to a thread, joins it and makes two posts that are completely off topic and yet can't see the irony in complaining about derailing a thread.

A shocking lack of self awareness. :rotfl:

ILW

I suppose if it gets a few more cabbies to pay the tax due, there is some upside.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

And here comes Renoman to try and derail a discussion again.

RenovationMan wrote: »

One last question for shortchanged.

Have you 'given up' completely and will now avoid me on the forum and not participate in any discussions with me or indeed make any sly digs at me that could end up in debate/discussion.

Or is your 'bye' just confined to this particular discussion and the difficult questions you refuse to answer?

I hope it is the former because otherwise people might start suggesting that you lost a discussion and flounced out of it, then returned in later discussions to get revenge, desperately hoping that people had forgotten about your drubbing here.

Don't be that guy, shortchanged. Stick to your guns and put me on Ignore and show the forum that you refuse point blank to debate anymore with someone who 'grinds people down' and who is 'relentless' and a possible 'professional interrogator in real life'.

Still with the sly digs, shortchanged? I guess it's easier than the drubbing you get when you actually try to engage me in debate. :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

For example a black cabby making typically about £1000 per week in real take home income, but who's books, like Ken Livingstons or Richard Bransons, will not reflect reality.

It's up to the taxi driver whether he wishes to do this. It's not complusory.

By hsowing you have earnt less, you shouldn't be surprised that you can therefore borrow less too.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's up to the taxi driver whether he wishes to do this. It's not complusory.

By hsowing you have earnt less, you shouldn't be surprised that you can therefore borrow less too.

We had a neighbour who was quite wealthy from 'cash in hand' transactions, but couldn't afford to show it in case the tax man found out. I'd rather pay tax and have a clear conscience than have a load of worry and boxes of cash lying around that I wasn't allowed/too afraid to spend. Bonkers.