Stavros

I've seen posts from other people on Facebook saying that they were without power too in Douglas so I don't think it's specific to just your house.

Didn't know this was tonight. I think I might just get myself a long and let you all buy me a pint. (Each)

The insurers risk is a quantifiable amount - the cost to repair or to fully rebuild in a worst case scenario after a detailed physical survey has been undertaken - and it will still place excesses on potential big costs like subsidence to limit its overall risk.The banks risk is the market risk - that being the resale value at any future point in time (maybe in a fire sale situation) and the best guess of a surveyor on what it might currently be worth if you defaulted next month. The insurers liability is more quantifiable, the banks liabilities are not. I repeat there's too much better quality housing stock around in the Island to be taking the worse re-sale risks into your mortgage portfolio. With all due respect , you're off your fucking trolley. Quantified versus material risk? You give detailed assessment to the insurer. The mortgage company want someone to lay any blame on. You have an intrusive report that says your property is safe and meets current standards. Your scenario suggests that a bank is perfectly within its rights to negotiate a mortgage based on these factors. It doesn't take into account a perfectly independent structural survey, insurers consideration or an independent structural engineers survey or what the purchasers are willing to invest as a capital project. Without specific validation, I find it hard to believe that any of this reporting is anything other than the usual crock 'o shit. For the record, I don't live there or have any personal reason to defend it other than seeing the whole thing as another poorly thought out scare which of course is far too unusual for the IOM...!

As I mentioned in my previous post, if there was an intrusive survey and no faults found, the insurer fully informed and they have accepted the risk with full disclosure, why would or should the lender have an issue with lending? No information was revealed about which original bank stated that they were not prepared or willing to lend on these properties or any specific reason why. It would appear that because one lender has chosen this route that the others have subsequently jumped on the bandwagon without actually considering all of the circumstances or actual reasons for withholding lending.

£4 - 5,000 in the 1970's? I don't think so. Banks are not protecting themselves from shit investments. If the insurer is willing to take on the risk that they, the banks, want to offload or 'insure themselves' then why would they have any concerns? If someone else, as they insist on for a mortgaged property, is taking the risk, what is the shit investment for them? They get their mortgage repayment and their interest and the risk is carried by someone else? I really fail to see what you don't get by this to be honest?

From what I remember, this was an old issue in the UK about timber framed apartments rather than individual houses / bungalows. Banks suddenly decided that it was too risky to lend on apartments where there could be potential structural problems to the overall building. The banks have, as stated by the surveyor, picked up on one bank being unwilling to lend and have jumped on the band wagon. I think it should also be taken into account that when a property is mortgaged, the mortgage company insist on the property being adequately insured. If a structural engineer or intrusive survey was conducted and no faults were found. The information provided to the insurance company and the insurer being satisfied that the property is a risk that they are prepared to underwrite, why would or should the mortgage company be unwilling to lend on the property. (Other than unsubstantiated scaremongering and the usual jump straight on the bandwagon response from financial institutions that are more than likely owned by or have been bailed out by the taxpayer) Think of the children bonuses...

The smell of freshly ground coffee Fresh clean bedding (each year) Sex (preferably with a woman but on my own is cool too. Not that I will be doing that on the bus again) Cornflakes with garlic gravy on crumpets

A. Because Eddie swapped our reserves for some magic Pinewood beans, and the giants climbed down the beanstalk. Q. What number should not be in this sequence? 4, 17, 29, 33, 49, 67 Number 4 Who ate all the pies?

Perhaps it's not the churches that need looking at, it's the properties owned by the church that should be sold to fund any repairs needed: Patrick Vicarage - £650,000 - http://www.blackgracecowley.com/details.php?id=24361895 Ballabeg Vicarage - £899,500 - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iLIkg579cfoJ:www.chrystals.co.im/residential/Ballabeg/House/Main-Road-Ballabeg952+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk How many other Vicarages are out there worth more than half a million pound each?

I'd like to get some of my videos onto YouTube but they never reply to my calls and emails. I've emailed them loads of times and not once have I had a reply saying that they would like to add one of my videos.

BBC One Inside Out North West Tonight at 7:30pm BBC One

Its Manx Litfest this weekend, they were hoping to attend a seminar on creative writing first. Brilliant!

I think it's an annual competition but they might have regular poetry events during the year. I really don't know but you could try contacting the Isle of Man Poetry Society. email: contactus@iom-poetry.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/isleofmanpoetrysociety I tried to come up with a funny poem but I'm crap at poetry Roses are red, Violets are blue. Some poems rhyme, And this one sucks. Roses are red, that much is true. Violets are purple, not fucking blue.

With the old prison on Victoria Road being so close to Douglas Police HQ, would it not have been more practical to spend some money (like the cost to demolish it) on refurbishing it instead. At least the cells were already there with more than enough room for bookings / custody and police facilities. It would have just been an extended area of Police HQ for detaining people in the cells. It would have been perfect for access, secure and even kitchen and medical facilities as needed. The second question is who was responsible for the Lord Street Police station and the cells being located on the 1st floor breaching health and safety regulations. From what I understand, the difference between a restrained and compliant 'offender' is that they cannot take offenders wearing handcuffs up and down stairs. Did they employ consultants to design and build the station this way? Who was responsible for the design and poor planning which has caused so much cost to the tax payer and why have they not been sued for negligence? This is why consultants, professionals and architects have professional indemnity insurance. Surely, the government isn't just going to say oops, we made a silly mistake there, we'll just go and waste a load more money doing something else to fix the problem. Someone must be responsible and accountable for the incredibly poor management, design, build and expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry_slam