Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

fred - a forlorn hope that others will not follow down this alleyway that you have created!

rental rates are effectively a reflection of the underlying market value of the property and yield perhaps 5% - you may have a more accurate figure

i own 2 buy-to-let properties, one of which is distinctly high end in central london and the other, very much lower, in medway

with regard to the first
i was flabbergasted by the site's market value and also the AST rental level that was not only deemed fair and reasonable, but was also readily achieved

the second property is of a much lower value, and this is reflected in the AST rental even though the place has been decorated and set out to a very nice standard.

in both instances, the deposit against dilaps and similar is the standard 6 weeks rental.

for the first property, this is a substantial sum, and thank goodness it was as most of it was required to return the place to the proper standard when my first tenants vacated.

the deposit on the second property would actually cover very little and it is fortunate that the tenants not only act responsibly but have a prior history of so doing

like i said previously, being a landlord is not the bed of roses many perceive, even ignoring potential bad debt and periods of vacancy

Is that return including the increased value of the property?

What do people here think about tattoos and employing people with visible and large ones?

no - 5% is the gross return on the value of the property at the time of assessing rental
however, as you may have noticed, not only have property values fallen (20%?) over the last 3/4 years, but many would be landlords have gone belly up

in any case, don't forget that, like selling a house or anything else, it is a matter of supply and demand ..... you can always ask any price you like, but if the market won't wear it, then it won't buy

tattoos
personally, i hate them, but unless the prospective employee has to sit in front of clients or similar, it would not prevent me from employing them

Tattoos are a 'fashion' and fashion is a 'false cause'.

Thus anyone who is wanting a tattoo is wanting to spend money on something presently fashionable.

Because this need it is governed by a false cause reason, there is no sensible logic to it. Therefore, it is probably likely, that in a few years time they (the tattoo(s)) will become 'unfashionable'.

And also very hard and expensive to remove.

Although I would have a go at Cheryl Cole's for free. I think a lick or two (of body paint) might easily sort it. :-)

Perhaps the best types of people to make excellent employees, are those who are fairly 'mystic' in nature and fairly easily influenced by 'false causes'.

On the one hand you have the false cause of say, "the need to be fashionable and have a tattoo."

On the other, you have the possible false causes of:

Working hard for a good day's pay.
Getting to work on time.
Not stealing from the company.
Not stealing from the company's customers.

Perhaps you might say, that these are actually 'real causes' not 'false ones'?

Well, the very best false causes , that are used by employers, are the causes that are actually false but no one can tell because the employers are so damned good at disguising which is which.

Anyhow, whatever! They just need their employees not to question any of them and get on with their work for the benefit of the company.

Update: Labour lead at 4
by YouGov in Politics
Tue October 8, 6 a.m. BST

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 7th October - Con 35%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 10%;

England's young people near bottom of global league table for basic skills

OECD finds 16-24-year-olds have literacy and numeracy levels no better than those of their grandparents' generation


Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor

theguardian.com, Tuesday 8 October 2013 10.34 BST


England is the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement is more literate and numerate than the youngest, according to the first skills survey by the OECD.


In a stark assessment of the success and failure of 720 million-strong adult workforce across the wealthier economies, the economic thinktank warns that in England, adults aged 55 to 65 perform better than 16-24-year-olds in both foundation levels of literacy and numeracy. The survey did not include people from Scotland or Wales.


When the results within age groups are compared across participating countries, older adults in England score higher in literacy and numeracy than the average among their peers, while younger adults show some of the lowest scores for their age group.


The survey shows that out of 24 nations, young adults in England (aged 16-24) rank 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy. England is behind Estonia, Australia, Poland and Slovakia in both areas.


more: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/08/england-young-people-league-table-basic-skills-oecd

The bulk of those in that age range were educated under a Labour government. Their ages when Labour left office would have been 13-21. That's quite a severe comment on Labour's handling of education. When Labour came to power those young people would have been in the age range 0-5. That means they would have spent almost all their years of schooling under Labour's education policies.

it's totally academic (or not!) under which gov't these children emerged from school with almost no chance of employment

though there are plenty of bad schools and teachers, there's far more bad parents who abdicate their role and will not accept that it is THEIR prime responsibility to teach their children the simple basics of numeracy and literacy as well as instilling aspirations and decency

Cyners,

I would've thought it's very much the responsibility of any incumbent government to ensure our children achieve the highest possible academic standards. It's of no surprise whatsoever that Gordon Clown has been shown yet again to have let the country down.

But otherwise you're right, traditionally, under Labour governments, people tend not to aspire particularly high and drop their moral standards because they invariably adopt the benefits culture that has a funny habit of rubbing off.

it is a parental obligation to take primary control of a child's education and general wellbeing ..... the schools also have a serious responsibility, but if the parents don't care, the dice are already loaded
it matters not what bunch of scallies are in the ascendancy

Moral standards.

Perhaps, the young are trying to emulate the amorality of the city, StarBucks MPs and "stars".

Schools, there are so many reviews, changes of staff, changes of course material, conflicts of examination recognition that the staff are demoralised and the parents confused as what is going on in some schools.

The major problem is interference by politicians who think the know better than the professionals who are trying to do the job.

Education has been aimlessly messed about, or interfered with since the 80's and is a mess for many.

It is not just indifference of parents but incompetence of politicians and the Gove's latest reorganisation is another disaster.

cut the political party platform and put your sensible hat back on, though i'm glad you include the long tenure of labour ..... but pretty irrelevant

if the parents don't accept and take their responsibilities seriously, it will be an uphill battle for almost any school, let alone one with sub-standard staff and facilities

hilary - 08 Oct 2013 14:55 - 30681 of 30684

But otherwise you're right, traditionally, under Labour governments, people tend not to aspire particularly high and drop their moral standards because they invariably adopt the benefits culture that has a funny habit of rubbing off..........................ends


Never entered your silly mind that benefits go up when jobs go down, and not under a labour government but under a Tory government.

Ever since Thatcher used unemployment as a tool to divide and rule the working classes unemployment has gone up.

In her time it was 6 million unemployed so she created Incapacity Benefit and put half of them on it to juice the figures down, at the same time she used North Sea Oil Revenues and the proceeds from the sale of council houses to pay for the unemployment.

Fact is she wasted far more money than Gordon Brown did with his sale of gold.

Its always the same, same old Torys unemployment increases and its everybodys fault other than their own.

Cynic,

Political hat back on.

Who improved the building stock of the schools?

Labour.

------

Who left the schools in a state of decay?

Tories
-


Who sold off the "playing" fields.

Tories.

=======

Who is still flogging the silver.

Tories.

-







17 August 2012

School playing fields: 31 sales approved


The revised figures come amid a debate about the legacy of the London Olympics

A total of 31 plans to sell off school playing fields in England have been approved by the coalition government since it came to power.

I thought you'd squelched me, Fishfinger. Or was that just another one of your incessant lies, undone by vanity?

But... I'm perplexed as to why you ever donated £120k a year to the Tories, given your clear hatred of them. Or was that also another one of your incessant lies?

PS. How old are you this week? And will you be playing for England on Friday night?

fred - that was not the discussion as well you know :-) ..... even your school would have instilled in you, "answer the question asked, not the one you wish had been asked"

that said, i am appalled that, a good many years ago, most schools effectively gave up on school sport - political correctness; can't have losers; apathy etc etc - with the role being taken over by the local clubs ....... the (very good) local school here also sold off a lot of their sports fields for housebuilding (omelettes and eggs come to mind!), though they did get in return a handsome all-weather sports area, but that's not really the same

It wasn't the Conservatives that sold off the playing fields. The law was changes to allow councils to sell off playing fields that were not needed. Almost all the councils that sold the playing fields were Labour. It was a time of Labour dogma where they regarded team sports and winning to be bad for children. The result was a decline of sports in schools.