Just build everything on that magical brownfield land which will solve all problems everywhere. We cannot give up even an inch of green fields, even if it is of no value, because of the environment, and food security etc etc.
For her services in delivering the next Labour Government
Citation needed from you.
You think Truss sent mortgage rates soaring to 6.5 per cent and brought pension funds to within hours of collapse? Let’s not lose the true history here. Liz Truss took all the blame for the near meltdown of our country’s bond markets and pension system, but the truth is the main culprit turned out to be pension fund managers who essentially bet that long-term interest rates would not rise too fast. She also took the blame for a run on the pound in a week everyone suffered from US strengthening their dollar. For your own personal selfishness you are ripping up true history. And that’s bad.
So now you're a Liz Truss fan? Jesus Christ Moon, look at yourself.
Liz Truss implemented a load of uncosted spending plans that were so bad she refused to have the OBR report on them.
The markets got spooked as would have happened in 2010 if a Government hadn't been formed (plenty of literature on this but Coalition 2015 is a good documentary on it).
Liz Truss called the markets left wing and that they threw her out. She is the one re-writing history.
If this had been Keir Starmer you'd have said he was totally to blame. I know you're a Tory fangirl but this is pathetic even from you.
I’m not a Tory fan girl at all. You have no clue about politics if you genuinely think that. I’m supporting the point she is making politicians, rather cowardly, starting with Brown and Labour, have outsourced decision making politicians should be responsible for. Politics should be about pursuing a purpose, an ideology, and UK politicians need that power back to pursue their ideology. The UK political and economic system just isn’t working so well with so much of this outsourced, is it? Unless you would like to argue that it is - taxed to the eyebrows, borrowed to the eyebrows, and BoE printing money way beyond the point of sanity. Ideology shouldn’t be a dirty word like Blair’s Labour turned it into is the point she is making.
By sticking to the truth of what actually happened, and not doing spin, I get MASSIVE likes on ConHome, who are obviously just smarter at politics than some of you here.
Are you Tony from Torquay?
Nah. I’m Mandy from Tonypandy - witty, resilient and provocative 😇
I saw Mandy from Tonypandy at Tonyrefail Rugby Club on Saturday night. After 20 pints of Brains Dark she was dancing on the bar to Delilah. Was that you?
Look, if your banning Delilah then Chicago has it coming. Treat all murder as a separate case, but certainly go after culture setting misogyny in music.
We had a big nite out Friday. Took it easier Saturday. So that must have been the girl who looks a bit like me, us daughters of Hongkongers probably hard for you to tell apart at first?
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
You can apply to the Land Registry, to notify you by email if someone tries to register a disposition of the property.
I don't think Radio 4 is correct, though. If the property is sold fraudulently, the buyer takes the hit, and then sues the Seller.
@Sean_F that is what I would of thought but this arose quite a few months ago now and I am aware of two cases (the first was a vicar I believe who was working away and was notified by a neighbour that there were builders in his house, he returned and challenged them. They were working for the new owners) and in both cases the owner of the house lost their house and the buyers kept it.
Having heard about that we did what you suggested on both our properties. Particularly relevant for our second home.
For her services in delivering the next Labour Government
Citation needed from you.
You think Truss sent mortgage rates soaring to 6.5 per cent and brought pension funds to within hours of collapse? Let’s not lose the true history here. Liz Truss took all the blame for the near meltdown of our country’s bond markets and pension system, but the truth is the main culprit turned out to be pension fund managers who essentially bet that long-term interest rates would not rise too fast. She also took the blame for a run on the pound in a week everyone suffered from US strengthening their dollar. For your own personal selfishness you are ripping up true history. And that’s bad.
Absolutely crackers.
She was told that an inflationary, tax slashing "mini" budget without any sense of direction on spending cuts would send interest rates soaring and the currency crashing. She sacked the people saying that, bypassed the OBR and Bank of England, did it anyway... and now blames everyone else for the fact that what they said would happen in fact happened. The moment the policies and personnel behind it were ditched, the situation stabilised - but not without long term damage.
You are the one rewriting history here.
Liz Truss doesn't actually use the phrase 'left-wing economic establishment' anywhere in that Telegraph piece...
much like Mari Antoinette never said let them eat cake. But that’s not going to stop your spin is it.
what she is pointing out, politicians, rather cowardly, starting with Brown and Labour, have outsourced decision making politicians should be responsible for. Politics should be about pursuing a purpose, an ideology, and UK politicians need that power back to pursue their ideology. The UK political and economic system just isn’t working so well with so much of this outsourced, is it? Unless you would like to argue that it is - taxed to the eyebrows, borrowed to the eyebrows, and BoE printing money way beyond the point of sanity.
Ideology shouldn’t be a dirty word like Blair’s Labour turned it into is the point she is making. Way over your head isn’t it?
I have not at any point claimed Truss used the phrase "left-wing economic establishment" in her article. However, the Sunday Telegraph, which has been very positive about her remarks, used the phrase in its headline. I'm not aware she's distanced herself from that.
She also came pretty close to it in her article, saying that, "frankly, we were also pushing water uphill. Large parts of the media and the wider public sphere had become unfamiliar with key arguments about tax and economic policy and over time sentiment had shifted Left-wards."
Her consistent claim has been that, in warning that the approach she pursued would precipitate a financial meltdown, the Treasury, OBR, Bank of England and media commentators had been captured by a centre-left delusion. What her article fails to recognise is that, whether or not those groups had been influenced in the way she describes, they were absolutely correct about what the market reaction would be.
The people who should be most furious are those who broadly agree with her prescription, and I am surprised we don't hear more from them. There was a path for her which involved a gradual tightening of the screw, with tax cuts going hand in hand with spending cuts. I'd not have agreed with it particularly, but it was the obvious way to proceed and the path Thatcher would have taken. That she charged in with a totally botched job has discredited her wing for many years to come.
The trouble with that is that the indulged child wing of the Conservative Party have convinced themselves that that's unnecessary. That the Laffer Curve means that the government can cut tax rates and revenues will definitely rise, so we don't need the spending cuts after all. And yes, there are scenarios when that's the case, but there's no particular reason to think it's where we are now.
And if you want to cut government spending, the question is what the government should stop doing...
A lot of the current Labour front bench voted to get rid of our Trident nuclear deterrent last year. Though it’s probably no more expensive through life than building HS2.
I suppose the obvious smart Alec political answer is how much are we currently spending/chucking away on interest on our borrowing and how far would that go in helping the NHS etc - David Cameron added nearly hundred seats using that line and very little else.
That's fine as a description of the question, Moon (can I call you Moon? I hope it's not being too forward), but it doesn't do much to help us out of the current jam. All that money has been borrowed and spent by previous generations, and the bill is what it is.
And Truss is right that the only way out of that is to grow the economy; I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But what's silly is to propose to borrow more to support tax cuts aimed at a small minority and not expect pushback from the financial markets. And what's sillier is when Trussites assume that nobody else cares about economic growth, rather than thinking that fiscal stability is needed to get growth to happen.
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Well, in part it is, since she torpedoed their reputation, but he's not been able to do anything about it and that's on him. Indeed, economically he might not be as silly but he has also created his own issues.
For her services in delivering the next Labour Government
Citation needed from you.
You think Truss sent mortgage rates soaring to 6.5 per cent and brought pension funds to within hours of collapse? Let’s not lose the true history here. Liz Truss took all the blame for the near meltdown of our country’s bond markets and pension system, but the truth is the main culprit turned out to be pension fund managers who essentially bet that long-term interest rates would not rise too fast. She also took the blame for a run on the pound in a week everyone suffered from US strengthening their dollar. For your own personal selfishness you are ripping up true history. And that’s bad.
So now you're a Liz Truss fan? Jesus Christ Moon, look at yourself.
Liz Truss implemented a load of uncosted spending plans that were so bad she refused to have the OBR report on them.
The markets got spooked as would have happened in 2010 if a Government hadn't been formed (plenty of literature on this but Coalition 2015 is a good documentary on it).
Liz Truss called the markets left wing and that they threw her out. She is the one re-writing history.
If this had been Keir Starmer you'd have said he was totally to blame. I know you're a Tory fangirl but this is pathetic even from you.
I’m not a Tory fan girl at all. You have no clue about politics if you genuinely think that. I’m supporting the point she is making politicians, rather cowardly, starting with Brown and Labour, have outsourced decision making politicians should be responsible for. Politics should be about pursuing a purpose, an ideology, and UK politicians need that power back to pursue their ideology. The UK political and economic system just isn’t working so well with so much of this outsourced, is it? Unless you would like to argue that it is - taxed to the eyebrows, borrowed to the eyebrows, and BoE printing money way beyond the point of sanity. Ideology shouldn’t be a dirty word like Blair’s Labour turned it into is the point she is making.
By sticking to the truth of what actually happened, and not doing spin, I get MASSIVE likes on ConHome, who are obviously just smarter at politics than some of you here.
Are you Tony from Torquay?
Nah. I’m Mandy from Tonypandy - witty, resilient and provocative 😇
I saw Mandy from Tonypandy at Tonyrefail Rugby Club on Saturday night. After 20 pints of Brains Dark she was dancing on the bar to Delilah. Was that you?
Look, if your banning Delilah then Chicago has it coming. Treat all murder as a separate case, but certainly go after culture setting misogyny in music.
We had a big nite out Friday. Took it easier Saturday. So that must have been the girl who looks a bit like me, us daughters of Hongkongers probably hard for you to tell apart at first?
For her services in delivering the next Labour Government
Citation needed from you.
You think Truss sent mortgage rates soaring to 6.5 per cent and brought pension funds to within hours of collapse? Let’s not lose the true history here. Liz Truss took all the blame for the near meltdown of our country’s bond markets and pension system, but the truth is the main culprit turned out to be pension fund managers who essentially bet that long-term interest rates would not rise too fast. She also took the blame for a run on the pound in a week everyone suffered from US strengthening their dollar. For your own personal selfishness you are ripping up true history. And that’s bad.
Absolutely crackers.
She was told that an inflationary, tax slashing "mini" budget without any sense of direction on spending cuts would send interest rates soaring and the currency crashing. She sacked the people saying that, bypassed the OBR and Bank of England, did it anyway... and now blames everyone else for the fact that what they said would happen in fact happened. The moment the policies and personnel behind it were ditched, the situation stabilised - but not without long term damage.
You are the one rewriting history here.
Liz Truss doesn't actually use the phrase 'left-wing economic establishment' anywhere in that Telegraph piece...
much like Mari Antoinette never said let them eat cake. But that’s not going to stop your spin is it.
what she is pointing out, politicians, rather cowardly, starting with Brown and Labour, have outsourced decision making politicians should be responsible for. Politics should be about pursuing a purpose, an ideology, and UK politicians need that power back to pursue their ideology. The UK political and economic system just isn’t working so well with so much of this outsourced, is it? Unless you would like to argue that it is - taxed to the eyebrows, borrowed to the eyebrows, and BoE printing money way beyond the point of sanity.
Ideology shouldn’t be a dirty word like Blair’s Labour turned it into is the point she is making. Way over your head isn’t it?
I have not at any point claimed Truss used the phrase "left-wing economic establishment" in her article. However, the Sunday Telegraph, which has been very positive about her remarks, used the phrase in its headline. I'm not aware she's distanced herself from that.
She also came pretty close to it in her article, saying that, "frankly, we were also pushing water uphill. Large parts of the media and the wider public sphere had become unfamiliar with key arguments about tax and economic policy and over time sentiment had shifted Left-wards."
Her consistent claim has been that, in warning that the approach she pursued would precipitate a financial meltdown, the Treasury, OBR, Bank of England and media commentators had been captured by a centre-left delusion. What her article fails to recognise is that, whether or not those groups had been influenced in the way she describes, they were absolutely correct about what the market reaction would be.
The people who should be most furious are those who broadly agree with her prescription, and I am surprised we don't hear more from them. There was a path for her which involved a gradual tightening of the screw, with tax cuts going hand in hand with spending cuts. I'd not have agreed with it particularly, but it was the obvious way to proceed and the path Thatcher would have taken. That she charged in with a totally botched job has discredited her wing for many years to come.
The trouble with that is that the indulged child wing of the Conservative Party have convinced themselves that that's unnecessary. That the Laffer Curve means that the government can cut tax rates and revenues will definitely rise, so we don't need the spending cuts after all. And yes, there are scenarios when that's the case, but there's no particular reason to think it's where we are now.
And if you want to cut government spending, the question is what the government should stop doing...
A lot of the current Labour front bench voted to get rid of our Trident nuclear deterrent last year. Though it’s probably no more expensive through life than building HS2.
I suppose the obvious smart Alec political answer is how much are we currently spending/chucking away on interest on our borrowing and how far would that go in helping the NHS etc - David Cameron added nearly hundred seats using that line and very little else.
That's fine as a description of the question, Moon (can I call you Moon? I hope it's not being too forward), but it doesn't do much to help us out of the current jam. All that money has been borrowed and spent by previous generations, and the bill is what it is.
And Truss is right that the only way out of that is to grow the economy; I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But what's silly is to propose to borrow more to support tax cuts aimed at a small minority and not expect pushback from the financial markets. And what's sillier is when Trussites assume that nobody else cares about economic growth, rather than thinking that fiscal stability is needed to get growth to happen.
The weird bit is that the reason why everyone couldn't just ignore Truss's blame was the lack of planning was obvious.
If she had simply left the Corporation Tax changes alone - I suspect she would have been able to argue that everything was built around growing the economy and she would still be PM.
Its a fascinating world some people exist in where referring to the PM as "tax dodging non dom" is seen as apparently worth of an "ahhhhhhhh that's Libel that is, you're going to have to pay a squillion quid" response.
A country where you can't pass comment on senior politicians is one that is authoritarian. It makes no difference whether its authoritarianism via the police arresting dissenters or the grotesquely rich threatening libel action against journalists who expose the truth they are hiding.
Seriously. You are Rishi Sunak. Somehow you read Politicalbetting.com this morning and not only think "I'm not having that" but instruct Carter Fuck to go after both the poster and OGH for damages.
Its not remotely going to happen. For a lengthy list of reasons including the political furore over his family's non-dom status. Some people need to chill out before they harrumph themselves so hard that something prolapses.
Nonetheless, it would be risky for moderation policy to be based on an assessment of how likely it is that action might be taken.
No, you ban things which are libellous. This was not libellous. Regardless of the "ahhhhhh thats libel that is" screeching.
Idiot.
You know that "I know how supermarkets work, it's my day job" thing you (quite reasonably) do?
Well...
It's 80%+ probable Sunak could have had heathener on that post, and if she had any sort of advice at all she would have grovelled her guts out at the first solicitor's letter and done a written retraction and donation to the heightism-awareness-raiding charity of his choice.
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Looks like the government is playing for time on public sector pay settlements, aiming to get through to April without agreement and into another pay year. Due to high inflation this would allow them to bake in another 7% or so real terms pay cut and then agree a settlement next year more in-line with inflation. They can maybe use the savings for a tax cut ahead of the election.
It is a very cynical ploy. They used it with the pensioners cpi rise last year only agreeing a 2.1% rise when for most of the year it was 10%. They will probably settle for lower this year for the public sector after they have been suffereing under 10%+ this year. Then Sunak has the gall to accept credit for a proposed drop in inflation by natural causes and nothing he has done.
It was 3.1% linked to inflation the previous September. The link to earnings was removed because there was an artificial bounce back in average earnings, as measured, after a fall the previous year due to Covid. This year's increase will be 10.1% again linked to last September
Apart from agreeing with 3.1% figure, my mistake, the rest of the comment confirms that we were done last year. We had to make do with 3.1% when a good 6 months are at 10+%, and this year the public sector workers will be done by the same number fiddle.
Just build everything on that magical brownfield land which will solve all problems everywhere. We cannot give up even an inch of green fields, even if it is of no value, because of the environment, and food security etc etc.
Surely we can repurpose the magical millions of empty flats owned by Citizens of Nowhere (TM) as lab space?
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
I do know one person who describes JK as 'problematic'. They seem very anxious about many things they used to enjoy but now cannot. I'm all for self reflection, and we can go back and see some stuff we liked when young had elements which were really not on, but it seems exhausing, and this isn't even that, since the work itself is not a problem.
But if the SNP vote does fall and fail to recover, only one party looks likely to benefit from that.
And given that the SNP block is the biggest roadblock on the path to a Labour majority, maybe Lady Starmer should pop over to measure up for curtains and whatnot.
(What's the current status of the Bozza'n'Caz decor?)
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
If someone files a forged transfer form (TR1) and the ownership of your house goes to somebody else, a common or garden legal insurance policy will cover your costs of getting it transferred back to you. (Or just put up the money and claim it back.)
There seems to be a bit of a panic on, akin to the 1970s view "OMG! We'll come back from holiday and squatters will have moved in."
Probably most of the cases being publicised are connected with mortgage fraud. Many solicitors love a bit of mortgage fraud. I doubt the proportion of mortgage frauds not involving a solicitor as a knowing participant reaches 1%.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
You can apply to the Land Registry, to notify you by email if someone tries to register a disposition of the property.
I don't think Radio 4 is correct, though. If the property is sold fraudulently, the buyer takes the hit, and then sues the Seller.
@Sean_F that is what I would of thought but this arose quite a few months ago now and I am aware of two cases (the first was a vicar I believe who was working away and was notified by a neighbour that there were builders in his house, he returned and challenged them. They were working for the new owners) and in both cases the owner of the house lost their house and the buyers kept it.
Having heard about that we did what you suggested on both our properties. Particularly relevant for our second home.
Watching gaming outlets jump through rhetorical hoops to justify coverage on Hogwarts Legacy isn’t surprising, but it’d be more honest if they played it straight and just said “our shaky business model does not allow us to ignore any game that might sell 10 million copies.”
Its a fascinating world some people exist in where referring to the PM as "tax dodging non dom" is seen as apparently worth of an "ahhhhhhhh that's Libel that is, you're going to have to pay a squillion quid" response.
A country where you can't pass comment on senior politicians is one that is authoritarian. It makes no difference whether its authoritarianism via the police arresting dissenters or the grotesquely rich threatening libel action against journalists who expose the truth they are hiding.
Seriously. You are Rishi Sunak. Somehow you read Politicalbetting.com this morning and not only think "I'm not having that" but instruct Carter Fuck to go after both the poster and OGH for damages.
Its not remotely going to happen. For a lengthy list of reasons including the political furore over his family's non-dom status. Some people need to chill out before they harrumph themselves so hard that something prolapses.
Nonetheless, it would be risky for moderation policy to be based on an assessment of how likely it is that action might be taken.
No, you ban things which are libellous. This was not libellous. Regardless of the "ahhhhhh thats libel that is" screeching.
Just taking a second to stop clutching my pearls and before grabbing my smelling salts but I don’t think there was any “screeching”. More that I questioned whether Heathener should have written what she wrote (we all have a responsibility to OGH and the site) but also what she wrote was demonstrably false.
This was followed by a relatively (for PB) light and largely unpersonal debate about whether it was possibly libellous. I don’t recall anyone demanding bans or getting out the pitchforks and flaming torches.
That is all. To try and turn it into “Tory snowflakes screeching” because the political attack is vaguely in line with your politics is a bit pathetic really. If Heathener had written an attack on Sunak’s perceived weaknesses then likely nobody would worry but to assign dodgy tax insinuations to make an attack on him isn’t great.
Now I shall return to my fit of the vapors if you don’t mind.
Have cut a response pointing out how the "light and unpersonal debate" is doing the same work as Zahawi did when he threatened libel action against someone exposing what he was dodging.
The Sunak family finances have in recent memory benefitted from both Green Card status (very unusual for the CofE to be on the hook for taxes to a foreign power) and non-dom status. Pointing to these already established facts is not even possibly libellous. But suggesting it is does the work for the Zahawis of this world...
All this is irrelevant anyway. The point which was made by me and a couple of others is not that it's libellous, but that the sort of person you'd expect to be specially sensitive and cautious around libel is the sort of big time current affairs journalist which the original poster claims to be.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
You can apply to the Land Registry, to notify you by email if someone tries to register a disposition of the property.
I don't think Radio 4 is correct, though. If the property is sold fraudulently, the buyer takes the hit, and then sues the Seller.
@Sean_F that is what I would of thought but this arose quite a few months ago now and I am aware of two cases (the first was a vicar I believe who was working away and was notified by a neighbour that there were builders in his house, he returned and challenged them. They were working for the new owners) and in both cases the owner of the house lost their house and the buyers kept it.
Having heard about that we did what you suggested on both our properties. Particularly relevant for our second home.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Looks like the government is playing for time on public sector pay settlements, aiming to get through to April without agreement and into another pay year. Due to high inflation this would allow them to bake in another 7% or so real terms pay cut and then agree a settlement next year more in-line with inflation. They can maybe use the savings for a tax cut ahead of the election.
I should add the people holding the purse strings have the power. The government can sit this out if they wish. It may have a nasty effect on public services but it's up to them if they care a about that or not. I genuinely think Sunak doesn't care whether there is a working healthcare system. He prioritises a smaller state over decent healthcare.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
If someone files a forged transfer form (TR1) and the ownership of your house goes to somebody else, a common or garden legal insurance policy will cover your costs of getting it transferred back to you. (Or just put up the money and claim it back.)
There seems to be a bit of a panic on, akin to the 1970s view "OMG! We'll come back from holiday and squatters will have moved in."
Probably most of the cases being publicised are connected with mortgage fraud. Many solicitors love a bit of mortgage fraud. I doubt the proportion of mortgage frauds not involving a solicitor as a knowing participant reaches 1%.
I blame Maggie. I think it was on her watch they changed the conflict rules to say one S can act for both buyer and lender.
Edit Come to think of it it was probably a self regulatory, not statutory, change, so she is off the hook.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
You can apply to the Land Registry, to notify you by email if someone tries to register a disposition of the property.
I don't think Radio 4 is correct, though. If the property is sold fraudulently, the buyer takes the hit, and then sues the Seller.
@Sean_F that is what I would of thought but this arose quite a few months ago now and I am aware of two cases (the first was a vicar I believe who was working away and was notified by a neighbour that there were builders in his house, he returned and challenged them. They were working for the new owners) and in both cases the owner of the house lost their house and the buyers kept it.
Having heard about that we did what you suggested on both our properties. Particularly relevant for our second home.
Serious question for @Leon do you think that GT was buried to save it from being damaged in such earthquakes??
It’s a damn good question and this awful quake has made me ask exactly that
In a quake prone region, the ONLY way to preserve something as miraculous as the Tas Tepeler would be to bury them
The reason they are terribly at risk now is because they have been unearthed. Exposed. So maybe they weren’t buried as a kind of sacrifice, maybe they were buried as an act of remarkable conservation??
I’ve been trying to reach my mate Aydin who is head of culture for Sanliurfa. A total dude. Passionately in love with Göbekli Tepe and the driving force behind their amazing new museum
Can’t reach him. I hesitate to trouble him with further messages. Ominous silence. We are left with petitions to the heavens
Leon - I hope you find your friends and they are all ok. I will have some questions for you later but they can wait. Some things are more important
Looks like the government is playing for time on public sector pay settlements, aiming to get through to April without agreement and into another pay year. Due to high inflation this would allow them to bake in another 7% or so real terms pay cut and then agree a settlement next year more in-line with inflation. They can maybe use the savings for a tax cut ahead of the election.
I should add the people holding the purse strings have the power. The government can sit this out if they wish. It may have a nasty effect on public services but it's up to them if they care a about that or not. I genuinely think Sunak doesn't care whether there is a working healthcare system. He prioritises a smaller state over decent healthcare.
The NHS had its annual pay award in July, of course.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Having one Land Registry for two completely different legal systems would be a bit of a challenge! Of course its devolved - the Nats would complain quickly enough if there was any attempt to combine them.....
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
In the UK you can register an email address with the Land Registry & they will send alerts about any application to change the ownership of a property or to take out a mortgage on it: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
Worth doing, both for your own properties if you have them & maybe your parent’s property too, as anything they own may well have paid off any mortgages secured against them. Your parents don’t even need to know about it - you don’t have to own a property to receive alerts.
Actually greedy Scotch fatboy lawyers in 170something who hadn't the least objection to selling their countrymen down the river provided the Act preserved their monopoly on Scotch conveyancing.
You should study some Scottish history when you have a moment. It's fascinating.
Radio 4 today at 12pm: apparently someone can sell your house to someone else without your knowledge and there's nothing you can do about it. Once the house is sold it belongs to the person who's bought it. Anyone can pretend to be an estate agent without checks.
Many moons ago, I was told that you should always keep a (very small) mortgage on your place to avoid this kind of thing happening - simply because there's a very good system as part of conveyancing to understand if there's an outstanding loan against a property.
And your bank will shower you with paperwork about the repayment of the mortgage in the event that someone attempted to purchase the property.
Interestingly, in the US, when you buy a house you take out "title insurance" to cover you (as a purchaser) against the risk that the person who sold you the property didn't have the right to sell it to you.
You can apply to the Land Registry, to notify you by email if someone tries to register a disposition of the property.
I don't think Radio 4 is correct, though. If the property is sold fraudulently, the buyer takes the hit, and then sues the Seller.
IIRC Land sales are different to any other kind of property in this country. A sale that has been registered by the Land Registry is in principle final: No backsies. If the LR transfers ownership due to fraud, then it is possible for this to be reversed by the Chief Land Registrar, but the whole process is fraught with legal risk & you can very easily fall on the wrong side of a legal line somewhere. The whole thing is a potential nightmare.
Comments
We had a big nite out Friday. Took it easier Saturday. So that must have been the girl who looks a bit like me, us daughters of Hongkongers probably hard for you to tell apart at first?
Brains dark sounds good.
Edit: it’s an old fashioned mild. https://www.bestofbritishbeer.co.uk/brains-dark.html I’ll get some for my Dad.
https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/1622599571971923970
Apparently one victim is going for compo from the Land Registry.
Westminster VI (5 February):
Labour 50% (… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622641270572154880
Labour 50% (+1)
Conservative 24% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 10% (+2)
Reform UK 6% (+1)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (-1)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 29 January
And Truss is right that the only way out of that is to grow the economy; I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But what's silly is to propose to borrow more to support tax cuts aimed at a small minority and not expect pushback from the financial markets. And what's sillier is when Trussites assume that nobody else cares about economic growth, rather than thinking that fiscal stability is needed to get growth to happen.
I had you down as a Timothy Taylors Landlord- Prosecco chaser kind of a girl.
Rishi Sunak… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622643850098376721
If she had simply left the Corporation Tax changes alone - I suspect she would have been able to argue that everything was built around growing the economy and she would still be PM.
You know that "I know how supermarkets work, it's my day job" thing you (quite reasonably) do?
Well...
It's 80%+ probable Sunak could have had heathener on that post, and if she had any sort of advice at all she would have grovelled her guts out at the first solicitor's letter and done a written retraction and donation to the heightism-awareness-raiding charity of his choice.
Con: 12
Lab: 43
SNP: 30
LD: 7
Green: 3
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-5-february-2023/
We had to make do with 3.1% when a good 6 months are at 10+%, and this year the public sector workers will be done by the same number fiddle.
But if the SNP vote does fall and fail to recover, only one party looks likely to benefit from that.
And given that the SNP block is the biggest roadblock on the path to a Labour majority, maybe Lady Starmer should pop over to measure up for curtains and whatnot.
(What's the current status of the Bozza'n'Caz decor?)
There seems to be a bit of a panic on, akin to the 1970s view "OMG! We'll come back from holiday and squatters will have moved in."
Probably most of the cases being publicised are connected with mortgage fraud. Many solicitors love a bit of mortgage fraud. I doubt the proportion of mortgage frauds not involving a solicitor as a knowing participant reaches 1%.
Lawyers?
(Incidentally, Sunak -20 is not a record.
Rishi Sunak
England -26
Scotland -33
Keir Starmer
England -3
Scotland -13
Ed Davey
England -10
Scotland -20
Ipsos, January)
Edit Come to think of it it was probably a self regulatory, not statutory, change, so she is off the hook.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-staff-to-receive-pay-rise
Annoyingly though my father's property isn't in the database, annoyingly as that's the one I would have most concern over.
https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/11/property-fraud-house-is-sold-without-owners-knowledge
You should study some Scottish history when you have a moment. It's fascinating.
new thread
NB. If you have a property that might be at risk, as well as registering to get notifications, you can make it harder for a fraudster to sell the property by submitting a form to the LR: https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2022/11/04/protecting-your-property-from-fraud-form-ll-the-counter-fraud-restriction/ but a determined fraudster will probably suborn or fool a solictor into signing off their purchase.