PokerTime

Obviously people like living in ED but to suggest it's one of the best places to live because it's getrifying is just nonsense. There are many places in London besides the five listed that fulfil the qualifying catagories better than those five to get onto the list. Like I said, the list is compiled and aimed at a certain demographic. It's not negative to say that.

Liverpool has been demolishing houses over the past two decades because the migration south has left no-one to live in them! The suburbs, Sefton through to Southport are where the money is. I just think that basing anything on middle class affluence and aspirations is too narrow a parameter. People makes places and culture, not property prices. Some of the most friendly and supportive communities are to be found amongst the poorest for example. Perhaps the list should have been called 'aspirational' places to live - rather than desirable.

101 is the non emergency number KK

The survey is looking at places with healthy increasing property prices rara. It is not interested in places with relatively low prices at all. Gentrification is what it's looking for. Who are the readership of the Telegraph? Affluent middle England. So any article has to fit into their aspirations and culture to be relevant. Many people find the culture of areas like ED bland and boring. I grew up in an area with a mix of public and good state schools and located on the edge of a green belt. It's doesn't make the list though, because there aren't enough affluent enough people living there to drive property prices up. That's the bottom line. If you are a Telegraph reading, above average income household, looking for an area where you can buy into, see a very healthy return on your house purchase, send your kids to public school and so on, this list is for you. Outside of that it means nothing.

That'll be house prices up another 10% then. But Louisa does have a point. The five London areas listed all have something in common. 'The Sunday Times Best Places To Live guide takes into account a range of factors including transport links, quality of schools, natural beauty, low crime rate, property prices and culture, as well as unemployment figures.' So the message is that high property prices and low unemployment are good, equalling affluence and class as the deciding factor. Well I can think of many places that beat ED hands down for culture, and transport links alone. At the end of the day, it's a subjective list based on the assumptions of those that compiled it....and therefore pretty meaningless.

Louisa, for the umpteenth time! A funeral can ask the council to suspend parking to reserve spaces for the funeral. It's not rocket science. You can't legally put bins in the road, but you can ask the council to provide reserved space in certain circumstances. A bin is a willful obstruction of the highway and under paragraph 137 of the 1980 Highways Act and is illegal, except when lawfully authorised, or in an immediate emergency. A leaking boiler is not an emergency and some councils fine people who do that (because the law allows them to). The car that moved your bin and parked had every right to do so. You are not a victim of anything here. I think you'd be the first to protest if someone wilfully ignored the law and then tried to claim innocence. You may not like it, but at least acknowledge your fury at the driver who parked is misguided legally. Or am I head, banging, brick wall?

And a broken down boiler is an emergency is it Louisa? Was anyone's life at risk? Were you about to die from hypothermia, or be crushed under an avalanche of unwashed laundry? There more you protest the more ridiculous your points become. I have a life btw, one that isn't comsumed with ranting on forums about nicked parking spaces. You might want to direct your advice back at yourself. Now hand over that popcorn Bluerevolution :D

No Louisa, that is not the point. The point is that you have no right to obstruct a parking space with a bin, anymore than a driver is required to respect that. THAT is the law. There is no written law of respectability, and especially one involving bins. That is just a law you and others invent to hijack the highway. StraferJ has a good point. Where was your consideration for the space you occupied further up the street? By your own logic you are wrong, whichever way you look at it. Adnorium, in London, everyone knows there are issues with guaranteed parking, and hundreds of people do reserve space for funerals every year in Southwark, through the correct channels. I agree it's not always top of the list of things to do in that situation, but there is at least a legal way to manage that. But again, we are not talking funerals here, we are talking about a plumber to fix a boiler and someone who can't see the contradiction of their minor inconvenience.

What I wrote was that parking can be reserved for things like funerals by applying to the council. And that legally no space can be reserved by placing a bin on it (whatever the reason). Those are the facts. What any driver might do or not do morally is up to them, but there is no requirement under the law for a driver to respond to a bin. Anyway, we are not talking about a funeral here. We are talking about someone throwing a hissy fit because a plumber couldn't park directly outside their home. Like I said above, did said plumber not attend the job as a result? No...he used his legs like many people do every day.

But you can ask Southwark to reserve space by suspending parking. For genuine reasons, such as moving, large deliveries, funerals etc, you can apply here..... http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/2818/suspension_of_parking_bays/1 There really is no reason for people to put out bins for these things, and if you do put out a bin, drivers are under no obligation to respect that.

Adobe have a great little suite Katanita, with speedgrade and audition too, it's everything you need to do smaller, offlined projects. After Effects is the only part of it that struggles imo on a PC. Too much rendering needed to do anything complicated (although, if you wanted to do a Harry Potter, you wouldn't be using After Effects anyway). I always saw Final Cut as a baby AVID, but Premier has defintely caught up.

Final Cut for non compressed HD projects still runs better on a high spec mac than it does PC, and if you are running AVID it has to be mac. I run premier pro on a high spec PC but doing anything in after effects like rotoscoping, forget it. Again the Mac is the better option. But we are talking high end editing and VFX though and that's not something most people have to worry about. There's a reason why all post houses use Macs for online editing and fx. I've found windows 7 to be fairly problem free. I had heard about some issues (dislikes) with windows 8, so have stuck with 7. Before that I was using XP for years. Vista had lots of issues, like Millenium before it. XP was based on windows 2000. Again, there's a reason why some OS's have longevity, and others fade away. But where I do agree, is that on a day to day consumer level, a PC is as good as any Mac, and everything is always cheaper for PC.

Agreed Loz. Not everyone has a grand or two to spend on a computer either.

Depends on what you want to use it for. For everyday stuff there's not much difference. For high end graphic design, video editing etc, it's mac all the way. But whatever you go for, get the highest spec motherboard and processor you can afford. Everything else can be ugraded as you go along.

Thank you for the links folks. Fantastic and fascinating. Check this map out for every bomb that fell in London too.... http://bombsight.org/#15/51.4862/-0.0830

Now they plan to go after those who work as well.....(the comments at the bottom of the article are a useful read too) http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/dwp-housing-benefit-will-be-sanctioned/7002330.article?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ocean+Media+&utm_campaign=3755766_IH-TENANCIES-030314-NE&dm_i=1HH2%2C28HYU%2CEV2PU8%2C83HRQ%2C1

It wasn't the Labour Party who came up with it, but a Peer called Baron Best who is a crossbencher (meaning no individual political party affiliation). He has spent a lifetime working in and writing about housing. His knowledge and understanding of the subject is expert and extensive. I don't see any political party doing anything either. Mainly because there is no solution without regulating the private housing sector to slow inflation of prices and rents, outside of a mass affordable house building programme (on the scale of the post WW1 programme). My view is that all governments see the equity in the ever booming housing market as the solution to the coming pensions crisis. Even now, more than half of all welfare is spent on the over 65s. That is going to grow and whereas most of todays over 65s who worked, did pay into employer based pension schemes, the majority of todays workforce have no pension scheme in place. They will be completely reliant on state pensions and benefits. Raising the pension age is going to have little effect imo as many will be unfit for the jobs they do by 65 anyway, and find themselves on other types of benefit until they retire. We have to get more jobs in the economy, and they have to be a wider range of jobs, better paid, and more secure long term. That is the ONLY effective way to reduce the welfare bill. I don't think any government in the past 30 years has worked hard enough at that. There's a reason why London, Liverpool, Glasgow and many major cities have social housing near their centre or in areas that are now prime targets for gentrification. They were homes originally built to house the low waged workers of the docks and other centres of industry, centres that existed for 100 years or more. We've lost them all and nothing has replaced them. The people who live in generational unemployment now are the same people where 50 years ago, son followed father into the same job, often a secure job. Until we have politicians who show an interest in the connections between social and economic history we are not going to see any intelligent attempt from government to make the kind of changes that lead to long term solutions to anything.

Bedroom Tax is the phrase coined BNG. But you do seem to understand the problems it faces through implementation. I'm not interested in political pursuasions on this issue because housing is something everyone needs and therefore in itself is not political. Many people living with mortgages (and let's remember you don't actually own your home until you pay that off with interest) would also have something to say about the percentage of household income that absorbs, and the amount of income that needs to be earned to pay it. The same is true for those in private rented accomodation. What the system overall is very good at doing, and this is where the media, used by politicians does come into play, is in deflecting frustration away from successive government and deregulation (and the other things that have created the exepnsive private housing market), and turning it into a politics of envy. The low waged and poor are not responsible for housing inflation, any more than they are responsible for the deficit, bankers fixing Libor ratings, offshore tax havens, foreign invasions etc etc. There is a sensible debate to be had about creating a system that works for all, but government aren't interested in that debate, nor the media per se. There are no short terms solutions and it's worth saying also that these HB reforms haven't saved the taxpayer a single penny. All they have done is shifted people around a little, shifted some into more expensive private accomodation, shifted others into very expensive B&B, caused some to commit suicide and left many in severe financial hardship. There has to be a better way than that.

The council doesn't say anything. The onus is on the tenant to ask to be moved if they can't afford the shortfall, at which the council can either offer something, or it cannot. There is another consequence too. Councils in some regions now have property sitting empty because there are no tenants they can move in there. And other authorities are mid way through house building programmes of family sized accomodation to now finding they need to build one bedroomed properties instead.

Splitting hairs Brand New Guy. You try paying ?14 out of ?71 weekly jobseekers allowance and see how you get on. I don't know what planet you think the disabled and unemployed live on. Fazer, tenants are allowed to rent out a room but if they are on benefits they get into a different mess where the lodger is classed as a second income, and other benefits can be affected. Also the second rooms in council flats are so small that they are really only suitable for children (ie, a single/ bunk bed) and one wardrobe. That is why disabled people use them as storage rooms for wheelchairs/ equipment, or an occasional room for a carer to stay overnight. Council properties were designed to house couples with a child/ children or single adults/ childless couples. But under the governemnt legislation, two teenage boys (anyone under 16) are expected to share a room like that. You try being a six foot 15 year old sleeping on the top tier of a bunk bed. Non de Plume, housing benefit is already means tested. If someone is working and getting partial HB and their salary rises, their HB goes down. The fact is that the overwhleming majority of people in social housing are either on low incomes or no income (i.e. eldery, unemployed, disabled). I absolutely agree regarding the economy supporting low wages, arms, landlords etc, but the solution is not to make the poorest poorer, the solution is to find a more ralistic balance between wages and the cost of housing and rent in the private sector (and to do something to create more permanent jobs with living wages). You don't have to go back very far to see where things are headed if the current trajectory continues as it has done for the past 30 years.

They have no solutions BS. That's why some of these tenants are getting into arrears. There is something called 'a discretionary housing payment'. That is a fund the government allowed LAs to set up to help those in difficulty with the tax. But that payment is limited to a maximum of six months. I guess the idea was to give LAs and some affected tenants time to be moved before paying the tax. But in reality, with the lack of places to move people to, they are hit with the tax once the discretionary payment ends. The level of problems varies from LA to LA. Some authorities have bigger shortage problems than others. It is also worth noting that a lot of the social building programmes over the last decade have been focussed on family size accomodation (as that is where the need was most pressing, many family sized homes having been bought through right to buy). The other thing that has happened over the last thirty years, is a migration of young single people to the south. Authorities in the north and midlands have actually been demolishing houses beacause there's no-one to live in them and they've fallen into disrepair. Now the Bedroom Tax has created a shortage of one bedroomed accomodation instead, with no building programmes in place to address that, not that that would help in the short term anyway. And when you combine that with areas of high unemployment, and the other welfare reforms, it paints an impossible picture for some. I'm guessing most are waiting to see what happens at the next general election. Labour are already committed to abolishing the tax, which will make it then feasible to create affordable payment plans for those in arrears to it. If the conservatives win the election, then the situation becomes very different, with arrears continuing to grow, and tenants with no way of reducing the arrears until they are moved, or find employment. And underlying all of this, if LAs can't collect all of the rent, then there is an impact on housing services and maintenance. Housing Revenue Account shortfalls have always existed because of the system of government creaming off rent revenue from LAs and giving some of it back as 'subsidy' (therefore perpetuating the myth that social housing rents are subsidised by the taxpayer, when in fact they are not). The Bedroom Tax is just another nail in the coffin. Rents are increased every year. The rate of increase is controlled by law, which is why the rise of social rents over the past thiry years has stayed in line with inflation and wages, whilst the unregulated prive rental market, hasn't. The sensible option with this welfare reform would have been to localise the rules, setting in law a requirement for LAs to move people where possible. This would have protected those LAs with genuine suitable housing problems and their affected tenants. At the end of the day it's just a really badly thought out reform. No feasibility study was taken for example, which means you have to question the competence and ideology of those behind the policy. No-one asked 'what does an LA that has no suitable accomodation to move people to, do?' any more than those same people asked ' how do those in areas of high unemployment/ low job availability suceed in finding a job?'. There is a lot of backward thinking when it comes to unemployment and low incomes. Housing issues are complex, and so too is the housing market. There are huge problems with all of it and there's much to be said and debated around every aspect of it. But we have to remember why social housing came to be and the important role it plays. It's worth saying that in the 70's, one in three people lived in council housing. That in itself gives an idea of just how much has changed in terms of supply, which in turn affects demand. And the same can be said of the private housing sector. Buying a home was the clearest measure of upward social mobility, and it was perfectly possible for a houshold with a single average income to buy a modest family home. That is no longer possible either and is another reason why demand for social housing is increasing. Bottom line is, we need more affordable housing, be it is social or private.

Debbie Does Dallas?

I believe she sports a hairball weave!

Of course not Steve. There have always been those at the poorest end getting into difficulty for any number of reasons. When you have no disposable income, it only takes one thing to go wrong to set off whole spiral of consequence. It's the mark of a compassionate society that we try as far as possible, to make sure people are not left homeless and destitute. It's possible to source figures for the shortfall of rent collection due to bedroom Tax though. So it is something that can be measured. The other thing is that the DWP are making errors too, particularly with regards to sanctioned claimants. Sanctioning does not remove HB but is many cases it has been stopped because the system falsely notifies of a change in circumstances. It then takes months for claimants to get the DWP to correct the mistakes. This too has an impact on rent collections. It will become worse when Universal Credit is phased in. At present the social landlord is paid HB directly. Under Universal Credit, it is the claimant who will receive all their benefits once a month and will then have to pay the social landlord themselves. That clearly is going to get some claimants into trouble. We'll see.

I absolutely agree with that. But there is no will to change the process, so it is complicit to a way of thinking.