Selective Licensing of Landlords

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I thought his post meant that he would be leaving Garinda's playground, rather than coming down to his childish level, not Accringtonweb. We shall soon find out I guess.

Would that be childish cos he disagrees,? or points out glaring inaccuraccies which you yerself are missing?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

Would that be childish cos he disagrees,? or points out glaring inaccuraccies which you yerself are missing?

I think he's childish because he ignores large parts of posts and picks up on petty points, which he then goes on to repeat and repeat. There are plenty of people on Accyweb that disagree without being childish.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I think he's childish because he ignores large parts of posts and picks up on petty points, which he then goes on to repeat and repeat. There are plenty of people on Accyweb that disagree without being childish.

n you aint one of em.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Eafield

Are you not a landlord yourself, Mr Jones and was it not your flyer that accused all landlords of Greed. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to your motivation for becoming a landlord?

Originally Posted by g jones

Firstly on two homes. I do not have two homes. My gran died and the estate is selling the property (Buy The House).

Originally Posted by garinda

Well sadly there's no retraction from Cllr. Haworth, or threat of legal action because of false authorship, in this weekend's Observer.

However there are three letter in reply to the attack.

One from someone, who thinks like many of us, that by not using her title of Councillor, she must think the public are plain daft.

There's a letter from Graham Jones, and also a withering retort from his sister, who passionately attacks the smears, aimed at her and Graham's late grandmother, and sets the record straight on that particular matter.

All in all, as an exercise in public relations, Cllr. Marlene Haworth's letter can't be hailed as a great success.

Judging by the backlash, not only in this week's paper, but also what people are saying in the street, just the opposite was achieved.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control of governments by controlling money and its issuance."
-- President James Madison

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...-ob-52587.html



If some people took the time to read the relevant threads on this forum, or inform themselves about what's been recently printed in the local press, perhaps they wouldn't continue to add misinformation to a vile smear campaign.

As first impressions go this has to be in the all time top three worst Accy Web introductions, and the others only pipped the top two places because they included death threats and/or threats of violence.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...-ob-52587.html



If some people took the time to read the relevant threads on this forum, or inform themselves about what's been recently printed in the local press, perhaps they wouldn't continue to add misinformation to a vile smear campaign.

As first impressions go this has to be in the all time top three worst Accy Web introductions, and the others only pipped the top two places because they included death threats and/or threats of violence.

The fact that Andrewb is supporting this person, speaks volumes about himself IMHO.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I think he's childish because he ignores large parts of posts and picks up on petty points, which he then goes on to repeat and repeat. There are plenty of people on Accyweb that disagree without being childish.

Yes, quoting what people have actually said is sooooooooooo naughty.

Are you going to flounce off in another huff, accusing people of 'pickin' on you', and 'twisting your words'?

If you don't wish any part of your posts not to be quoted, the only way around this is not to post the things that might be deemed worthy of highlighting.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

The fact that Andrewb is supporting this person, speaks volumes about himself IMHO.

The vast majority of people, with a modicum of common sense, see and understand that.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I for one welcome Eafield's informed contribution to Accyweb.

That statement speaks volumes about you Andrew, and I'm disappointed to say that they're all rather negative tomes. The 'informed contribution' has been desultory and aches of anti-Labour cant whilst opposing a scheme that is for the good of the masses.

You wouldn't happen to know Eafield personally, would you?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

That statement speaks volumes about you Andrew, and I'm disappointed to say that they're all rather negative tomes. The 'informed contribution' has been desultory and aches of anti-Labour cant whilst opposing a scheme that is for the good of the masses.

You wouldn't happen to know Eafield personally, would you?

It's unfortunate that you feel negatively because I've welcomed somebody on to Accringtonweb, a landlord, to contribute to a thread about landlord licensing.

No I do not know Eafield personally.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

It's unfortunate that you feel negatively because I've welcomed somebody on to Accringtonweb, a landlord, to contribute to a thread about landlord licensing.

No I do not know Eafield personally. Nor would it matter if I did.

It's not the welcome, it's that you've found something laudable in gravelly posts that have tarmaced their way through this thread, rubbishing a scheme which is for the benefit of everyone involved in it.

You and I are definitely on different sides of the fence on this matter.

[Ken Moss]

I should also add that coming onto a message board and throwing around baseless (and potentially libellous) accusations towards a councillor in a lengthy first post which is riddled with spelling errors that miraculously disappear from more pithy replies further into the thread is likely to arouse suspicion and get people's backs up.

The whole purpose of Eafield's contribution appears to have been politically-motivated, whether intentional or not.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

It's unfortunate that you feel negatively because I've welcomed somebody on to Accringtonweb, a landlord, to contribute to a thread about landlord licensing.

No I do not know Eafield personally.

True but ya know who does. the stuff about yer welcome is more crap, if the guy had introduced himself, i would have welcomed him, as i normally do. i question if he is in fact a landlord? or just a letting agent? i don't know n nor do you if ya don't know him.

[turkishdelight]

Originally Posted by cashman

True but ya know who does. the stuff about yer welcome is more crap, if the guy had introduced himself, i would have welcomed him, as i normally do. i question if he is in fact a landlord? or just a letting agent? i don't know n nor do you if ya don't know him.

As you are aware i know him and he is indeed a landlord a good one too

[Eafield]

Originally Posted by cashman

Right lets clear this up, Why did ya join Accyweb? my view is it was not to become a participating member, it was to get yer own selfish point of view across, i base that view on all the subjects ya have contributed on 1. some folk don't agree with that view, yer spitting yer dummy out n sodding off. fer your information, not that it matters, i am a landlord meself, so have no axe to grind about yer views. my axe is purely cos of yer inaccuracies n porkies, i would love ya to prove me wrong n become a participating member, but aint holding me breath, so if ya are going, Don't slam the door on yer way out.

I was introduced to the forum by a friend on the merit of a conversation about Selective Licensing.

I have jumped in at the deep end with a subject I do indeed feel passionately about. As a discussion forum I would have expected its members to welcome another opinion. I confess I did not look through the introduction for which I apologies, I will introduce myself retrospectively and with an apology.

I am disappointed in myself for allowing my points to be diluted by petty procrastination over a miss typed date, a contended point of dates which has yet to be replied to further to my last comment to Claytonender and a question to a councillor about his current level of involvement in the rental market.

You say you agree with some of my comments, yet like many others in this forum you seem keen to quibble minor points and have entirely avoided giving an opinion on the real issues raised.

I will indeed be far more careful in what I post in future, I did not realise so many could be offended so deeply by things such as the above along with the spelling and grammar of a participant.

Had I been introduced on a less relevant point I may well have spent more time looking at other elements of the site, as it is so far, I have limited time and this was the issue I joined to discuss. I will indeed continue to contribute to the site, albeit only where I feel I have a constructive and relevant point.

Going to the matter at the head of this thread, “selective licensing”.

May I graciously ask, as you have now advised you are a landlord, are you accredited and if so when were you accredited?

I am a landlord, I am not accredited, although I applied to be over 12 months ago. Yes i’m an agent also. I do not have issue with being licensed, I do not have issue with paying for it. For the record, I only have two houses that will be affected by the scheme.

May I also graciously ask will your property be affected by the scheme?

I look forward to hearing back.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...-ob-52587.html



If some people took the time to read the relevant threads on this forum, or inform themselves about what's been recently printed in the local press, perhaps they wouldn't continue to add misinformation to a vile smear campaign.

As first impressions go this has to be in the all time top three worst Accy Web introductions, and the others only pipped the top two places because they included death threats and/or threats of violence.

...and are you going to apologise to Graham Jones too, now you're better informed by what was delivered in evidence in post 140?

Not really a wise move, wrongly accusing well respected members of this forum, of things that turn out not to be true.