The Jawa Report: Police Hunt "Thong Bandit" http://shar.es/e1OxT via @sharethis

Artful Dodger: couldn't get the page, me thinks too much information... <(:op

<a href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php">http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php</a>

Iamon lyme: Woah!! WAY too much information... this time it should work.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215359.php

Artful Dodger: Oh yeah, that was definitely worth waiting for. The police sketch goes a long way toward identifying the man, they shouldn't have any trouble finding him with that tool in their arsenal... no pun intended.

Iamon lyme: he was just sharing his shortcomings!

(V): "It's not enough to tell them. If the law says you can file frivolous lawsuits and sue for exorbitant claims then why wouldn't they?"

[ The law doesn't make them do it though does it. ]

No, the law doesn't make them do it. The law allows them to do it.


"It's not just McDonalds that can be forced to pay someone for spilling coffee on themselves. Doctors and hospitals are also forced to pay out more than they should have to, and so the cost of health care naturally rises to cover those costs."

[ That is just one of the factors, an easy one to use to distract you from the rest of the ways health care providers and others in the health care business inflate prices. ]

That's the sort of jibberish politicians use to confuse people. If prices are inflated it's because doctors and hospitals need to cover their costs, and those costs include lawsuits demanding inflated damages. Inflated damage awards, inflated prices. Tort reform would put a cap on awards, and bring them more in line with reality.


"it's the fault of lawmakers who have steadfastly refused to fix this problem."

[ Why... who's interests are affected if tort reform is made? ]

Who do you think! I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry. That's why they won't allow tort reform, because they want the government to be in control of it. It's not about prices or availability with them, it's about control.


"and your government knows better than the banking industry how they should be doing business."

[ lol... we've had to bail out the banks here. ]

lol... no, you didn't have to do that.

[ Our government owns substantial shares in a number of UK based banks. ]

I'm not surprised by that.

[ .......... The reason, stupidity by the banks, fraud resulting in billions of refunds to business and private customers. ]

Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?


[ Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking. ]

Well no kidding! So who needs to have common sense these days if the government can be made to pick up the tab?


"You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company...""

[ Am I...... That private companies are more efficient.... except when they are liars?? ]

That doesn't make sense. Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue. Stupidity is also a moral issue, so how do you figure the UK rates morally when it makes bad business decisions?

~ You want to try that again? ~


"Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing?"

[ The UK is a registered corporate entity. I (as is every UK citizen) am a share holder in such as stated on my Birth Certificate... I think the same applies to US citizens. My name as registered on my birth certificate is crown copyrighted, not to be used as identification and as such, a legal fiction. All acts and statutes passed as 'legal' laws are by consent in the UK. If we do not consent, they cannot enforce. To show you do not consent is a process in some cases. But even the police cannot enforce consent in many cases. ]

?


"My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income."

[ I understand the principle easily. But in reality we do not have a taxation system where it could be said to be true. ]

Both times Reagan did it (as governor of California and as president of the US) it worked just fine.

[ While blatant fraud and evasion happens, your point is pointless. Not because taxes are high, but because they just like to not pay tax period. ]

Apples and oranges. There would undoubtedly be less evasion and fraud under a fair tax system, because fewer people would feel the need to protect themselves. So how do you feel about moral equality? In other words, the government stops stealing and the citizen pays his taxes... and then we can all stop worrying about it and frolic with the unicorns, or whatever else floats our boats.

(V): "The UK is a registered corporate entity."


You pointed out the difference between England and the UK, but as far as taxation is concerned it may be a difference without a distinction...

Where does the UK get it's money? Does it earn it engaging in private enterprise or from taxation?

(V): "who's interests are affected if tort reform is made?"

Politicians interested in seeing healthcare nationalized would have been negatively affected by tort reform. Their argument was based on some made up ethereal morality that says everyone has a right to healthcare. The way it will work now is if you don't get health care a fine can be levied against you. So apparently this "right" to healthcare will be mandatory. But if the problems with healthcare were actually fixed, they would have had no reason to say it needed fixing... this is why some politicians have always opposed tort reform. Their eyes were on the prize of gaining control of that industry.

The average citizen on the other hand would have been positively affected, because competition would cause prices to fall after the need to insure against exorbitant claims is no longer a concern. Availability has never been an issue, but it probably soon will be.

I say "would have been" because now that government controled healthcare has been made law, the point is moot. We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage. And on top of that, health insurance probably won't cost any less than it did before. So what exactly have we gained? We've taken a relatively small problem and made it much worse.

Iamon lyme: No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades.

"There would undoubtedly be less evasion and fraud under a fair tax system, because fewer people would feel the need to protect themselves."

LMAO.... LMAO .....

"I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry. That's why they won't allow tort reform, because they want the government to be in control of it."

No, that's paranoid. Our Gov just tells our NHS trusts that they have standards to live upto, and that they are accountable if those standards are not met. The hospitals pretty much are run by themselves or the local NHS trust.

"Tort reform would put a cap on awards, and bring them more in line with reality."

Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better.

"Where does the UK get it's money? Does it earn it engaging in private enterprise or from taxation?"

........ ..... both.

"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

You have been for years already.

""[ Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking. ]

Well no kidding! So who needs to have common sense these days if the government can be made to pick up the tab?""

Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank.

" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.

(V): "I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry."

[ No, that's paranoid. ]

Then what is your explanation for why those same politicians have always resisted tort reform?


"No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades."

Ohhhh, I get it now! That explains why our country suffered under Rayguns administration, until Buck Rogers saved us all from Emperor Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. So where was Dr Who when all this was happening?

"Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better."

Exactly, so you can add them to the list of people whose interests would be (negatively) affected by tort reform. But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it.


"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

[ You have been for years already. ]

According to the same politicians who have resisted any effort to reform healthcare... in other words, the same liars who have claimed that if they are in control there will be greater accessibility and better health coverage. If you believe that, then I guess I should believe it too... (?)


"Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank."

As I've already said "Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?"

When the government here forced banks into making bad home loans it created a bubble that was ready to break at any time. Banks and other businesses have failed before without government intervention, but in this case government intervention was the catalyst.


" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

[ Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.]

I didn't say lying doesn't cause inefficiency. I said they are not the same things. Just because one thing can cause another doesn't mean they are the same.

Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies, but being a fool who believes everything he hears is not the same thing either.

I am on lyme: "Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies"

I should have just left it at that. I've been trying to avoid saying anything too inflammatory...

Inflammatory, maybe... but not TOO inflammatory.

"""But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it."""

Lobbyists... I wonder what Douglas Adams would say about them?

"Don't Panic" or "Mostly Harmless"

Antibiotics. The lack of new ones a bigger threat to our way of living than terrorism... ... Northern Ireland based, etc.... As it appears some of the old angers are still burning.

anyway.. no new ones developed since the late 80's. Pharmaceutical companies have not been interested thanks to it not being profitable. And the over use now leaves in a position where resistant bacteria will make simple operations possibly 'deadly' in just 20 years time.

(V): "Lobbyists"

I was wondering about that... I don't know if there are or have been lobbyists persuading lawmakers to reject tort reform. It seems odd to me that people would be running around telling lawmakers "We have the right to ask for any amount of damages we want. It's not our fault the judges rule in our favor." Yeah, right... it's always someone elses fault.

But just because it seems odd to me, that doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, it probably means it is true.

I am only me: oops again (oopsie poopsie)

That should read "We have the right to ask for any amount IN damages..." (not OF damages)



But now that I think about it, the amount CAN be damaging, so I was right the first time...


... never mind

I'm changing my name to: Youareon Lyou

dang, it doesn't work!

How about

Iaman Obody

or

Justan O Thername

Nowimoff T Opic

I crack me up

I a monly me: The Raygun years

Correction: It wasn't Buck Rogers who saved earth from Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. It was Flash Gordon.

It was an honest mistake... I wasn't trying to *cough* rewrite history.

rod03801: Don't ya just miss my shenanigans??? ;)

Iamon lyme: We'd better get back on topic. Let's see.....how about let's bash Obama and his incompetency as Salamander in Chief. (slippery lizzard)

The STAR witness in the Trayvon Martin Case Lied under oath. Oops!

Articles: Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/why_florida_persists_in_the_zimmerman_prosecution.html#.UT6xFm0Y3Ig.twitter

Artful Dodger: "...let's bash Obama and his incompetency as Salamander in Chief."

What's the point? Obama is not bashful of his incompetency, and his supporters are pleased with themselves as well. These are strange times we are living in... it would be entertaining to watch if we weren't actually affected by any of it. The way I see it, I can either laugh about it or take medication to relieve depression.

Iamon lyme: Hmmmmm, good point. Let's pick on Joe Biden then!

Artful Dodger: Those are our choices?!?! Obama or Biden? I need an aspirin.

What about some other comedy team, like Martin and Lewis, or Abbott and Costello, or...

Oh yeah, I forgot... politics board.

Iamon lyme:

Well all I can say is that if Obama runs for a third term, I'm voting for him this time!

Artful Dodger: LOL Yeah, me too! Why not, he's managed to slip and slide his way around the constitution, queening around the country like he was royalty, and spending record amounts of money on himself and his family. Who wouldn't want to vote him in for a third term?

Iamon lyme: And I'm gonna take up golf. Gotta be something good about that game if papa Bamma plays it. Or maybe he's just interested in playin with putters and balls!

Iamon lyme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yovzZkf6OFQ

It's an old interview on Brit TV by the man himself!! ;P

(V): you Brits have the best kind of humor. That was pretty funny and I'm a Reagan fan!

CBC leader concerned Obama has named no blacks to new Cabinet. “Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed in Obama’s first term, remains the Obama administration’s only black Cabinet-level appointee. According to a Politics365 analysis released last week, that’s the fewest by any president over the last 38 years.”

From the Low Information Pet Owners Guide:

If your dog has been scratching the furniture and coughing up hairballs, then he is probably a cat.

Artful Dodger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCQa4iFmkW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l1XGiXgo0

Some bits from the past!! ;)

Well it appears after all the wrangling a deal has been struck on the press regulation laws coming into effect. The Politicians won't be able to mess with the regs on a whim, no watering down on request from a media tycoon (such as Murdoch) and like for like apologies.... except in a case of a 2/3 more vote in a later parliament that is!!

ie If the paper publishes a story on page one in big fonts... then the apology has to be on page one in big fonts.

But one has to ask...... there were already criminal laws in place that covered the actions.... so why the buffer zone?

That some of the police and some of the politicians were too much in some of the media's pocket to be fully disclosed??

.... mmmmmm probably. It's nothing new these.. ... get out jail free for the connected cards.

Shakespeare wrote plays about this kinda stuff.

The Media pressure group "Hacked Off" reports there are two more investigations by the police into phone hacking to be reported on soon....

http://hackinginquiry.org/news/the-return-of-the-phone-hacking-scandal

The new Pope got inaugurated today.

Verdict... nicely staged, but still creepy in light of recent news and the shadow of the child abuse cases. Hopefully the new Pope will not just be a figure head, some 'hints' of change were stated in his speech.

Did they have to use a 'blonde, blue eyed' kid.....no.

That an arch bishop is stating that the RCC wealth is open to all.. sorry, the Art collection is open to the public... ... that felt a bit Mafioso.

..... btw many of the UK papers have decided to question the new laws on the press being responsible. The publishers of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Star and the Daily Express said they would wait to make a decision to co-operate or not with the new watchdog.

... ie the ones who's editors and owners were/are responsible for the mess they are in.

.... 'cry babies' comes to mind.

The Government has released a new scheme to help people buy homes....

.... Yet most want the government to invest in new affordable housing, or to help develop areas that have become run down.

That the government will effectively underwrite mortgages.. It's right the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned there are risks. Some borrowers might be far less conservative in what they aim to buy, some may default rather than tighten their belts.

N' what is the government gonna charge the lenders to use such a scheme?

What's wrong with the current shared ownership scheme?

...<<< you buy part and rent the 'rest'>>>...

(V): Isn't that what Fannie and Freddy was all about in the US?

Artful Dodger: Close enough (for government work)

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp

When the housing bubble of 2001-2007 burst, it caused a mortgage security meltdown. This contributed to a general credit crisis, which evolved into a worldwide financial crisis. Many critics have held the United States Congress - and its unwillingness to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - responsible for the credit crisis. In this article, we'll examine the extent to which Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their allies in Congress contributed to the largest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.


A Brief History of Mortgage Markets

For most of the twentieth century, mortgage lending took place mostly at banks, thrifts, credit unions, and savings and loans. The most common type of mortgage was a fixed-rate mortgage and most of the financial institutions originating mortgages held the mortgages that they originated on their books. Starting in 1968, when Fannie Mae was chartered by the U.S. Congress as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), and two years later when Freddie Mac was chartered as the same, things began to change quickly. (Fannie Mae was originally created in 1938, but until its privatization in 1968 it was a part of the U.S. government). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a liquid secondary market for mortgages. This meant that financial institutions no longer had to hold onto the mortgages they originated, but could sell them into the secondary market shortly after origination. This in turn freed up their funds such that they could then make additional mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a positive influence on the mortgage market by increasing home ownership rates in the United States; however, as history has proved, allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to function as implied government-backed monopolies had major repercussions that far outweighed the benefits these organizations provided.

The Privileges of GSE Status

According to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's congressional charters, which gave them GSE status, they operated with certain ties to the United States federal government and, as of September 6, 2008, were placed under the direct supervision of the federal government. According to their congressional charters:

•The president of the United States appoints five of the 18 members of the organizations' boards of directors.

•To support their liquidity, the secretary of the Treasury is authorized, but not required, to purchase up to $2.25 billion of securities from each company.

•Both companies are exempt from state and local taxes.

•Both companies are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA regulates the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including implementing, enforcing and monitoring their capital standards, and limiting the size of their mortgage investment portfolios; HUD is responsible for Fannie and Freddie's general housing missions.

Fannie and Freddie's GSE status created certain perceptions in the marketplace, the first of which was that the federal government would step in and bail these organizations out if either firm ever ran into financial trouble. This was known as an "implicit guarantee".

The fact that the market believed in this implicit guarantee allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. The yields on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's corporate debt, known as agency debt, was historically about 35 basis points (.35%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds, while 'AAA-rated' financial firms' debt was historically about 70 basis points (.7%) higher than U.S. Treasury bonds. A 35-basis-point difference might not seem like a lot, but on borrowings measured in trillions of dollars, it adds up to huge sums of money.

With a funding advantage over their Wall Street rivals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large profits for more than two decades. Over this time period, there was frequent debate and analysis among financial and housing market professionals, government officials, members of Congress and the executive branch about whether Fannie and Freddie's implied government backing was working mostly to benefit the companies, their management and their investors, or U.S. homeowners (particularly low-income homeowners) as was part of these firms' HUD-administered housing mission.

One thing was clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given a government-sponsored monopoly on a large part of the U.S. secondary mortgage market. It is this monopoly, combined with the government's implicit guarantee to keep these firms afloat, that would later contribute to the mortgage market's collapse.

Iamon lyme: Why is it government never learns? They keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Artful Dodger: From what Lamon has posted of it's operating nature... no. And in no way would such be allowed by the UK people... we've seen too much of the results of that, and how close the main UK banks nearly collapsed our financial system beyond control to accept a state backed toxic debt selling system.

So much has been picked on by the opposition that it'll be hard to squeeze a mae or mac out of a gnats posterior let alone parliament and our press.

....by "parliament and our press."

(V): "From what Lamon has posted of it's operating nature... no."

But if it has the same result... then yes.

"...the government will effectively underwrite mortgages. It's right the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned there are risks."

We were warned too.

"Some borrowers might be far less conservative in what they aim to buy, some may default rather than tighten their belts."

Yep, that could happen. It happened over here.

"And in no way would such be allowed by the UK people."

So, are you saying "The Government has released a new scheme to help people buy homes" and it WILL be allowed, because its "operating nature" is not the same as mae or mac... even though it essentially does the same thing?

Iamon lyme: It doesn't though, not imo. In the end your banks sold mortgages to other companies, who sold them onto other companies, etc.

...not the same as this.

Any lenders will have to pay a fee to have it 'underwritten'.

It seems the rules will be..

5-20% deposit
20% shared equity loan
75-60% mortgage

It replaces a system called FirstBuy, which helped first time buyers.. now it is being extended to those buying a new home under £600,000 ($900,000 approx)

It does not sort out the problem of a lack of social housing which started in the Thatcher years. Long term tenants were allowed to buy their homes at a greatly reduced price. The money went to the councils, but they were not allowed to reinvest it in new stock by order of Queen Maggie.