Talk:Fergus and Judith Wilson

Removal from category of "Leeches"
Absolutely, this article is written from a very negative (and even prejudiced) point of view, and needs comprehensive revision. Actually, a Wikipedia administrator should look into whether the inclusion of any article meets Wikipedia's notability inclusion rules, as the Wilsons are simply ordinary landlords, albeit with a fair number of properties. What is reprehensible is the categorization of this couple as "Leeches" and I have taken the liberty of removing them from this category, as it is blatant bigotry.Barmispain (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
This article is clearly written from a negative point of view. It points out that their worth does not take into account their debt; this is the same for everyone. Richard Branson has more debt than cash, many "rich" people do. It also refers to their recently announced Abmortgage arrears but not the reason for the arrears as explained by the individuals themselves. Furthermore, the article is being changed by people at that well-known hotbed of unbiased, reasoned debate, housepricecrash.co.uk: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2009/11/blog-a-whole-wiki-page-devoted-to-our-face-btl-couple-26429.php So don't trust this article until some grown ups with no vested interest, bias or axe to grind get involved. 86.17.211.148 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is too negative or lack neutraility. It points out that their net wealth, assets minus liabilities, is a lower than the estimated £180m quoted in the Sunday times rich list. I don't see the problem with this, the Wilson's are well known to borrow money to buy their buy-to-let houses so it's relevant. This draws attention to a crucial flaw in the Sunday Times rich list, it doesn't take into account liabilities so cannot give an accurate estimation of net wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.34.236 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also no apparent dissection of how they have repeatedly lied about "selling" their portfolio, only today there is yet another article on how they are looking to sell in a mainstream newspaper that would easily pass verifiability. 86.168.200.183 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They have just announced that they are issuing all their tenants eviction notices and making them homeless in the middle of winter. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This story still has some way to run
Truth is there are others besides housepricecrash.co.uk who reach similar conclusions with separate analyses:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227624/Mortgage-arrears-couple-rode-buy-let-boom-estimated-350-000.html#ixzz0WotoCYNR

http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=8238&st=0

Other sources, written before the first phase of the double-dip depression (2007), demonstrate why the Wilsons become so interesting (they weren't exactly popular, and they are arguably exponents and proponents of a get-rich-quick scheme which they're now, belatedly, desperately trying to extract themselves out of before they lose too much money):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/16/business.houseprices

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1218691/Village-anger-buy-let-gurus-sell-acre-plot-travellers.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7035292.stm

I think this story has some way to go yet. The second leg of the double-dip depression should be interesting for these folks.

Speculative and controversial question: will there be the moral hazard of a governmental bailout? Are the Wilsons "too big to fail"?

The neutral answer is that we don't know yet and we won't know until whatever happens, happens. In the meanwhile, this is compelling reading, especially when you read non-mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.98.144 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote all the sites you want, it's not relevant. Wikipedia is not a news site and is not an editorial site.  It is not used to repeat conclusions from journalists (the Daily Mail?  Are you ****ing serious?).  News sites may be used for factual sources, not opinion.  No other reference to individuals' wealth (e.g. Branson) comments that their quoted worth does not take into account their debts; this point is intended to influence not inform.  86.17.211.148 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)