if you are using or taking something that is not yours
and you have not paid for it, it is theft. the world does not owe you a living. it is irrelevant if someone else owns 137 houses and never visits them, if they have paid for them!

plus in this case, there is a real risk of shortage of funds for people who are sick and dying through no fault of their own whilst these twunts are shovelling shit into their veins with needles and hurling the needles out of the windows to make the neighbours shit themselves even more!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:47, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

I think the fact it's a charity is irrelevant.
The problem with the moral high ground is that it's a fuck of a long way to fall. The simple facts as presented are these squatters are in the wrong whether it's Mother Teresa or Idi Amin's house.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:52, Reply)

I think it's pretty stupid for a charity to invest in that way to start with.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:55, Reply)

People leave their houses to charities all the time

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:56, Reply)

how come?
If it brings in income, why is it stupid?
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

because it's a big risk,
the property market can make you a lot of money, but it can crash and you can loose everything for a million different reasons. You know that.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

This is true of almost all investment.

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

Yes but you don't have to spend all your money in one or two places.
You can spread the risk a lot better with nearly every other type except maybe hedge funds.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)

It doesn't work like that.
one property value won't crash while another property rises, so you can't consider one property to be the equivalent of one companies' shares. One property is more like the equivalent of one stock market, so spreading shares around isn't lowering your risk compared to property, just lowering compared to putting all your money in one company.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

there are local house price falls though
every time a new block of flats opens etc.
But it's not the variation in average house prices that's the biggest risk it's the flood/fire/structural problems that make properties a risky investment.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

Haha, what are you on about, Chompy?
In the entire history of the UK property market you will be unable to find any two dates 5 years apart where a property hasn't be worth more at the end than the start. It's more or less the safest long term investment there is.

It's a risk if you have no control over when you might have to sell or you are after short term gain, but a charity has neither of those issues.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

That's fine on the large scale
but not if they've got one or two properties where say they find asbestos in one and get squatters in the other.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:03, Reply)

ah, I see where you're going.
valid point. But "because it could happen" doesn't make it right or the charities fault. Thinking that way leads you into dangerous waters, chap.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:08, Reply)

Can I just point out here, TMB on /offtopic ! Yay !
I like these debates, it's the sort of thing that you don't really get that much on /talk.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

yeah true,
but I'm assuming they own the property outright, such as those being left to them in probate, so that any income greatly outweighs the expenditure.

Also, lose has one o, come on.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:04, Reply)

Out of interest, why?
Can't see a problem with making money any way you like provided it's not illegal or something that wouldn't hold morally with your patrons
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

Depending on the size of the charity,
(I'm assuming it's not a big one) the risk to return isn't that good.
Unless they do something like buy them do them up and sell them quickly, in which case I can't see how squatters got in in the first place.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

Let's say you're intrusted with £250k, and you want to secure an income from it, how would you invest the money?
£50k in each group of banks collecting 2-3% if you're lucky on a 5 year bond?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:04, Reply)

I'd buy shares,
I wouldn't buy a single £250,000 property.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

but three properties for *does maths* £83k each
wouldn't be a bad investment.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:07, Reply)

83k wouldn't buy you a mobile home 'round here :(
£110k minimum for a tiny studio apartment in my town.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:08, Reply)

You can double those figures around here.
=(
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Christ, which bit of London do you live in?

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:11, Reply)

A well specced new 1 bed near me sold for £320k...

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:12, Reply)

Jebus, what a rip off

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:23, Reply)

Southgate.
It's quite a nice area, but it's no Hampstead.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:14, Reply)

*looks on RightMove*
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1671&insId=1&sortByPriceDescending=false

Slight exasoration, but only slight.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:16, Reply)

We don't all live in the third world.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

I forgot you weren't aware of anywhere outside of your lame ass town.

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:20, Reply)

Shares can go down just as much as they can go up.
Shares, on that scale, with that responsibility, would be quite a bad choice. You're relying on another company to do well in order to make any sort of return.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

You can sell short as well.
Plus you can get rid of shit shares much quicker than shit property.
And I wouldn't have to deal with estate agents.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:12, Reply)

For securing an income, I wouldn't mind speaking to an estate agent or two.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:22, Reply)

Far greater minds than his have suggested it is a good investment
so I'm more inclined to believe the charities are right rather than an opinionated paperclip salesman.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:22, Reply)

haaaaaaaa!
you made me laaaaaarf there!
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sat 12 Jun 2010, 0:27, Reply)

Property is an excellent investment over the long terma nd would give the charity collateral against which to borrow money

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

nononononono
most major charities/pension funds own huge property portfolios!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Oh in that case boo hoo they're going to have to pay £10,000 and wait a few weeks.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

but they do good in the world
these pikeys cause nothing but misery and cost and then do it again to the next landlord!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:41, Reply)

Well you're not allowed to kill them
so just suck it up, and go on making the enormous sums of money that you do at the same time.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:43, Reply)