It's problematic, isn't it? Drug dealers, terrorists and criminals ruining it for old school gentlemen. Bloody cashless society!
The IRA and bins in train stations. Shit drivers and excessive traffic lights. Nonces and being able to film your kid's nativity play. Pharmacists being unable to give smaller or larger tablets than the prescription and ambulance chasing lawyers. Just Stop Oil and being able to wear an orange t-shirt at a major sporting event. The list goes on.
Right: Boris Johnson starts snoring when asked why he ignored allegations against Chris Pincher
Pincher could of course stand as an Independent in the by election to try and hold his seat until the general election, he is no longer a Tory after all having had the whip removed
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not ask your bank before you turn up ?
Because a bank employee may decide merely asking is a red flag.
Especially if you’ve got dodgy views on LGBTQ+ rights.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Don’t, even with solicitor letters.
This is my day job.
You’ll trigger all sorts of red flags on your account which is likely to lead to account closures and CIFAS markers which last for six years.
Only terrorists, criminals/drug dealers use cash at that amount according to systems.
It is an AML issue as well.
An idea - £150k is about the value of, say , 20 grams of black market Tritium stolen from Russian nuclear warheads.
So he could buy the Tritium from Russian gangsters and sell it to MI6 or the CIA.
I’m sure that a cheque from MI6 would be cashed at Coutts, no problems….
The rational thing to do of course is to take it to a drug dealer, who can handle the cash and will sell you high grade class As at wholesale prices, guaranteeing a 300% ROI. An unintended consequence of making it hard for hitherto honest folk to deal in cash.
If your friend is kosher and just happens to have £150K in cash hanging around and isn't a villain and really wants to pay you in cash, get him to pay you in gold coins. This'll cover it.
Then whenever you are short of cash, take it to a gold coin dealer and convert it to cash. Or you can take it to Switzerland (can we still do this post-Brexit?) and convert the cash to a bank account.
You can buy and sell gold (and diamonds) over the counter, no questions, asked in Antwerp. Me and my father did it when we sold my grandfather's farm in the Western Cape and I smuggled the funds out of South Africa.
There plenty of hiding places in our VW camper. Might be a plan!
Right: Boris Johnson starts snoring when asked why he ignored allegations against Chris Pincher
Pincher could of course stand as an Independent in the by election to try and hold his seat until the general election, he is no longer a Tory after all having had the whip removed
Why would he want to throw away money on the deposit?
Starmer now quoting George W Bush in his education speech: "The soft bigotry of low expectations". Some Blair-style triangulation being attempted here.
Right: Boris Johnson starts snoring when asked why he ignored allegations against Chris Pincher
Pincher could of course stand as an Independent in the by election to try and hold his seat until the general election, he is no longer a Tory after all having had the whip removed
Starmer now quoting George W Bush in his education speech: "The soft bigotry of low expectations". Some Blair-style triangulation being attempted here.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
That, of course, is the spin of mermaids, the losing party.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Labour says debating skills should be prioritised in schools Sunak thinks Maths should be prioritised
Sunaks policy doesnt add up but was never in doubt SKS was a lover of mass debating in fact i believe i have been pointing that out on here for over a year
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not pay the cash into the bank account of your solicitor. Then the solicitor transfer to your bank account. Would that work?
Only if the solicitor was happy to be struck off. We can’t accept any cash.
Solicitors choose not to accept cash because its hassle is probably more accurate.
Because it just pushes the compliance into them. The solicitor then risks being flagged by the banks as a risk - which would put them out of business rather neatly.
How effective is AML? My guess is not very as the big criminals know exactly how to get around it, but also fairly onerous on business and society, as creates fear, admin, stress and confusion.
AML thresholds are far too low if ordinary horseracing punters get caught up, but otoh this land sale does sound like textbook money laundering, probably of untaxed income rather than the proceeds of crime. There did used to be a lot of cash flowing round the countryside. This transaction turns cash into land.
Yup.
The classic, these days, is cash in hand business. Such as building. Because the cash is going out of accounts, little notice is taken.
The guy with the cash mountain keeps it in safety deposit boxes and lives off it day to day. They usually declare enough income for things like the mortgage and the car.
If your friend is kosher and just happens to have £150K in cash hanging around and isn't a villain and really wants to pay you in cash, get him to pay you in gold coins. This'll cover it.
Then whenever you are short of cash, take it to a gold coin dealer and convert it to cash. Or you can take it to Switzerland (can we still do this post-Brexit?) and convert the cash to a bank account.
You can buy and sell gold (and diamonds) over the counter, no questions, asked in Antwerp. Me and my father did it when we sold my grandfather's farm in the Western Cape and I smuggled the funds out of South Africa.
Good to know, thank you. If I ever have £150K in gold coins I'll get on the Eurostar.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
I would use a Waitrose bag for that amount of cash.
I was thinking a tesco bag might be more discreet. Don't want to draw attention to myself in Loughborough.
The Tesco in Loughborough was a branch of William Low when I first shopped there, although I did not queue overnight:
"Expansion into the north and midlands of England was a priority, with the £12 million, 30,000 sq ft (2,800 m2) Loughborough store opening in 1993. Amid huge publicity for price cuts on over 500 items, customers took their sleeping bags to await the opening of the store and claim their hamper, champagne and flowers."
Labour says debating skills should be prioritised in schools Sunak thinks Maths should be prioritised
Sunaks policy doesnt add up but was never in doubt SKS was a lover of mass debating in fact i believe i have been pointing that out on here for over a year
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Don’t, even with solicitor letters.
This is my day job.
You’ll trigger all sorts of red flags on your account which is likely to lead to account closures and CIFAS markers which last for six years.
Only terrorists, criminals/drug dealers use cash at that amount according to systems.
It is an AML issue as well.
An idea - £150k is about the value of, say , 20 grams of black market Tritium stolen from Russian nuclear warheads.
So he could buy the Tritium from Russian gangsters and sell it to MI6 or the CIA.
I’m sure that a cheque from MI6 would be cashed at Coutts, no problems….
The rational thing to do of course is to take it to a drug dealer, who can handle the cash and will sell you high grade class As at wholesale prices, guaranteeing a 300% ROI. An unintended consequence of making it hard for hitherto honest folk to deal in cash.
Next step what do you do with 600k cash......
Buy Tritium, obviously.
Another building trade fraud is money laundering - someone with cash buys a property in a shit state using a real mortgage etc. The rebuild is in cash, with a small declarer amount. Then sell the property for its new, higher value. Or let it…
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not pay the cash into the bank account of your solicitor. Then the solicitor transfer to your bank account. Would that work?
Only if the solicitor was happy to be struck off. We can’t accept any cash.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not pay the cash into the bank account of your solicitor. Then the solicitor transfer to your bank account. Would that work?
Only if the solicitor was happy to be struck off. We can’t accept any cash.
Solicitors choose not to accept cash because its hassle is probably more accurate.
Because it just pushes the compliance into them. The solicitor then risks being flagged by the banks as a risk - which would put them out of business rather neatly.
How effective is AML? My guess is not very as the big criminals know exactly how to get around it, but also fairly onerous on business and society, as creates fear, admin, stress and confusion.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are "highly reputable" banks, solicitors, and accountants, who will happily launder your money for you.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Don’t, even with solicitor letters.
This is my day job.
You’ll trigger all sorts of red flags on your account which is likely to lead to account closures and CIFAS markers which last for six years.
Only terrorists, criminals/drug dealers use cash at that amount according to systems.
It is an AML issue as well.
An idea - £150k is about the value of, say , 20 grams of black market Tritium stolen from Russian nuclear warheads.
So he could buy the Tritium from Russian gangsters and sell it to MI6 or the CIA.
I’m sure that a cheque from MI6 would be cashed at Coutts, no problems….
The rational thing to do of course is to take it to a drug dealer, who can handle the cash and will sell you high grade class As at wholesale prices, guaranteeing a 300% ROI. An unintended consequence of making it hard for hitherto honest folk to deal in cash.
Next step what do you do with 600k cash......
Buy Tritium, obviously.
Another building trade fraud is money laundering - someone with cash buys a property in a shit state using a real mortgage etc. The rebuild is in cash, with a small declarer amount. Then sell the property for its new, higher value. Or let it…
I thought half the fun was over-paying your own (possibly arms-length) companies to do the rebuild.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not ask your bank before you turn up ?
If it does come to fruition, and I can't convince him to use conventional methods, I'd definitely ask them first. It's just too good an offer to turn down, at the higher end of what we were told by the auction valuation, with no fees apart from a bit of conveyancing. When it was up with an estate agent, we were getting crap offers, so I don't want to put him off!
This suggests £20,000/transaction:
Deposit limits: banks to reduce cash deposit limits, subject to their customer arrangements, to below the existing £20,000 per transaction. The limit of £20,000 per transaction, with unlimited transactions per day, could not be justified for legitimate businesses or personal customers and presented a material risk for money laundering.
If your friend is kosher and just happens to have £150K in cash hanging around and isn't a villain and really wants to pay you in cash, get him to pay you in gold coins. This'll cover it.
Then whenever you are short of cash, take it to a gold coin dealer and convert it to cash. Or you can take it to Switzerland (can we still do this post-Brexit?) and convert the cash to a bank account.
You can buy and sell gold (and diamonds) over the counter, no questions, asked in Antwerp. Me and my father did it when we sold my grandfather's farm in the Western Cape and I smuggled the funds out of South Africa.
Good to know, thank you. If I ever have £150K in gold coins I'll get on the Eurostar.
Eurotunnel is one the most heavily surveilled border crossings in the world. Hull - Rotterdam would be better. That was the route for my illicit runs to France during lockdown.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
That is because you have no clue about the distinct differences between the English crown and the Scottish crown and what you need to do to be King of Scots.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
The King of England and Scotland have been the same since James I of England and VI of Scotland.
In fact the King is descended from Mary Queen of Scots via Sophia of Hanover whose mother was Elizabeth Stuart and son was George I but not Elizabeth I of England who died childless
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
That is because you have no clue about the distinct differences between the English crown and the Scottish crown and what you need to do to be King of Scots.
There is no such thing as the English crown Charles certainly wasn’t crowned as king of England.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
That, of course, is the spin of mermaids, the losing party.
If the Charity Commission accepts that they are a Charity, then that ought to be the end of the matter. This was a stupid case from the outset.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
Yep, DeSantis staffers are completely messing up his campaign already.
It's clear that you can get away with a great deal of shit in Florida. I guess they've yet to work out it doesn't translate to the national stage.
All they seem to have to offer, is aggressively anti-Trump content, rather than anything positive, despite a lot of Republicans being envious of of RDS and what he’s doing with actual policy in Florida. The two campaigns spend all day every day on social media, tearing the hell out of each other to no useful end, someone with enough clout needs to tell them that the result of such infighting is a Democrat win. But who?
Believe it was always the plan to rest Jimmy for Headingley to have him fresh for OT.
The sad day is approaching when Jimmy Anderson will bowl his final ball for England. It's going to make Alistair Cook's bowing out look like a polite 'see you later'. Cricket is unusual in the veneration it has for players of long ago - Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe, Hedley Verity, W.G. Grace, Johnny Briggs. Jimmy Anderson is now so venerable it's like we have one of those characters still playing.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
If your friend is kosher and just happens to have £150K in cash hanging around and isn't a villain and really wants to pay you in cash, get him to pay you in gold coins. This'll cover it.
Then whenever you are short of cash, take it to a gold coin dealer and convert it to cash. Or you can take it to Switzerland (can we still do this post-Brexit?) and convert the cash to a bank account.
You can buy and sell gold (and diamonds) over the counter, no questions, asked in Antwerp. Me and my father did it when we sold my grandfather's farm in the Western Cape and I smuggled the funds out of South Africa.
There plenty of hiding places in our VW camper. Might be a plan!
[I was in the middle of doing an extended joke about taking a VW campervan to Holland before I worked out that Antwerp is in Belgium ]
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Don’t, even with solicitor letters.
This is my day job.
You’ll trigger all sorts of red flags on your account which is likely to lead to account closures and CIFAS markers which last for six years.
Only terrorists, criminals/drug dealers use cash at that amount according to systems.
It is an AML issue as well.
An idea - £150k is about the value of, say , 20 grams of black market Tritium stolen from Russian nuclear warheads.
So he could buy the Tritium from Russian gangsters and sell it to MI6 or the CIA.
I’m sure that a cheque from MI6 would be cashed at Coutts, no problems….
The rational thing to do of course is to take it to a drug dealer, who can handle the cash and will sell you high grade class As at wholesale prices, guaranteeing a 300% ROI. An unintended consequence of making it hard for hitherto honest folk to deal in cash.
Next step what do you do with 600k cash......
Buy Tritium, obviously.
Another building trade fraud is money laundering - someone with cash buys a property in a shit state using a real mortgage etc. The rebuild is in cash, with a small declarer amount. Then sell the property for its new, higher value. Or let it…
I thought half the fun was over-paying your own (possibly arms-length) companies to do the rebuild.
That’s a different game - in this one you are trying to wash money.
Just watched a clip of Sunak being examined by a select committee, responding to Chris Bryant's questions with a an evasive script as though he was a call centre employee.
Sunak is going to be dynamite in an election campaign. And not in a good sense for the Tories.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
The King of England and Scotland have been the same since James I of England and VI of Scotland.
In fact the King is descended from Mary Queen of Scots via Sophia of Hanover whose mother was Elizabeth Stuart and son was George I but not Elizabeth I of England who died childless
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not pay the cash into the bank account of your solicitor. Then the solicitor transfer to your bank account. Would that work?
Only if the solicitor was happy to be struck off. We can’t accept any cash.
Solicitors choose not to accept cash because its hassle is probably more accurate.
What part of -
“You should consider establishing a policy of never accepting cash payments. If this is unavoidable, you should set a limit above which you will not accept cash payments.”
I don’t see any circumstance, in land transactions especially, where cash is “unavoidable”. If you define “hassle” as potentially being reported to the SRA and struck off, you’re right, but that’s wholly unreasonable.. The Law Society is not the regulatory arm of the profession anymore, the SRA was spun off as an independent regulator about 15 years ago. They red flag practically any cash transactions and no City or commercial firm will take cash - particularly not into client account. The very guidance you link to is so vague that no one is going to risk getting struck off.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Standing is more than just a technical issue. If you can't clear that hurdle, nothing else matters.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
That is because you have no clue about the distinct differences between the English crown and the Scottish crown and what you need to do to be King of Scots.
There is no such thing as the English crown Charles certainly wasn’t crowned as king of England.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
That, of course, is the spin of mermaids, the losing party.
I mean, I have provided their statement, yes.
But the paragraph after that is my own conclusion. Standing is a technical matter, not a merits based ruling, so if someone else with standing turns up and presents a case again, we don't know what the outcome will likely be. What we do know is that one judge agreed that the LGBA should lose charitable status, and one judge disagreed with that. That to me suggests there is enough "there there" that another case is likely, but no certainty to any possible future outcome.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Standing is more than just a technical issue. If you can't clear that hurdle, nothing else matters.
Standing is just about who can bring this kind of case, not the merits of the case. Now if the ruling was "no third party can have standing on this kind of case", essentially putting the awarding of charity status above judicial review, I would agree that the case is closed. But that wasn't the ruling.
The Lab-Con contest I haven't done last LEc results for:
UXBRIDGE & SOUTH RUISLIP LE 2022 results based on full/near full wards and Eastcote weighted to 50% (excludes about 1000 voters)
Con 51.5 Lab 34.4 Grn 7.9 Var others 4.1 LD 2.0
In terms of local results you'd say this was safer than Selby (where LE 2022 had Lab 10% behind without competing in 2/15 wards) and indeed safer than Tamworth (Con lead there a smidge higher at 17.9% but includes a couple of wards from 2021).
Pushing those London local issue buttons, as in 2022, looks to be good politics from the Tories, especially as London local by elections continue to typically show small Lab to Con swing from 2022 (typically these have been very Labour wards where their vote share is nibbled by the Greens and Conservatives show a small rise but remain below 10%).
OK, Uxbridge Greens are probably red Greens and the larger cohort in Selby could well be blue Greens, but with Boris, who underperformed his local councillors, gone, I concur with the slight PB feeling that this isn't necessarily the easiest of the Labour gains.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Have you read the judgement, or just Mermaid’s spin?
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
That, of course, is the spin of mermaids, the losing party.
I mean, I have provided their statement, yes.
But the paragraph after that is my own conclusion. Standing is a technical matter, not a merits based ruling, so if someone else with standing turns up and presents a case again, we don't know what the outcome will likely be. What we do know is that one judge agreed that the LGBA should lose charitable status, and one judge disagreed with that. That to me suggests there is enough "there there" that another case is likely, but no certainty to any possible future outcome.
You seem to be having a fight with yourself here, but I suspect you are seriously wrong about this. The Court would not be adjudicating the question Should LGBA have been given charitable status but Did the commission make an error of law in giving it charitable status. Not the same thing.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
This is a variation on the no true Scotsman fallacy. You associate LGB(T) with a particular political outlook and can’t accept legitimate disagreement.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
I think these anti transgender activists have about the same ontological status as the beast in Lord of the Flies.
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
Why not ask your bank before you turn up ?
If it does come to fruition, and I can't convince him to use conventional methods, I'd definitely ask them first. It's just too good an offer to turn down, at the higher end of what we were told by the auction valuation, with no fees apart from a bit of conveyancing. When it was up with an estate agent, we were getting crap offers, so I don't want to put him off!
This suggests £20,000/transaction:
Deposit limits: banks to reduce cash deposit limits, subject to their customer arrangements, to below the existing £20,000 per transaction. The limit of £20,000 per transaction, with unlimited transactions per day, could not be justified for legitimate businesses or personal customers and presented a material risk for money laundering.
Yes, I ran into the £20k limit recently while paying out beneficiaries of a will. But you just have to arrange it with the bank if you need to transfer more than that.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
I’m a lawyer, not an anti-transgender activist. Have you read the judgment? I’ve had a very quick scan and that does not accord with anything I’ve read. Can you, specifically, point me to the part where one of the panel said that LGBA should lose their charitable status?
Right: Boris Johnson starts snoring when asked why he ignored allegations against Chris Pincher
Pincher could of course stand as an Independent in the by election to try and hold his seat until the general election, he is no longer a Tory after all having had the whip removed
Why would he want to throw away money on the deposit?
I presume if he did stand at the by-election and lost, he isn't elegible for the 'loss of office' payment MPs get if they stand and lose?
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Standing is more than just a technical issue. If you can't clear that hurdle, nothing else matters.
Standing is just about who can bring this kind of case, not the merits of the case. Now if the ruling was "no third party can have standing on this kind of case", essentially putting the awarding of charity status above judicial review, I would agree that the case is closed. But that wasn't the ruling.
The thing is, I don't see what standing anybody could have, other than the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission welcomed this judgement.
Even if a judge says, as part of her obiter dicta, that she doesn't think the Commission ought to have granted charitable status, that's a long way from saying that the Commission erred in law in granting such status.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
This is a variation on the no true Scotsman fallacy. You associate LGB(T) with a particular political outlook and can’t accept legitimate disagreement.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
I’m a lawyer, not an anti-transgender activist. Have you read the judgment? I’ve had a very quick scan and that does not accord with anything I’ve read. Can you, specifically, point me to the part where one of the panel said that LGBA should lose their charitable status?
Perhaps it would help if some kind person could post the actual ruling instead of various tweets/blogs/whatever from interested parties, then we could read it and be enlightened
Comments
The list goes on.
Team behind ‘Peaky Blinders’ says DeSantis campaign was not given permission to use footage of Cillian Murphy
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4082015-team-behind-peaky-blinders-says-desantis-campaign-was-not-given-permission-to-use-footage-of-cillian-murphy/
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1676892346762362880?s=20
Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!"
It's too hot - "Not my winter!"
You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Sunaks policy doesnt add up but was never in doubt SKS was a lover of mass debating in fact i believe i have been pointing that out on here for over a year
The classic, these days, is cash in hand business. Such as building. Because the cash is going out of accounts, little notice is taken.
The guy with the cash mountain keeps it in safety deposit boxes and lives off it day to day. They usually declare enough income for things like the mortgage and the car.
I guess they've yet to work out it doesn't translate to the national stage.
"Expansion into the north and midlands of England was a priority, with the £12 million, 30,000 sq ft (2,800 m2) Loughborough store opening in 1993. Amid huge publicity for price cuts on over 500 items, customers took their sleeping bags to await the opening of the store and claim their hamper, champagne and flowers."
Another building trade fraud is money laundering - someone with cash buys a property in a shit state using a real mortgage etc. The rebuild is in cash, with a small declarer amount. Then sell the property for its new, higher value. Or let it…
For the rest of us, it's an inconvenience.
Deposit limits: banks to reduce cash deposit limits, subject to their customer arrangements, to below the existing £20,000 per transaction. The limit of £20,000 per transaction, with unlimited transactions per day, could not be justified for legitimate businesses or personal customers and presented a material risk for money laundering.
https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/cash-based-money-laundering#:~:text=Deposit limits: banks to reduce,existing £20%2C000%20per%20transaction.
In fact the King is descended from Mary Queen of Scots via Sophia of Hanover whose mother was Elizabeth Stuart and son was George I but not Elizabeth I of England who died childless
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1676887936774676481?s=20
“Success isn’t binary. It’s on a spectrum” - Mermaids
https://twitter.com/francesweetman/status/1676894429729239040?s=20
Here’s a good conversation on the subject, with Republican operative Matt Breynard and Tim Pool (starts at 27:30)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NsDgCY_IUH0
The sad day is approaching when Jimmy Anderson will bowl his final ball for England. It's going to make Alistair Cook's bowing out look like a polite 'see you later'. Cricket is unusual in the veneration it has for players of long ago - Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe, Hedley Verity, W.G. Grace, Johnny Briggs. Jimmy Anderson is now so venerable it's like we have one of those characters still playing.
@IanDunt
·
36m
It's summer 2023. Every week must feature one byelection and the launch of a new social platform by law.
A "Yes".
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
Sunak is going to be dynamite in an election campaign. And not in a good sense for the Tories.
“You should consider establishing a policy of never accepting cash payments. If this is unavoidable, you should set a limit above which you will not accept cash payments.”
- do you not understand?
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/helplines/practice-advice-service/q-and-as/what-do-we-need-to-include-in-our-policy-on-handling-cash
I don’t see any circumstance, in land transactions especially, where cash is “unavoidable”. If you define “hassle” as potentially being reported to the SRA and struck off, you’re right, but that’s wholly unreasonable.. The Law Society is not the regulatory arm of the profession anymore, the SRA was spun off as an independent regulator about 15 years ago. They red flag practically any cash transactions and no City or commercial firm will take cash - particularly not into client account. The very guidance you link to is so vague that no one is going to risk getting struck off.
But the paragraph after that is my own conclusion. Standing is a technical matter, not a merits based ruling, so if someone else with standing turns up and presents a case again, we don't know what the outcome will likely be. What we do know is that one judge agreed that the LGBA should lose charitable status, and one judge disagreed with that. That to me suggests there is enough "there there" that another case is likely, but no certainty to any possible future outcome.
UXBRIDGE & SOUTH RUISLIP
LE 2022 results based on full/near full wards and Eastcote weighted to 50% (excludes about 1000 voters)
Con 51.5
Lab 34.4
Grn 7.9
Var others 4.1
LD 2.0
In terms of local results you'd say this was safer than Selby (where LE 2022 had Lab 10% behind without competing in 2/15 wards) and indeed safer than Tamworth (Con lead there a smidge higher at 17.9% but includes a couple of wards from 2021).
Pushing those London local issue buttons, as in 2022, looks to be good politics from the Tories, especially as London local by elections continue to typically show small Lab to Con swing from 2022 (typically these have been very Labour wards where their vote share is nibbled by the Greens and Conservatives show a small rise but remain below 10%).
OK, Uxbridge Greens are probably red Greens and the larger cohort in Selby could well be blue Greens, but with Boris, who underperformed his local councillors, gone, I concur with the slight PB feeling that this isn't necessarily the easiest of the Labour gains.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20
Which do you find more concerning?
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/06/car-crashes-into-primary-school-in-wimbledon/
https://twitter.com/angryscotland/status/1676901603972874241?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66120958
Even if a judge says, as part of her obiter dicta, that she doesn't think the Commission ought to have granted charitable status, that's a long way from saying that the Commission erred in law in granting such status.
Two down before drinks.