Overwhelming Majority of Americans Favor Letting Local Police Stopand Verify Immigration Status

Martin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
William Black wrote:
mikeos wrote:

They also undertake to kill the "Home Information Pack" which is
threatening to kill the free market in house sale and purchase.

Now that's an interesting comment.
Why is it threatening to kill off the free market on house sale and
purchase?

That's easy.
It's because it erects a significant financial barrier or threshold to
even putting a house on the market, thereby reducing the number
potentially for sale at any one time. That in turn tends to increase the
relative price, since there are proportionately fewer sellers to buyers.
GCSE economics. All predicted.

It adds a few hundred pounds to the cost of a house costing hundreds of
thousands. It provides the potential buyer with the info he needs
without each potential buyer needing to employ a surveyor.

You might well think that "a few hundred pounds" sheer loss to a seller
is a worthwhile price for them to pay for saving Labour's face over an
unjustified and unwanted* policy.
You might even urge unwise potential buyers not to bother with a survey.

The HIC includes a survey. Are you suggesting that surveyors aren't
reliable?

I am stating that professional advice is given to and for the benefit of the
client who commissions it and pays for it. That's what it's for. You can't
get round that by wishful thinking.

But that's a big risk for a buyer to take just so as to be in line with
Gordon's thinking.

[*Unwanted by everyone except Labour politicians and those they have
fooled into paying for "training" as inspectors. That group can
confidently expected not to be able to see a flaw in a scheme which
forces sellers to throw hundreds of pounds of their own money straight
down the drain. Or at least, into the pockets of the inspectors.]

The seller increases the price to take into account costs.

Even if that were true - do you regard that as a good thing? It provides no
extra return to any participant in the bargain. The money is being leached
out of the transaction for the sole benefit of third parties and to save face
for those who insisted on it and could not bring themselves to back down.

On 05/05/10 10:04, Martin wrote:
William Black wrote:
On 04/05/10 19:38, John Rennie wrote:
William Black wrote:

snip

We got by for hundreds of year hanging witches as well.

Want to bring it back?



Comparatively few witches executed in England. Perhaps
you are confused with Germany?

You mean we didn't hang any or you mean we did hang some?

Weren't they burnt?

Not in England, no.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black wrote:
On 05/05/10 10:04, Martin wrote:
William Black wrote:
On 04/05/10 19:38, John Rennie wrote:
William Black wrote:

snip

We got by for hundreds of year hanging witches as well.

Want to bring it back?



Comparatively few witches executed in England. Perhaps
you are confused with Germany?

You mean we didn't hang any or you mean we did hang some?

Weren't they burnt?

Not in England, no.

You are right.

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
William Black wrote:
mikeos wrote:

They also undertake to kill the "Home Information Pack" which is
threatening to kill the free market in house sale and purchase.

Now that's an interesting comment.
Why is it threatening to kill off the free market on house sale and
purchase?

That's easy.
It's because it erects a significant financial barrier or threshold to
even putting a house on the market, thereby reducing the number
potentially for sale at any one time. That in turn tends to
increase the
relative price, since there are proportionately fewer sellers to
buyers.
GCSE economics. All predicted.

It adds a few hundred pounds to the cost of a house costing hundreds of
thousands. It provides the potential buyer with the info he needs
without each potential buyer needing to employ a surveyor.

You might well think that "a few hundred pounds" sheer loss to a seller
is a worthwhile price for them to pay for saving Labour's face over an
unjustified and unwanted* policy.
You might even urge unwise potential buyers not to bother with a survey.

The HIC includes a survey. Are you suggesting that surveyors aren't
reliable?

I am stating that professional advice is given to and for the benefit of
the client who commissions it and pays for it. That's what it's for. You
can't get round that by wishful thinking.

The HIC has to be provided by law, it is not provide as professional advice.


But that's a big risk for a buyer to take just so as to be in line with
Gordon's thinking.

[*Unwanted by everyone except Labour politicians and those they have
fooled into paying for "training" as inspectors. That group can
confidently expected not to be able to see a flaw in a scheme which
forces sellers to throw hundreds of pounds of their own money straight
down the drain. Or at least, into the pockets of the inspectors.]

The seller increases the price to take into account costs.

Even if that were true - do you regard that as a good thing?

Yes it saves potential buyers costs and wasted time.

It provides
no extra return to any participant in the bargain. The money is being
leached out of the transaction for the sole benefit of third parties and
to save face for those who insisted on it and could not bring themselves
to back down.

It provides a service to the potential buyer.

Martin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
William Black wrote:
mikeos wrote:

They also undertake to kill the "Home Information Pack" which is
threatening to kill the free market in house sale and purchase.

Now that's an interesting comment.
Why is it threatening to kill off the free market on house sale and
purchase?

That's easy.
It's because it erects a significant financial barrier or threshold to
even putting a house on the market, thereby reducing the number
potentially for sale at any one time. That in turn tends to
increase the relative price, since there are proportionately fewer
sellers to buyers.
GCSE economics. All predicted.

It adds a few hundred pounds to the cost of a house costing hundreds of
thousands. It provides the potential buyer with the info he needs
without each potential buyer needing to employ a surveyor.

You might well think that "a few hundred pounds" sheer loss to a seller
is a worthwhile price for them to pay for saving Labour's face over an
unjustified and unwanted* policy.
You might even urge unwise potential buyers not to bother with a survey.

The HIC includes a survey. Are you suggesting that surveyors aren't
reliable?

I am stating that professional advice is given to and for the benefit of
the client who commissions it and pays for it. That's what it's for. You
can't get round that by wishful thinking.

The HIC has to be provided by law, it is not provide as professional advice.

It is advice provided by a professional, for a fee. He who pays the piper...

The seller increases the price to take into account costs.

Even if that were true - do you regard that as a good thing?

Yes it saves potential buyers costs and wasted time.

But it doesn't, can't and wasn't intended to.

No buyer in their right mind (except perhaps when buying a new flat in a
block) would rely on a survey conducted for the seller.

Perhaps you would, though.

It provides
no extra return to any participant in the bargain. The money is being
leached out of the transaction for the sole benefit of third parties and
to save face for those who insisted on it and could not bring themselves
to back down.

It provides a service to the potential buyer

....who will pay for it all again, just as he was always going to do (assuming
rationality).

This is a scheme which no-one sensible wanted. It needs to be repealed quickly.

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
William Black wrote:
mikeos wrote:

They also undertake to kill the "Home Information Pack" which is
threatening to kill the free market in house sale and purchase.

Now that's an interesting comment.
Why is it threatening to kill off the free market on house sale and
purchase?

That's easy.
It's because it erects a significant financial barrier or
threshold to
even putting a house on the market, thereby reducing the number
potentially for sale at any one time. That in turn tends to
increase the relative price, since there are proportionately
fewer sellers to buyers.
GCSE economics. All predicted.

It adds a few hundred pounds to the cost of a house costing
hundreds of
thousands. It provides the potential buyer with the info he needs
without each potential buyer needing to employ a surveyor.

You might well think that "a few hundred pounds" sheer loss to a
seller
is a worthwhile price for them to pay for saving Labour's face over an
unjustified and unwanted* policy.
You might even urge unwise potential buyers not to bother with a
survey.

The HIC includes a survey. Are you suggesting that surveyors aren't
reliable?

I am stating that professional advice is given to and for the benefit of
the client who commissions it and pays for it. That's what it's for. You
can't get round that by wishful thinking.

The HIC has to be provided by law, it is not provide as professional
advice.

It is advice provided by a professional, for a fee. He who pays the
piper...

The seller increases the price to take into account costs.

Even if that were true - do you regard that as a good thing?

Yes it saves potential buyers costs and wasted time.

But it doesn't, can't and wasn't intended to.

No buyer in their right mind (except perhaps when buying a new flat in a
block) would rely on a survey conducted for the seller.

Perhaps you would, though.

It is an offence to put false information in a HIC.
The surveyor is legally responsible for what he writes in a survey.


It provides
no extra return to any participant in the bargain. The money is being
leached out of the transaction for the sole benefit of third parties and
to save face for those who insisted on it and could not bring themselves
to back down.

It provides a service to the potential buyer

...who will pay for it all again, just as he was always going to do
(assuming rationality).

Not if he doesn't buy the house as a result of what he finds in the HIC.


This is a scheme which no-one sensible wanted. It needs to be repealed
quickly.

Those who were searching for houses wanted it.

House sellers, Surveyors and Estate agents didn't. Which are you?

Martin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Martin wrote:

[ ... ]

... kill the "Home Information Pack" which is
threatening to kill the free market in house sale and purchase.

Now that's an interesting comment. Why is it threatening to kill
off the free market on house sale and purchase?

... it erects a significant financial barrier or threshold to
even putting a house on the market, thereby reducing the number
potentially for sale at any one time...
GCSE economics. All predicted.

It adds a few hundred pounds to the cost of a house costing
hundreds of thousands. It provides the potential buyer with
the info he needs without each potential buyer needing to
employ a surveyor.

You might well think that "a few hundred pounds" sheer loss to a
seller is a worthwhile price for them to pay for saving Labour's
face over an unjustified and unwanted* policy. You might even urge
unwise potential buyers not to bother with a survey.

The HIC includes a survey. Are you suggesting that surveyors aren't
reliable?

I am stating that professional advice is given to and for the benefit of
the client who commissions it and pays for it. That's what it's for. You
can't get round that by wishful thinking.

The HIC has to be provided by law, it is not provide as professional
advice.

It is advice provided by a professional, for a fee. He who pays the
piper...

The seller increases the price to take into account costs.

Even if that were true - do you regard that as a good thing?

Yes it saves potential buyers costs and wasted time.

But it doesn't, can't and wasn't intended to.
No buyer in their right mind (except perhaps when buying a new flat in a
block) would rely on a survey conducted for the seller.
Perhaps you would, though.

It is an offence to put false information in a HIC.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth"? You can mislead without telling lies. People try it every day on
these newsgroups.

The surveyor is legally responsible for what he writes in a survey.

Only to his client. HIPs, as you seem not to know, do not have to be provided
by a surveyor, though a surveyor may write one.

It provides
no extra return to any participant in the bargain. The money is being
leached out of the transaction for the sole benefit of third parties and
to save face for those who insisted on it and could not bring themselves
to back down.

It provides a service to the potential buyer

...who will pay for it all again, just as he was always going to do
(assuming rationality).

Not if he doesn't buy the house as a result of what he finds in the HIC.

There is nothing of value in the HIP that would not either be on the agent's
particulars (assuming the sale is though an agent) and/or visible to the
potential buyer. Knowledgeable buyers aren't interested in the state of the
loft lagging or its tog-rating. It's like expecting more money for your car
in PX because it's just had a new exhaust. It's just yet more Labour control
freakery.

This is a scheme which no-one sensible wanted. It needs to be repealed
quickly.

Those who were searching for houses wanted it.

Says who?

You?

The Labour Party?

House sellers, Surveyors and Estate agents didn't. Which are you?

I am a sometime house-seller, but more often than that (by precisely one), a
house-buyer. I don't want a HIP for any property I might ever move to,
because I know that it is meaningless posturing. I'd rather see the scheme
abolished asap. The current government *know* it was a mistake, but aren't
and weren't big enough people to agree to admit it.

Planet Visitor II writes:

And you feel this is a bad thing.... because????

Because they are not suffering now, so pretending that they are is dishonest.

Planet Visitor II writes:

It would be nice if such "racial distinctions" did not exist... but
they do...

Examples?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Planet Visitor II writes:

And you feel this is a bad thing.... because????

Because they are not suffering now, so pretending that they are is dishonest.

What about those whose close relatives were exterminated in
the holocaust. Have they ceased to suffer?