My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
I'd recommend getting legal advice. The fault would be on his sols side.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
The father of a friend of mine (in England) sold house 1 and the family bought and lived in a new house 2 thereafter for a decade or two. Family grew up, etc., and Pa decided to move. When he tried to sell House 2 to the new buyer, he discovered he didn't own it. Bad screwup at the purchase. Basically, he was completely out of luck if the previous owner wanted to be difficult. For instance, p. o. could have had a huge capital gain at the cost of refunding the purchase price plus standard interest.
Very fortunately, p.o. was jolly decent about it and signed it over - but what I do remember is that Pa's solicitor got the blame. He was paid to do the checks, and had screwed up. Pa got a new solicitor instantly. No idea if former solicitor had to pay the bill, though.
Your buyer's solicitor is the one responsible to him. Your solicitor is the oine responsible to you. Your buyer's solicitor has\ screwed up. Your buyer has no lien on your solicitor or you as I see it.
But irrespective of all that you might want to get a specialist solicitor to look the matter over, and tell you what your options are. It's always possible there is some huge misundersyanding or some hidden motive to do with restrictions etc in the sasines. And if it is crofting land ...
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
As we are in a post moral age you should sort it out in return for a month a year for life for you and your brother in one of the holiday let’s outside peak.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
Not done this recently, but of interest is the COVID deaths figure of 156. That's the lowest it's been since July 2021 when the effects of lockdown were probably still a factor.
I wonder if the virus has nearly picked off everyone it's going to or if hospitals aren't testing quite so much? (i.e. many of the COVID deaths are people dying with rather than from COVID).
Non-COVID deaths still several hundred a week above the five-year average. That said, we're still a net c.10,000 non-COVID deaths below the five-year average since May 2020 (i.e. once most COVID deaths were being detected as such).
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
On topic. Have any pb-ers tried Ozempic or the like?
I’m not obese but I just can’t shift the ten-twelve pounds I put on during the pandemic - even now. If I could magic it away with a needle or a pill, I would
Just go out there and get some exercise...
I do! Gym five times a week and a decent walk every day
I have the impression you drink a lot of alcohol. Have you tried cutting back on that?
Yes. A bit - tho not entirely
You don't need to cut it out completely, but set a limit and stick to it. And make that limit low. Try no more than 1 bottle of wine or equivalent per fortnight. Force yourself to really pick and choose when to use your "budget". Stick with it for a while, say three months. Write it down to keep yourself honest, and don't commit yourself to going back or carrying on until the end of that fixed period. Treat it as an experiment rather than a regime, and that way you can make a sensible choice afterwards to decide whether it suits you. Maybe you value the fun over the the weight loss and decide to carry on boozing, or maybe you like it better feeling trimmer and soberer. Just give yourself a proper run at it so you can decide based on what it's actually like, rather than on your hopes and fears of what it might be like.
Apparently ozempic also reduces - significantly - your desire for booze. So that’s a positive side effect if it is the case. I’ll keep PB posted
Any likely effects on (eg) your desire to write ?
The list of side effects looks pretty off putting to me. If you're not morbidly obese, why not just eat tofu for a fortnight ? The would require a certain degree of willpower, but at least you won't be hungry.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
It sounds like his solicitors were at fault tbh. For a proper opinion you'd have to ask a conveyancing solicitor - not that that would be free of course. But it sounds to me like you retain the rights so I'd sell at the current commercial value if I were you. Does he have the pp for the site ?
PP = planning permission? No, putting in the PP was how he discovered he didn't actually own the land.
On topic. Have any pb-ers tried Ozempic or the like?
I’m not obese but I just can’t shift the ten-twelve pounds I put on during the pandemic - even now. If I could magic it away with a needle or a pill, I would
Just go out there and get some exercise...
I do! Gym five times a week and a decent walk every day
I have the impression you drink a lot of alcohol. Have you tried cutting back on that?
Yes. A bit - tho not entirely
You don't need to cut it out completely, but set a limit and stick to it. And make that limit low. Try no more than 1 bottle of wine or equivalent per fortnight. Force yourself to really pick and choose when to use your "budget". Stick with it for a while, say three months. Write it down to keep yourself honest, and don't commit yourself to going back or carrying on until the end of that fixed period. Treat it as an experiment rather than a regime, and that way you can make a sensible choice afterwards to decide whether it suits you. Maybe you value the fun over the the weight loss and decide to carry on boozing, or maybe you like it better feeling trimmer and soberer. Just give yourself a proper run at it so you can decide based on what it's actually like, rather than on your hopes and fears of what it might be like.
Apparently ozempic also reduces - significantly - your desire for booze. So that’s a positive side effect if it is the case. I’ll keep PB posted
Any likely effects on (eg) your desire to write ?
The list of side effects looks pretty off putting to me. If you're not morbidly obese, why not just eat tofu for a fortnight ? The would require a certain degree of willpower, but at least you won't be hungry.
It'd save on bed linen laundering costs. And shiteing the bed is a bit embarrassing for a travel writer.
Not done this recently, but of interest is the COVID deaths figure of 156. That's the lowest it's been since July 2021 when the effects of lockdown were probably still a factor.
I wonder if the virus has nearly picked off everyone it's going to or if hospitals aren't testing quite so much? (i.e. many of the COVID deaths are people dying with rather than from COVID).
Non-COVID deaths still several hundred a week above the five-year average. That said, we're still a net c.10,000 non-COVID deaths below the five-year average since May 2020 (i.e. once most COVID deaths were being detected as such).
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
There might be a sweet spot in between asking payment and giving it for free. If they're building holiday homes, they could be very happy with you signing it over and not being difficult and giving you two weeks' off peak use of the facilities per year. That'll be a smallish ongoing cost for them to bear but not a huge opportunity cost if it's off-peak.
Getting that nailed down in a legally watertight way might not be as simple as I'm making it out, but if you can wrangle it it'll be a decent win for you without being a painful loss for them.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
It sounds like his solicitors were at fault tbh. For a proper opinion you'd have to ask a conveyancing solicitor - not that that would be free of course. But it sounds to me like you retain the rights so I'd sell at the current commercial value if I were you. Does he have the pp for the site ?
PP = planning permission? No, putting in the PP was how he discovered he didn't actually own the land.
Possible that there is a mistake with the Land Registry mapping, which is what the PP would be looking at?There is a case known to me where I am 99% sure this happened (from old OS maps and title deeds and sasines) but fortunately didn't need to spend on the solicitors to sort out.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
Less than Arsenal paying for Kai Havertz. And close to zero chance Kane extends his contract this close to the end of his contract. Doubt he would be willing to go to Bayern either - if he wants to drop down in standard could get a billion dollar deal in Saudi.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
It sounds like his solicitors were at fault tbh. For a proper opinion you'd have to ask a conveyancing solicitor - not that that would be free of course. But it sounds to me like you retain the rights so I'd sell at the current commercial value if I were you. Does he have the pp for the site ?
On the facts (which are odd - both solicitors and both parties missing an essential point) outlined it depends what sort of answer satisfies you.
1) If the price paid at the time was, on reflection, more or less the proper price for the whole at the time, and relieved you of responsibility for caring for the land, and was understood to be the sale of the whole by both parties then ethically it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, with both solicitors picking up the bill
2) OTOH you can conclude the facts are more complex, and let legality take its course. This always has risks - the hazards of litigation, the bother, and all that.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt in Brussels to sign financial services cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with EU, one of the fruits of the Windsor Agreement over NI Brexit rules…
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
Less than Arsenal paying for Kai Havertz. And close to zero chance Kane extends his contract this close to the end of his contract. Doubt he would be willing to go to Bayern either - if he wants to drop down in standard could get a billion dollar deal in Saudi.
On Havertz, remember he is six years younger than Kane, so there is resale potential.
I'd have thought that, unless Kane signs a new deal, Spurs will want to cash in this summer. Sure, the lie of the land might change quite a bit in a year and he might sign a new deal during the next year. But they surely don't want him to be able to pick his destination, do they? How did that work out last time?
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
Less than Arsenal paying for Kai Havertz. And close to zero chance Kane extends his contract this close to the end of his contract. Doubt he would be willing to go to Bayern either - if he wants to drop down in standard could get a billion dollar deal in Saudi.
On Havertz, remember he is six years younger than Kane, so there is resale potential.
I'd have thought that, unless Kane signs a new deal, Spurs will want to cash in this summer. Sure, the lie of the land might change quite a bit in a year and he might sign a new deal during the next year. But they surely don't want him to be able to pick his destination, do they? How did that work out last time?
Benzema, 35, Lewandowski 34 not yet declining. Kane could easily play at the top level for another 6 years, and probably Prem level for another 8 years if he wants to.
And with Havertz I would argue any resale potential is completely offset by the ending up stuck with dead wood overpaid potential.
Maybe a 20% chance they sell him for a profit and 20% chance he can't get in the team but is on too high wage for the likes of Villa, Everton, West Ham or foreign club to get involved in a permanent transfer.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
That's what I instinctively feel. To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
That's what I instinctively feel. To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
Good luck with whatever you decide. We don't judge (well, we do, but we'll be polite about it).
On topic. Have any pb-ers tried Ozempic or the like?
I’m not obese but I just can’t shift the ten-twelve pounds I put on during the pandemic - even now. If I could magic it away with a needle or a pill, I would
Just go out there and get some exercise...
I do! Gym five times a week and a decent walk every day
It's yer diet, fella. You can't outrun a bad diet. At our age, we need to really keep on top of it. And less booze. Sorry.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Morally I think its reasonable to ask the buyer to cover any legal fees and costs, since their due diligence failed and you shouldn't be out of pocket for that.
Morally I think its unreasonable to get extra money for the land itself, considering you agree that you had sold it.
What the buyer wants to do with their own land, whether it be commercial or orphanage, doesn't morally enter into it in my eyes.
From a strictly moral (not a legal) point of view, there was presumably a contract to sell the land which you agreed to, so morally I would honour it even if 25 years have passed. But without question I would want them to pay the admin costs of sorting it out.
I have had a neighbour who decided that he owned part of our garden because he found some historic deeds that suggested it was jointly owned... a hundred years ago. The fact that he bought the land on a red line plan 30 years ago that excluded our garden did not dissuade him, he just thought he would try and pursue the claim anyway. It was a hopeless claim but in pursuing it he came across as a very mean spirited individual.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
That's what I instinctively feel. To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
IANAL but given what you have now added I suspect your best course of action is to take our friend algakirk’s advice. Turn the whole thing over to the solicitors and make sure yours contact you. Have you got Power of Attorney for your brother’s affairs? Has anyone else?
- The virus shows no signs of having been tampered with. This doesn't preclude lab leak; it merely points to IF that happened, it was from a naturally collected sample, which is certainly possible. It does, though, mean that the coincidence is considerably less so - as most large Chinese cities have at least one lab working on understanding bat coronaviruses, we'd have a co-located potential lab source in most large Chinese cities (ie WCDC (holds samples and investigates them) rather than WIV (which does more detailed stuff).
- There is no "smoking gun" - no sign of tampering, no patient zero(s), no literature that would point towards it prior to an accident, and so forth.
- China has had history with live animal markets - bringing in multiple species (including suitable intermediary species for bat coronaviruses) from far and wide, crowding them in unsanitary conditions, and pouring people through them in the prefect environment for both zoonotic transfer and super-spreading conditions. This is precisely why they were supposed to have banned these following SARS. And we have evidence that they did NOT do so, and allowed this to continue, but hurriedly tried to cover up this and claim "no, wasn't that, wasn't us, must have come from elsewhere."
- The superspreading source was the live animal market, and multiple events sparked from there (most "attempted" hops fizzle out, but enough events occurred to support two separate lineages both sourced from the live animal market). This is perfectly compatible with zoonotic transfer from repeatedly selling similar animals from the same source; it's harder to support multiple lab leaks where no superspreading events happened anywhere else than the live animal market (no train stations, no airports, no other markets or supermarkets, no sports facilities, no nothing).
- No repercussions have happened to any staff members of WIV or WCDC, which would be strange if China believed they were the source of this massive embarrassment to China.
A lab leak source could still have happened. I'd like some evidence as to how the multiple lineages were introduced (there and not elsewhere), though. I'm definitely leaning quite strongly towards zoonosis, though, but am amenable to evidence the other way.
Regardless, work to both eliminate live animal markets and to tighten up biosafety in all labs should go forwards.
Para 1 - too meta to bother with
para 2 - I don't claim to understand the science, but there's lots of scientists who say the furin cleavage site is actually rather fishy. And is anyone denying that whatever emerged from the lab had its ultimate origins in the wild?
"as most large Chinese cities have at least one lab working on understanding bat coronaviruses, we'd have a co-located potential lab source in most large Chinese cities" - GLARING fallacy, and the sort of thing which discredits lab leak debunkers generally. Say I hear that someone has died violently in Los Angeles, and I sagely say: prolly shot, there's lots of guns in LA, how does it weaken my argument to say that there's lots of guns in all other US cities?
para 3 - AOEINEOA
3 and 4 are your best points, but nobody (sane) is saying the lab leak theory is for certain.
para 5 is batshit. If you are trying to cover up an error by an employee, disciplining him for the error is not the brightest idea in the world. It is an affirmation that the error happened.
This is getting boring. Either theory is distinctly possible and we will never know the answer for certain. But what's striking is that it is the *attacks* on the lab leak theory which almost invariably contain logical howlers as in paras 2, 3 and 5 above.
Just dealing with the 3rd para:
Your analogy is died violently, there are a lot of guns therefore probably shot - maybe, maybe not, but quite possible.
But that is not what we have here. What we have is a rare event that we know happens (new virus) and two types of potential sources both of which have in the past created problems with the release of viruses (labs and wet markets) on several occasions and no obvious probability likelihood for either. So it isn't like the examples you have given before (heart attack on battlefield, resident shot in old peoples home, etc).
The evidence of most towns having both labs and wet markets is relevant. If either one is missing at an outbreak it makes the other a higher probability. When both are present it makes it impossible to evaluate by the use of logic and only possible by the collection of evidence and expert knowledge. Who are you or I to say that this fits into the excellent 'bleeding obvious' examples you give.
In a nut shell - Lab and no wet market, higher probability of a leak compared to happening naturally. Wet market and no lab, higher probability of naturally occurring. Although in both instances the other probability isn't zero. Both present - who knows unless you are an expert, because neither one is obvious (unlike a dead old person in a home with bullet holes).
@Leon - Although I wind you up on this I did notice a few posts from you earlier which I thought were very interesting re lack of bats in market, source of bats in lab etc. Just so you know I don't necessarily think you are wrong. I never have and you have clearly researched it and I haven't. It is just your 99.99% certainty against the doubt in the community who are the actual experts. Same for @Miklosvar. How can you be so certain when so many people who know so much more than you two just don't know. It does seem a bit arrogant.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
He's not extending his contract at Spurs.
Don't blame him. He wants to win things not play in a team of gallant losers. A gallant loser is.......a loser.
He looks at Kyle Walker who moved on, he looks at Jordan Henderson who has won everything, he must ache at the missed opportunities.
I can't be alone in thinking how funny it would be if Kane went to City and Spurs won the title.
Ok, ok, it's not very likely, but still.
Continuing the football chat there is a striking bar chart of the nationalities of Premier League managers at the Athletic.
Aside from English two nationalities have reached 25% or more - Scottish and Spanish. The Scottish during Fergusons reign (and dropped off dramatically after his retirment) and the Spanish during Guardiolas.
Ridiculous bias searching for the next Ferguson/Guardiola based on nationality and similarities yet we are supposed to believe that generally in the economy firms employ the best person for the job rather than the person whose characteristics fit our ideal type for the job.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
That's what I instinctively feel. To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
IANAL but given what you have now added I suspect your best course of action is to take our friend algakirk’s advice. Turn the whole thing over to the solicitors and make sure yours contact you. Have you got Power of Attorney for your brother’s affairs? Has anyone else?
Probably right. I'll definitely need to inform our solicitor that handled the sale that, dread phrase, the other side seem to be holding them responsible for the foul up. On the latter points, no. I had PoA for my mother at the start of her dementia but I think it's something he would never agree to, and to be perfectly honest I don't think I could cope with the rage tinted hassle.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
Less than Arsenal paying for Kai Havertz. And close to zero chance Kane extends his contract this close to the end of his contract. Doubt he would be willing to go to Bayern either - if he wants to drop down in standard could get a billion dollar deal in Saudi.
On Havertz, remember he is six years younger than Kane, so there is resale potential.
I'd have thought that, unless Kane signs a new deal, Spurs will want to cash in this summer. Sure, the lie of the land might change quite a bit in a year and he might sign a new deal during the next year. But they surely don't want him to be able to pick his destination, do they? How did that work out last time?
Benzema, 35, Lewandowski 34 not yet declining. Kane could easily play at the top level for another 6 years, and probably Prem level for another 8 years if he wants to.
And with Havertz I would argue any resale potential is completely offset by the ending up stuck with dead wood overpaid potential.
Maybe a 20% chance they sell him for a profit and 20% chance he can't get in the team but is on too high wage for the likes of Villa, Everton, West Ham or foreign club to get involved in a permanent transfer.
All transfers are a gamble but I think most Arsenal fans are happy to give Arteta and Edu the benefit of the doubt.
If Kane thinks he’s got plenty of good years to come, then Spurs have a problem. Even if they want to cash-in, he might not go. He’ll be 31 at the start of next season, but if you’re right about his potential to play at the top for many years to come, one final season at Spurs followed by a big pay day at a club of his choosing may be appealing to him.
For all the inequities of the US health system, it can work very well if you have good insurance. On Friday, I had a non-urgent health scare, but a serious one I wanted to be reassured about. It was late in the evening so my doctor's office was closed, so I scheduled an appointment on the app for the open 10am slot on Monday morning. My doctor is seven minutes from my house.
I deliberately timed things to compare to the UK. I parked right outside at no cost. I arrived at the office at 9.59am, was asked and showed my ID. The nurse came out to check my weight and vitals at 10.07. At 10.12, the doctor saw me, spent a good, non-rushed 20 minutes, including the examination, speaking about my main issue and then discussing an extra dermatological issue I had been having. At 10.33 I was led to have a blood test on site, which I had with no wait. I also needed an x-ray, so they gave me the address of an imaging center 5 minutes away.
At 10.38, I drove up the road, again parked right outside at no cost and walked in at 10.45. No queue for the receptionist. She looked me up from my ID and caught that my address had changed so updated that in a minute. She already had the details of my scan referral, received electronically from my doctor. At 10.50, the technician led me through the back and took 4 x-rays. I was out at 10.56 and could make my 11am call.
At 1.37pm, I received a text saying my scan results were available. Logged into my app by fingerprint scan on my phone, I could see the x-rays and with commentary from my doctor that they all looked good and recommendation for next steps. The blood test results were sent overnight and I should receive them this afternoon.
All of this occurred without any payment as it is 100% in-network through my employer funded insurance.
The thing with Trump is that as people like Bill Barr now realise even if you like him his bad points will negatively impact the Conservative agenda, as he is so selfish and reckless, even if he wins. But the bulk of the party still don't see that.
On topic. Have any pb-ers tried Ozempic or the like?
I’m not obese but I just can’t shift the ten-twelve pounds I put on during the pandemic - even now. If I could magic it away with a needle or a pill, I would
Exactly a year ago I gave up alcohol, because it was impossible not to be overweight while drinking it.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
He's not extending his contract at Spurs.
Don't blame him. He wants to win things not play in a team of gallant losers. A gallant loser is.......a loser.
He looks at Kyle Walker who moved on, he looks at Jordan Henderson who has won everything, he must ache at the missed opportunities.
I can't be alone in thinking how funny it would be if Kane went to City and Spurs won the title.
Ok, ok, it's not very likely, but still.
Continuing the football chat there is a striking bar chart of the nationalities of Premier League managers at the Athletic.
Aside from English two nationalities have reached 25% or more - Scottish and Spanish. The Scottish during Fergusons reign (and dropped off dramatically after his retirment) and the Spanish during Guardiolas.
Ridiculous bias searching for the next Ferguson/Guardiola based on nationality and similarities yet we are supposed to believe that generally in the economy firms employ the best person for the job rather than the person whose characteristics fit our ideal type for the job.
A lot of clubs bring in managers on a "fit for the club", "familiar with the system" type basis, so you'll get clubs going for a few cycles of managers that have been through the Barcelona / Dortmund etc. system and if you have an ambition to play the City way, for example, you may also buy in to a "graduate of the system" type appointment.
It's merely a modern equivalent of "The Boot Room" approach of old Liverpool.
It tends to be an approach that gets diminishing returns as you appoint lower and lower on food chain.
In summary, nationality is not necessarily the driver here, rather it is buying into a system that has origins in Spain, with a glut of Spanish managers being a side effect.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
He's not extending his contract at Spurs.
Don't blame him. He wants to win things not play in a team of gallant losers. A gallant loser is.......a loser.
He looks at Kyle Walker who moved on, he looks at Jordan Henderson who has won everything, he must ache at the missed opportunities.
I can't be alone in thinking how funny it would be if Kane went to City and Spurs won the title.
Ok, ok, it's not very likely, but still.
Continuing the football chat there is a striking bar chart of the nationalities of Premier League managers at the Athletic.
Aside from English two nationalities have reached 25% or more - Scottish and Spanish. The Scottish during Fergusons reign (and dropped off dramatically after his retirment) and the Spanish during Guardiolas.
Ridiculous bias searching for the next Ferguson/Guardiola based on nationality and similarities yet we are supposed to believe that generally in the economy firms employ the best person for the job rather than the person whose characteristics fit our ideal type for the job.
Sorry but I don't think either is remotely unreasonable.
Scotland is in the UK and has had a lot of crossover with England and English football historically anyway, before continental European football dominated more. So a peak of Scottish ones in the past is entirely reasonable.
Spain similarly is in UEFA and has some of the best football outside of England. There has been a lot of crossover both on and off the field from Spain and England. Indeed Spain topped the UEFA coefficients list from 2012-2020 and Spain has been in the top 2 for UEFA Coefficients since records began on UEFAs website in 2002.
Acting entirely logically you should expect at those moments a reasonable proportion of Spanish and Scottish managers. It would be illogical not to have had any Spanish managers at a time when Spain dominated European football.
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Thanks for replies thus far. I'm reactionary enough to not indulge in this new fangled wtf business.
There is, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between the purchaser's using it as a home, and developing a business on the land.
That's what I instinctively feel. To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
IIAL and, while my knowledge of English land law is ropey, and that of Scots land law probably veers into negative territory, if it comes to anything related to the capacity of a family member the best advice is not to be found on the internet. If he has any suggestion of capacity issues this could rebound on you quite badly if you get it wrong. See a different solicitor to the one used last time.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
Less than Arsenal paying for Kai Havertz. And close to zero chance Kane extends his contract this close to the end of his contract. Doubt he would be willing to go to Bayern either - if he wants to drop down in standard could get a billion dollar deal in Saudi.
On Havertz, remember he is six years younger than Kane, so there is resale potential.
I'd have thought that, unless Kane signs a new deal, Spurs will want to cash in this summer. Sure, the lie of the land might change quite a bit in a year and he might sign a new deal during the next year. But they surely don't want him to be able to pick his destination, do they? How did that work out last time?
Benzema, 35, Lewandowski 34 not yet declining. Kane could easily play at the top level for another 6 years, and probably Prem level for another 8 years if he wants to.
And with Havertz I would argue any resale potential is completely offset by the ending up stuck with dead wood overpaid potential.
Maybe a 20% chance they sell him for a profit and 20% chance he can't get in the team but is on too high wage for the likes of Villa, Everton, West Ham or foreign club to get involved in a permanent transfer.
All transfers are a gamble but I think most Arsenal fans are happy to give Arteta and Edu the benefit of the doubt.
If Kane thinks he’s got plenty of good years to come, then Spurs have a problem. Even if they want to cash-in, he might not go. He’ll be 31 at the start of next season, but if you’re right about his potential to play at the top for many years to come, one final season at Spurs followed by a big pay day at a club of his choosing may be appealing to him.
Having an extra £60m and no Kane for a season is probably a bigger problem than having Kane in last year of contract. They would be fishing in the completely unproven and underwhelming list of strikers as replacements and held hostage by any selling clubs.
From Kane's point of view being a free agent next year makes by far the most sense.
He seems a very diligent lawyer, and takes on tough hard to prove cases.
It does feel a bit pointless as anything not already indicted won't go to trial before Trump wins the nomination it seems.
Though Trump seems very very worried by Smith, his attacks sound more desperate than usual.
It isn't pointless in the sense that it's important to enforce criminal law and help ensure future Presidents understand they are subject to the law.
Of course, if he's elected, he'd seek to pardon himself for federal crimes. But that's hardly guaranteed, it isn't clear you can pardon yourself (although the Supreme Court would probably allow it for Trump on some basis), and the President's power to pardon doesn't extend to state crimes (not sure if the Georgia case is federal - not totally sure it is).
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Bayern Munich have today submitted an official proposal to sign Harry Kane from Tottenham Hotspur. #FCBayern written offer to #THFC for 29yo striker worth €70m + add-ons. England captain has 1yr left of existing Spurs contract @TheAthleticFC
Very steep for 1 year left. I'd take the money if I was Spuds or extend his contract.
He's not extending his contract at Spurs.
Don't blame him. He wants to win things not play in a team of gallant losers. A gallant loser is.......a loser.
He looks at Kyle Walker who moved on, he looks at Jordan Henderson who has won everything, he must ache at the missed opportunities.
I can't be alone in thinking how funny it would be if Kane went to City and Spurs won the title.
Ok, ok, it's not very likely, but still.
Continuing the football chat there is a striking bar chart of the nationalities of Premier League managers at the Athletic.
Aside from English two nationalities have reached 25% or more - Scottish and Spanish. The Scottish during Fergusons reign (and dropped off dramatically after his retirment) and the Spanish during Guardiolas.
Ridiculous bias searching for the next Ferguson/Guardiola based on nationality and similarities yet we are supposed to believe that generally in the economy firms employ the best person for the job rather than the person whose characteristics fit our ideal type for the job.
A lot of clubs bring in managers on a "fit for the club", "familiar with the system" type basis, so you'll get clubs going for a few cycles of managers that have been through the Barcelona / Dortmund etc. system and if you have an ambition to play the City way, for example, you may also buy in to a "graduate of the system" type appointment.
It's merely a modern equivalent of "The Boot Room" approach of old Liverpool.
It tends to be an approach that gets diminishing returns as you appoint lower and lower on food chain.
In summary, nationality is not necessarily the driver here, rather it is buying into a system that has origins in Spain, with a glut of Spanish managers being a side effect.
There were seven managers from Glasgow at one point, including dross like McCleish and Billy Davies trying to play the dour but gritty Ferguson character.
It says no clear evidence. AOEINEOA. What clear evidence could there be anyway? CCTV of avirus sneaking out of the back door?
In my lifetime there have been two lab leaks in the UK that I am aware of, Smallpox and Foot and Mouth. Both were provable lab leaks. So to say there can't be any clear evidence of a lab leak is obviously not correct.
It may well be a lab leak and there may not be any evidence that can be found, but that doesn't mean it is a lab leak. It may be, it may not be.
However unlike @leon I don't jump to conclusions. If leon didn't come out with so much tosh all the time (Do we all remember the mass alien ships over Ukraine?) we might take him more seriously. I can think of two pieces of evidence he provided for absolute proof it came from a lab that were completely dismantled here (one was from Fox news ffs).
Which is exactly the point: Likely but not proven is probably as good as we are going to get with an outbreak in China. They don't do openness there. So the claim of "no clear evidence" is still susceptible to the response: What clear evidence would you expect, given 1. China and 2. the catastrophic consequences of this leak?
I would want to know why a lab leak is likely, beyond that someone had a notion. There is epidemiological evidence for the epidemic starting in a market, which is also how the previous SARS is known to have started.
Aside from anything else “the nightmare of circumstantial evidence” - as was explicitly stated in the Fauci/Farrar emails at the beginning of the pandemic
Problem is I then have to Google the claim to see if it really is evidence. This is the full quote from Ian Lipkin:
It does not eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture at the institute in Wuhan. Given the scale of the bat CoV research pursued there and the site of emergence of the first human cases we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess.
So it seems not. The recent DNI report states
Prior to the pandemic, we assess WIV scientists conducted extensive research on coronaviruses, which included animal sampling and genetic analysis. We continue to have no indication that the WIV’s pre-pandemic research holdings included SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor, nor any direct evidence that a specific research-related incident occurred involving WIV personnel before the pandemic that could have caused the COVID pandemic.
So Covid 19 doesn't match a virus the lab was known to be working on. We have to have some other reason to suspect a lab leak.
"a virus the lab was known to be working on" is rather the point. Again, this is mere absence of evidence. Evidence of absence would require a complete, audited list from the lab of everything it was up to.
Given that there is significant evidence China executed or otherwise silenced - forever - early covid whistleblowers, the idea they wouldn’t destroy evidence at the lab is fanciful. Indeed the opposite is true. They surely DID destroy evidence
Indeed, and they also destroyed evidence at the market. I don't think we've ever argued that China behaved responsibly or openly with regard to what happened.
Indeed.
From what we know, I think we can say for certain that China behaved irresponsibly.
I think the balance of probabilities is that it probably came from the Lab.
I think the less likely, but still possible option, is that it came naturally to and from the market without any involvement of the Lab.
(edit) Caproni's creations feature in the movies of Miyazaki, of course.
Considering I spent 20 years prolonging my adolescence in military aviation I actually have a pretty thin CV and haven't flown a great variety of aircraft - Bulldog, Chipmunk, Tucano (worst), Hawk, Harrier, Tomcat (best).
Been a sand bag in just about everything though. F-15, F-16, F/A-18, T-45, Tornado, EA-6, C-2, E-2, T-37, MH-60, CH-53 plus loads of trash haulers (C-130, VC-10, etc.)
Weren't you backseat in the Tomcat: so Goose, not Maverick?
My father died 25 years ago leaving my brother and me his house and a patch of land (several acres afaIcr including a small loch). We sold the house and the land a couple of years later. The buyer now wants to build holiday homes on that land and has discovered that it was not included in the sale, and my father's estate still holds title to the land. He appears to think that our solicitors were at fault so should sort this out foc, though it seems to me his solicitor should also have done due diligence at that point.
Since we had thought that the land was disposed of at the time, morally I guess we should do what we can to resolve the current situation on that assumption, otoh my brother and I are currently the legal landowners. The buyer originally paid a fraction of the current value of house and land (10% I'd very roughly guess) and now wants to develop it commercially, so it's not as if we're standing in the way of an orphanage or donkey sanctuary. Should I be asking for a payment to transfer ownership of the land to the buyer?
Yes, IMO, if only for the inconvenience. But be generous in how much you ask. And have a chat with your solicitor first.
Be warned. Scottish law is different wrt property. Incidentally, the situation you outline is similar to one in a Yes Minister episode.
Comments
Perhaps @DavidL can recommend somebody.
Very fortunately, p.o. was jolly decent about it and signed it over - but what I do remember is that Pa's solicitor got the blame. He was paid to do the checks, and had screwed up. Pa got a new solicitor instantly. No idea if former solicitor had to pay the bill, though.
Your buyer's solicitor is the one responsible to him. Your solicitor is the oine responsible to you. Your buyer's solicitor has\ screwed up. Your buyer has no lien on your solicitor or you as I see it.
But irrespective of all that you might want to get a specialist solicitor to look the matter over, and tell you what your options are. It's always possible there is some huge misundersyanding or some hidden motive to do with restrictions etc in the sasines. And if it is crofting land ...
https://tinyurl.com/yjtdr9ax
Not done this recently, but of interest is the COVID deaths figure of 156. That's the lowest it's been since July 2021 when the effects of lockdown were probably still a factor.
I wonder if the virus has nearly picked off everyone it's going to or if hospitals aren't testing quite so much? (i.e. many of the COVID deaths are people dying with rather than from COVID).
Non-COVID deaths still several hundred a week above the five-year average. That said, we're still a net c.10,000 non-COVID deaths below the five-year average since May 2020 (i.e. once most COVID deaths were being detected as such).
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
30-Dec-22 | 7,925 | 393 | 9,124 | 1,199
06-Jan-23 | 12,037 | 739 | 14,244 | 2,207
13-Jan-23 | 13,749 | 922 | 16,459 | 2,710
20-Jan-23 | 13,098 | 781 | 15,023 | 1,925
27-Jan-23 | 12,562 | 579 | 13,588 | 1,026
03-Feb-23 | 12,108 | 499 | 12,913 | 805
10-Feb-23 | 11,794 | 446 | 12,226 | 432
17-Feb-23 | 11,586 | 416 | 11,766 | 180
24-Feb-23 | 11,444 | 420 | 11,532 | 88
03-Mar-23 | 11,037 | 513 | 11,536 | 499
10-Mar-23 | 11,419 | 533 | 10,877 | -542
17-Mar-23 | 11,200 | 559 | 11,574 | 374
24-Mar-23 | 10,806 | 624 | 11,428 | 622
31-Mar-23 | 10,163 | 634 | 10,950 | 787
07-Apr-23 | 10,130 | 513 | 9,576 | -554
14-Apr-23 | 10,290 | 465 | 9,513 | -777
21-Apr-23 | 10,108 | 538 | 11,882 | 1,774
28-Apr-23 | 10,683 | 459 | 11,693 | 1,010
05-May-23 | 9,674 | 310 | 9,833 | 159
12-May-23 | 10,119 | 309 | 10,058 | -61
19-May-23 | 10,414 | 322 | 11,332 | 918
26-May-23 | 10,090 | 262 | 10,849 | 759
02-Jun-23 | 7,869 | 189 | 8,650 | 781
09-Jun-23 | 10,362 | 211 | 10,729 | 367
16-Jun-23 | 9,692 | 156 | 10,544 | 852
The list of side effects looks pretty off putting to me. If you're not morbidly obese, why not just eat tofu for a fortnight ?
The would require a certain degree of willpower, but at least you won't be hungry.
If they're building holiday homes, they could be very happy with you signing it over and not being difficult and giving you two weeks' off peak use of the facilities per year. That'll be a smallish ongoing cost for them to bear but not a huge opportunity cost if it's off-peak.
Getting that nailed down in a legally watertight way might not be as simple as I'm making it out, but if you can wrangle it it'll be a decent win for you without being a painful loss for them.
Levy will not sell to a domestic rival.
Kane doesn't want to go abroad except to Real Madrid.
Real Madrid wanted him but now are working on a deal for Mbappe.
1) If the price paid at the time was, on reflection, more or less the proper price for the whole at the time, and relieved you of responsibility for caring for the land, and was understood to be the sale of the whole by both parties then ethically it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, with both solicitors picking up the bill
2) OTOH you can conclude the facts are more complex, and let legality take its course. This always has risks - the hazards of litigation, the bother, and all that.
3) It is nearly always right to settle and agree.
I'd have thought that, unless Kane signs a new deal, Spurs will want to cash in this summer. Sure, the lie of the land might change quite a bit in a year and he might sign a new deal during the next year. But they surely don't want him to be able to pick his destination, do they? How did that work out last time?
And with Havertz I would argue any resale potential is completely offset by the ending up stuck with dead wood overpaid potential.
Maybe a 20% chance they sell him for a profit and 20% chance he can't get in the team but is on too high wage for the likes of Villa, Everton, West Ham or foreign club to get involved in a permanent transfer.
Ok, ok, it's not very likely, but still.
To complicate matters my brother has quite a serious mental illness, and so far I haven't gone into any detail about it as it's possible that he might go up there and start bellowing 'It's my land!' while wielding a (hopefully metaphorical) broadsword. I'm at the point now where I can't not discuss it properly with him.
After Leon decided likes suck
Robert got bored
Put likes to the sword
Now we’ve just got WTF
We don't judge (well, we do, but we'll be polite about it).
I thought I was immune, but still became a Dan stan—this is my story
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/how-i-stopped-hating-steely-dan
No new strikes now
I have had a neighbour who decided that he owned part of our garden because he found some historic deeds that suggested it was jointly owned... a hundred years ago. The fact that he bought the land on a red line plan 30 years ago that excluded our garden did not dissuade him, he just thought he would try and pursue the claim anyway. It was a hopeless claim but in pursuing it he came across as a very mean spirited individual.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team to interview Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger on Wednesday.
“This would be Raffensperger’s first interview with the Justice Department.”
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1673505757264850944
"Discussing healthcare during the pandemic, Hancock says they came "within hours" of running out of medicines for intensive care.
He says the only reason medicines did not run out is because of work done in preparation for a no-deal Brexit."
Have you got Power of Attorney for your brother’s affairs? Has anyone else?
It does feel a bit pointless as anything not already indicted won't go to trial before Trump wins the nomination it seems.
Though Trump seems very very worried by Smith, his attacks sound more desperate than usual.
Your analogy is died violently, there are a lot of guns therefore probably shot - maybe, maybe not, but quite possible.
But that is not what we have here. What we have is a rare event that we know happens (new virus) and two types of potential sources both of which have in the past created problems with the release of viruses (labs and wet markets) on several occasions and no obvious probability likelihood for either. So it isn't like the examples you have given before (heart attack on battlefield, resident shot in old peoples home, etc).
The evidence of most towns having both labs and wet markets is relevant. If either one is missing at an outbreak it makes the other a higher probability. When both are present it makes it impossible to evaluate by the use of logic and only possible by the collection of evidence and expert knowledge. Who are you or I to say that this fits into the excellent 'bleeding obvious' examples you give.
In a nut shell - Lab and no wet market, higher probability of a leak compared to happening naturally. Wet market and no lab, higher probability of naturally occurring. Although in both instances the other probability isn't zero. Both present - who knows unless you are an expert, because neither one is obvious (unlike a dead old person in a home with bullet holes).
@Leon - Although I wind you up on this I did notice a few posts from you earlier which I thought were very interesting re lack of bats in market, source of bats in lab etc. Just so you know I don't necessarily think you are wrong. I never have and you have clearly researched it and I haven't. It is just your 99.99% certainty against the doubt in the community who are the actual experts. Same for @Miklosvar. How can you be so certain when so many people who know so much more than you two just don't know. It does seem a bit arrogant.
Aside from English two nationalities have reached 25% or more - Scottish and Spanish. The Scottish during Fergusons reign (and dropped off dramatically after his retirment) and the Spanish during Guardiolas.
Ridiculous bias searching for the next Ferguson/Guardiola based on nationality and similarities yet we are supposed to believe that generally in the economy firms employ the best person for the job rather than the person whose characteristics fit our ideal type for the job.
https://theathletic.com/4624932/2023/06/25/premier-league-managers-nations/
On the latter points, no. I had PoA for my mother at the start of her dementia but I think it's something he would never agree to, and to be perfectly honest I don't think I could cope with the rage tinted hassle.
If Kane thinks he’s got plenty of good years to come, then Spurs have a problem. Even if they want to cash-in, he might not go. He’ll be 31 at the start of next season, but if you’re right about his potential to play at the top for many years to come, one final season at Spurs followed by a big pay day at a club of his choosing may be appealing to him.
WTF happened to this thread.
If you like new things there is a new oneI deliberately timed things to compare to the UK. I parked right outside at no cost. I arrived at the office at 9.59am, was asked and showed my ID. The nurse came out to check my weight and vitals at 10.07. At 10.12, the doctor saw me, spent a good, non-rushed 20 minutes, including the examination, speaking about my main issue and then discussing an extra dermatological issue I had been having. At 10.33 I was led to have a blood test on site, which I had with no wait. I also needed an x-ray, so they gave me the address of an imaging center 5 minutes away.
At 10.38, I drove up the road, again parked right outside at no cost and walked in at 10.45. No queue for the receptionist. She looked me up from my ID and caught that my address had changed so updated that in a minute. She already had the details of my scan referral, received electronically from my doctor. At 10.50, the technician led me through the back and took 4 x-rays. I was out at 10.56 and could make my 11am call.
At 1.37pm, I received a text saying my scan results were available. Logged into my app by fingerprint scan on my phone, I could see the x-rays and with commentary from my doctor that they all looked good and recommendation for next steps. The blood test results were sent overnight and I should receive them this afternoon.
All of this occurred without any payment as it is 100% in-network through my employer funded insurance.
It's merely a modern equivalent of "The Boot Room" approach of old Liverpool.
It tends to be an approach that gets diminishing returns as you appoint lower and lower on food chain.
In summary, nationality is not necessarily the driver here, rather it is buying into a system that has origins in Spain, with a glut of
Spanish managers being a side effect.
Scotland is in the UK and has had a lot of crossover with England and English football historically anyway, before continental European football dominated more. So a peak of Scottish ones in the past is entirely reasonable.
Spain similarly is in UEFA and has some of the best football outside of England. There has been a lot of crossover both on and off the field from Spain and England. Indeed Spain topped the UEFA coefficients list from 2012-2020 and Spain has been in the top 2 for UEFA Coefficients since records began on UEFAs website in 2002.
Acting entirely logically you should expect at those moments a reasonable proportion of Spanish and Scottish managers. It would be illogical not to have had any Spanish managers at a time when Spain dominated European football.
From Kane's point of view being a free agent next year makes by far the most sense.
Of course, if he's elected, he'd seek to pardon himself for federal crimes. But that's hardly guaranteed, it isn't clear you can pardon yourself (although the Supreme Court would probably allow it for Trump on some basis), and the President's power to pardon doesn't extend to state crimes (not sure if the Georgia case is federal - not totally sure it is).