Meenzer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puHK73fMXmQ This escalated at a moderate pace.

Fellas, I'm the token forum gay. Applications to usurp me must be submitted in writing.

Rocking out with Brock's ratatouille once again. The whole house smells of vitamins.

http://ikeaordeath.com/

Aye, I would never cycle in London like, drivers and cyclists here all seem to be mildly unhinged. The big roundabout/junction near us had a fatal incident involving a cyclist a few months back. Two days later I saw a guy without a helmet ride straight across a speedy flow of cars into a one-way street (the wrong way, obviously), right next to the massed floral tributes to the dead guy. Clearly not the brightest of sparks.

FYP

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/super-tory-boy/

You are such a cunt.

I know we get irate about the "United" thing, but its use in that article is genuinely confusing considering the headline is about a different United.

And not only there...

Takeaway dish in "not healthy" shocker

"What's for Christmas dinner, Dad?" "Turkey and all the trimmings! With Ranch Dressing on Italian Herbs & Cheese."

I'm in love.

In principle we should welcome a situation where lenders are asking people to save up a 20-25% deposit before buying - it was good enough for previous generations when we didn't have crippling house price growth, and part of the reason house prices are already so grossly and unrealistically inflated is because we allowed ourselves to get to a point where "buying" a house is something people can (and do) commit to casually and without a great deal of thought, rather than the biggest financial commitment most of us will ever make in our lives. Obviously the problem is that house prices already are so stupidly high that a 20-25% deposit is a big ask in most parts of the country, whereas it really shouldn't be. At some point along the line someone has to lose out, whether it's some members of the current generation of homeowners being punished financially for not realising (or wanting to realise) they were buying way beyond their means, the next wave of buyers being unable to get a mortgage as easily and casually as they might want to, or whatever. And since no party wants to piss off current potential voters, it's easy to understand the political rationale behind schemes aimed at stimulating demand and driving house price growth based on the current housing stock - it's just pushing the inevitable consequences further down the line, and and eventually someone's going to be in the firing line when the shit really hits the fan, but as long as that doesn't make you unelectable in the shorter term...

First he offs his wife with a dodgy Chinese plug, then he mysteriously disappears...

I was just about to post something hilarious about battering and (re-)frying that chip on his shoulder, if that counts.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a period of negative equity if you're buying a house as somewhere to live rather than as a freely liquidable asset that gives you a god-given right to above-inflation value growth because property porn on TV tells you you're entitled to it. Of course your circumstances can change, but that's true of any major financial commitment, particularly one where society encourages you to commit yourself to the very limit of your means.

Wonga mafia!

Well this turned out nicely.

FYP