The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
If the developers breached the laws at the time of construction (and from my own knowledge, I know that there has been widespread corruption on the part of developers and local planning and building control officers) then they should be caned.
But, that does not exempt leaseholders from the principle of caveat emptor. Do you think more than a tiny minority had proper surveys carried out at the time of purchase, rather than relying on “free” drive buy valuations by their mortgage lenders? How many of them are buy to let speculators, as opposed to owner occupiers?
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
Alternatively, accept that there is flammable cladding on these flats and make sure no more of the stuff goes on new builds.
And hope no more of them catch light? Sorry, we need to remove it. Personally I would borrow the money in the way we are funding Covid, I.e. quantitative easing. The spend to remove and replace will be a huge stimulus to the industry. I’d also go after anyone who knowingly fitted the wrong product with the full force of the law.
Don’t disagree with any of that, though I do wonder about the risks. To what extent did Grenfell happen due to poor installation?
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
The developers who built these properties are the ones who should pay plus those manufacturers of cladding who lied about their safety or who fiddled the tests etc. Those who are responsible for building properties which are not safe should be the ones who are held responsible.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
They aren't sitting on anything, the flats are worthless. All of them are now sitting on hundreds of thousands in negative equity because the government has decided to protect its developer mates and donors.
Extended discussion of cladding & pensions, makes me long for the days when PBer are obsessed with such thrilling topics as AV and the offside rule . . .
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
I have addressed this. There should be a charge on the properties so that a percentage of that capital gain is used to recoup the costs.
As far as I understand it, the flats are worthless and cannot now be sold at any price. So at the moment there is no capital gain.
I wouldn't be against some form of means test either - ie help out those whose sole property / home this is as opposed to say, professional investors from overseas etc with lots of properties.
As someone pointed out, context is everything here. If you ask, do you care that the PM is spending a couple of hundred thousand refurbishing his flat, they may think, fine it goes with the job. If however you ask, is it OK for the PM to accept ad hoc "gifts" of a couple of hundred thousand a time from persons unknown, they might think, this needs tightening up.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
NOT improvements - it's a fire safety issue.
Obviously, it’s an improvement if a place is made more safe.
We’ve had hundreds of years of building regulations, designed to make property safer and more sanitary. Older buildings will not comply with modern building regulations, and one accepts that is going to reflected in the price one pays for older buildings.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
If the developers breached the laws at the time of construction (and from my own knowledge, I know that there has been widespread corruption on the part of developers and local planning and building control officers) then they should be caned.
But, that does not exempt leaseholders from the principle of caveat emptor. Do you think more than a tiny minority had proper surveys carried out at the time of purchase, rather than relying on “free” drive buy valuations by their mortgage lenders? How many of them are buy to let speculators, as opposed to owner occupiers?
See my response just now.
Could the buyer have discovered the problem through a survey? If not, then caveat emptor does not really help, does it?
I think part of it is that undergraduates are more multiethnic than my cohort in university, and more traditional in terms of behaviour..
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
Alternatively, accept that there is flammable cladding on these flats and make sure no more of the stuff goes on new builds.
And hope no more of them catch light? Sorry, we need to remove it. Personally I would borrow the money in the way we are funding Covid, I.e. quantitative easing. The spend to remove and replace will be a huge stimulus to the industry. I’d also go after anyone who knowingly fitted the wrong product with the full force of the law.
Don’t disagree with any of that, though I do wonder about the risks. To what extent did Grenfell happen due to poor installation?
Whatever, the 18m distinction is appalling.
Some of these buildings have a catalogue of failures. No compartmentalisation, no smoke detectors, no enough fire escapes. There is a lot wrong. Many buildings are being forced to pay for watchers 24/7, at ludicrous costs.
Leaseholders should have the opportunity to sell their flat back to the Govt at purchase price adjusted by CPI since they purchased it + a small amount for stamp duty + moving costs. The Govt can then fund the cladding costs alongside the willing owners.
There is no way that the Govt should fund the cladding, and then let the private leaseholders trouser the profits.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
NOT improvements - it's a fire safety issue.
Obviously, it’s an improvement if a place is made more safe.
We’ve had hundreds of years of building regulations, designed to make property safer and more sanitary. Older buildings will not comply with modern building regulations, and one accepts that is going to reflected in the price one pays for older buildings.
However, new regulations are not usually retrospectively applied on this scale or at all.
A Court has rejected an appeal by campaigner Martin Keatings seeking a decision on whether Scotland can hold a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent.
Appeal court judges have said it would be “premature, hypothetical and academic” to rule on the matter when the result of the Holyrood election is not known and there is no independence Bill before the Scottish Parliament.
India reports 401,911 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 3,521 new deaths
The UK's worst figures for a single day were 67,928 cases and 1,823 deaths in January this year. If you scale that up to India's population, it would be 1.36 million cases and 36,500 deaths on a single day.
That's the scary thing. It could get a lot worse in India. Having a healthcare system with capacity makes a huge difference.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
The developers who built these properties are the ones who should pay plus those manufacturers of cladding who lied about their safety or who fiddled the tests etc. Those who are responsible for building properties which are not safe should be the ones who are held responsible.
Certainly the Grenfell enquiry revealed alarming attitudes to fire safety testing by the manufacturers.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
They aren't sitting on anything, the flats are worthless. All of them are now sitting on hundreds of thousands in negative equity because the government has decided to protect its developer mates and donors.
No property is worthless, ever. It may be unmortgageable, but you’ll always find a cash buyer, at a discount.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
They aren't sitting on anything, the flats are worthless. All of them are now sitting on hundreds of thousands in negative equity because the government has decided to protect its developer mates and donors.
No property is worthless, ever. It may be unmortgageable, but you’ll always find a cash buyer, at a discount.
Not sure about that. If you’re legally obliged to fund extremely high ongoing expenses, then leases can become worthless.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
The developers who built these properties are the ones who should pay plus those manufacturers of cladding who lied about their safety or who fiddled the tests etc. Those who are responsible for building properties which are not safe should be the ones who are held responsible.
Certainly the Grenfell enquiry revealed alarming attitudes to fire safety testing by the manufacturers.
Alarming attitudes which might well amount to negligence. Why should such manufacturers be let off the hook?
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
They aren't sitting on anything, the flats are worthless. All of them are now sitting on hundreds of thousands in negative equity because the government has decided to protect its developer mates and donors.
No property is worthless, ever. It may be unmortgageable, but you’ll always find a cash buyer, at a discount.
Not sure about that. If you’re legally obliged to fund extremely large ongoing expenses, then leases can become worthless.
If you’re looking at a liability of £40k, as in the case that was cited, that (at worst) cuts the value by £40k. That is not close to making the property worthless.
India reports 401,911 new coronavirus cases, by far the biggest one-day increase on record, and 3,521 new deaths
The UK's worst figures for a single day were 67,928 cases and 1,823 deaths in January this year. If you scale that up to India's population, it would be 1.36 million cases and 36,500 deaths on a single day.
That's the scary thing. It could get a lot worse in India. Having a healthcare system with capacity makes a huge difference.
India's health system does have quite good numbers of staff and beds, but the chasm between the private and state sector is vast. The best private sector is very good indeed, but the worst public hospitals are very poor with the lowest calibre of staff. Of course when pandemic infection is out of control, and oxygen runs out, even the rich are not safe. Disease is a great leveller.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Ah, the sweet sound of the penny dropping with a journalist that it's the voters, not the media, who get to decide what issues are actually important in this country.
Again failing to understand the difference between what the voters are happy to accept and doing the right thing. There are plenty examples in history of this being the case. Even if the conservatives win every seat in the upcoming elections it doesn't justify why he just wont answer the simple question repeatedly put to him. Do you not wonder why not? I mean really?
Let me assure you, from the bottom of my heart, that I could not care less about it. On the contrary, the willingness and ability to defy stultifying, pusillanimous convention is one of the things I like best about Boris. I'd have little confidence that a politician who meekly obsesses about 'doing the right thing' all day would have the mettle to move the country in the direction I prefer. The medium, in this case, is a large part of the message.
Ah but that is not what you were saying in the last post is it? What you have said here is a different and reasonable argument (whether one agrees with it or not). The voters do decide who gets elected, but the people they elected are expected to abide by the rules regarding conflicts of interest and funding.
I admire your lack of interest in why he won't answer the one and only question put to him that would or would not clear it up. Not interested in the slightest? I recently supported Boris on an issue here, but his failure to respond on this just looks very shifty and he definitely has a reputation. Any reasonable person would want to resolve that issue asap if they could.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
I think I would ask you the same question I asked Max.
Exactly who?
eg Should 10-a-year developers who never build high-rise with cladding be on the hook for this? Why?
The current leaseholders campaign is not because what they say is justified or logical, it is people with votes wanting a bailout.
The developers who built these properties are the ones who should pay plus those manufacturers of cladding who lied about their safety or who fiddled the tests etc. Those who are responsible for building properties which are not safe should be the ones who are held responsible.
Certainly the Grenfell enquiry revealed alarming attitudes to fire safety testing by the manufacturers.
Alarming attitudes which might well amount to negligence. Why should such manufacturers be let off the hook?
I don't think they should be, and civil or criminal action is deserved. I suspect though that the companies will become insolvent well before remedial works are funded.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
But the leaseholders of these flats were not taking a risk. It was only after the Grenfell fire that it became apparent that developers and a whole range of subcontractors were getting away with cladding blocks with flammable materials by short-cutting or not interpreting health and safety regulations correctly. When the flats were bought, there was no apparent risk. If you bought a new car that transpired to be fundamentally unsafe, you wouldn't expect to have to pay for it to be remedied because you took a 'risk'.
Yes, unless someone secretly knew and ignored it, then it's an act of God like the pandemic, and we do expect the Government to give us collective insurance against those. The motives of the leaseholder (whether a wicked btl landlord or a saintly nurse) are irrelevant.
If, however, someone did know and ignored it, then the Government should cheerfully seize his assets. He won't need them in jail.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
Good grief.
Wait til they ask to be given a break for prayers. Who would dare say No?
Appeasing militant Islam in this way is dangerous, because they will always come after more. Always. And I bet many Muslims think it is absurd, as well
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
It feels like a collective punishment. Someone did something REALLY bad, and now we must all suffer
Come on, who was it? What did you do?
It's been the frostiest April for 60 years with the third lowest minimum temperatures since 1884. 22 ground frosts this month compared with the average of 12.
However, one of the driest Aprils for many years.
Apparently, that's CRIMINAL (or so you tell us). I would call days of unrelenting heat and humidity in London criminal but I wouldn't want to capitalise on other people's good fortune.
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
It’s interesting that Leicester’s last two and their next game have been evening kick offs. Presumably Fofana couldn’t have played if it was in the afternoon.
I think it’s ridiculous and actually I think it’s potentially dangerous.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
Tsk, Nick! You should have just told him, in immortal PB style:
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
Why should we have to "respect" their religion by changing the way WE behave? Why don't they respect our traditions and customs, by not enforcing their values on to us
Also, I don't respect their religion, not as it is practised in much of the world. I don't respect the misogyny and I don't respect the homophobia. I don't respect the anti-scientific nonsense. There is much I do not respect.
I'm not going to egregiously insult their beliefs or their prophet, that is just bad manners. But automatic "respect"? No.
Same goes for fundamentalist Protestantism or hardcore polygamist Mormonism. I don't "respect" them, either
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
Yes, there are individuals who think and believe that.
On a website I frequent, there's an individual who claims Biden isn't really in charge - the man we see is a double with the real Biden, his wife and leading Democrats arrested by the military acting on the orders of Trump who is still in charge and will return in triumph once it is proved the vote last November was fraudulent.
Perhaps someone should turn off the Internet for a couple of years.....
As far as the cladding issue is concerned it all seem pretty clear to me.
If the cladding met the regs but were nevertheless a risk to life the regs were not fit for purpose. the governments error and they should pay.
If they didn't meet the regs then the builder/building control are at fault and the builder and whoever signed off on the building be council/nhbc etc should pay.
Ministers have urged a family facing a devastating bill as part of the building safety crisis to contact the Samaritans if they want help with “feelings of distress or despair”.
In a move that sparked “disbelief” in the leaseholder involved, Jamie Robb, the response from an aide to the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, to a plea for help with fire remediation works included the phone number for the suicide prevention service. It recommended its “free, anonymous, confidential and non-judgemental support”.
The Robb family wrote to Jenrick in November last year after Jamie Robb, 30, discovered he was facing a bill of up to £40,000 for fire safety repairs on his apartment in a Manchester high-rise.
The response arrived this week as the government pushed through fire safety legislation that leaves thousands of leaseholders facing bills of up to £75,000 each to fix apartment buildings found to be dangerous in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. “The government is aware of the effect that ongoing building safety concerns may have on the mental health of residents … If you feel able to, you can discuss any difficulties with your GP who will be able to signpost you to suitable healthcare services, if appropriate. You can also access support from the Samaritans by calling freephone 116 123”.
Wow. This is feeling like the dog days of John Major's government - nastiness, sleaze and incompetence wherever you look. The difference is that Boris is actually riding high in the polls. What gives? My theory is that it's all down to the emotion of Brexit. In that divisive saga, Boris is still regarded as a saint by a huge chunk of the 52%; they'll excuse him anything. So Boris has half the nation for whom he can literally do no wrong. That's an awesome political situation to be in.
Boris will only be in that fortunate position for a limited time. Eventually half the nation, or at least some of them, will realise he can do wrong. Sturgeon has been in the same fortunate position, but her time is much more limited.
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
Why should we have to "respect" their religion by changing the way WE behave? Why don't they respect our traditions and customs, by not enforcing their values on to us
Also, I don't respect their religion, not as it is practised in much of the world. I don't respect the misogyny and I don't respect the homophobia. I don't respect the anti-scientific nonsense. There is much I do not respect.
I'm not going to egregiously insult their beliefs or their prophet, that is just bad manners. But automatic "respect"? No.
Same goes for fundamentalist Protestantism or hardcore polygamist Mormonism. I don't "respect" them, either
Two incidents this week illustrate the triumph of "religion" over common sense:
1) The Hindu festival of Kumbh Mela attended by MILLIONS of devotees, and helping the spread Covid in India. 2) The stampede in Israel just today, when 100,000 turned up for a festival that was only authorised for 10,000 devotees.
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
It’s interesting that Leicester’s last two and their next game have been evening kick offs. Presumably Fofana couldn’t have played if it was in the afternoon.
I think it’s ridiculous and actually I think it’s potentially dangerous.
Fofana has been fasting since 0530 so probably more dehydrated than an earlier kick off. Next week we have another Friday evening. The FA Cup final is after Eid.
It wasn't a prolonged break. Shorter than many interruptions to play.
The government’s behaviour over cladding is an utter disgrace. It’s very simple. If the government wants to makes people’s homes illegal, then the taxpayer needs to pick up the tab for making them legal.
Spot on. We have a collective responsibility to make sure a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again, and that will cost money. But it should not cost 'innocent' leaseholders money; either taxpayers or developers should pay. It will be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount we've spent, rightly, on saving lives from Covid. For Jenrick (it doesn't matter that it wasn't him personally) to helpfully include the Samaritans number in a response to a worried leaseholder beggars belief.
If the government is to pay, then the government should be entitled to take a charge over the flats in question, repayable on sale. To do otherwise is to nationalise risk, while privatising profit.
The profits have been privatised - by the developers who sold the flats. They should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities. They built and sold properties which were unsafe. They should not be allowed to keep those profits. No-one would have bought those properties if they had been told that they were effectively a fire trap.
Yes, but if a flat owner is sitting on a six figure capital gain, why should the taxpayer bail them out?
They aren't sitting on anything, the flats are worthless. All of them are now sitting on hundreds of thousands in negative equity because the government has decided to protect its developer mates and donors.
No property is worthless, ever. It may be unmortgageable, but you’ll always find a cash buyer, at a discount.
Not sure about that. If you’re legally obliged to fund extremely large ongoing expenses, then leases can become worthless.
If you’re looking at a liability of £40k, as in the case that was cited, that (at worst) cuts the value by £40k. That is not close to making the property worthless.
That would be true in a perfect market with perfect information. It is not true in a scenario where the government has introduced laws requiring EWS forms, but not provided enough surveyors to manage the demand for the forms (we have 500 and need about 2500 to meet demand). That leaves sellers, at best, negotiating with cash buyers only, who will not pay anything like a £40k reduction to the pre-existing situation.
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
Why should we have to "respect" their religion by changing the way WE behave? Why don't they respect our traditions and customs, by not enforcing their values on to us
Also, I don't respect their religion, not as it is practised in much of the world. I don't respect the misogyny and I don't respect the homophobia. I don't respect the anti-scientific nonsense. There is much I do not respect.
I'm not going to egregiously insult their beliefs or their prophet, that is just bad manners. But automatic "respect"? No.
Same goes for fundamentalist Protestantism or hardcore polygamist Mormonism. I don't "respect" them, either
Two incidents this week illustrate the triumph of "religion" over common sense:
1) The Hindu festival of Kumbh Mela attended by MILLIONS of devotees, and helping spread Covid in India. 2) The stampede in Israel just today, when 100,000 turned up for a festival that was only authorised for 10,000 devotees.
Rob Smithson, of this manor, called Covid "Dawkins Disease" right at the beginning - for the way it attacks religious people (of many faiths). Christians in Korea, Muslims in Iran.
It still hold true today, it's just moved on to different creeds
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
It’s interesting that Leicester’s last two and their next game have been evening kick offs. Presumably Fofana couldn’t have played if it was in the afternoon.
I think it’s ridiculous and actually I think it’s potentially dangerous.
Fofana has been fasting since 0530 so probably more dehydrated than an earlier kick off. Next week we have another Friday evening. The FA Cup final is after Eid.
It wasn't a prolonged break. Shorter than many interruptions to play.
"@kylegriffin1 President Biden is at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station to mark the 50th anniversary of Amtrak. He says that, as a senator, he'd take the late train home from D.C., fall asleep, miss his Wilmington stop, and end up in Philadelphia."
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
Didn’t take long to spot the bit that Wings’ overlooked. There’s a difference between country A paying the pension of someone moving to country B and country A splitting up into countries C and D, and a citizen of either C or D moving to B.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
Tsk, Nick! You should have just told him, in immortal PB style:
As far as the cladding issue is concerned it all seem pretty clear to me.
If the cladding met the regs but were nevertheless a risk to life the regs were not fit for purpose. the governments error and they should pay.
If they didn't meet the regs then the builder/building control are at fault and the builder and whoever signed off on the building be council/nhbc etc should pay.
Govt will say not our fault. Builder will say not our fault. Council will say not our fault. NHBC will say not our fault.
Leaseholders wont know who is at fault, and will find it extremely costly, difficult and time consuming (5-10 years?) to successfully sue any of the above.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
Yes, there are individuals who think and believe that.
On a website I frequent, there's an individual who claims Biden isn't really in charge - the man we see is a double with the real Biden, his wife and leading Democrats arrested by the military acting on the orders of Trump who is still in charge and will return in triumph once it is proved the vote last November was fraudulent.
Perhaps someone should turn off the Internet for a couple of years.....
I think there is a world of difference Stodge from someone claiming that Biden gives incoherent and rambling speeches (which he does being blunt although I have not seen his speech to Congress) and that they think Biden has been replaced by a Doppelganger.
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
It’s interesting that Leicester’s last two and their next game have been evening kick offs. Presumably Fofana couldn’t have played if it was in the afternoon.
I think it’s ridiculous and actually I think it’s potentially dangerous.
Fofana has been fasting since 0530 so probably more dehydrated than an earlier kick off. Next week we have another Friday evening. The FA Cup final is after Eid.
It wasn't a prolonged break. Shorter than many interruptions to play.
But he wouldn’t be able to tak we on water if it was an afternoon kick off, which would surely be detrimental to his performance if not potentially dangerous, so an evening kick off is an advantage.
Re cladding, the leaseholders take 100% of the benefit from the improvements, so why should they not contribute?
They're not really improvements though, are they? They are work necessary to make the flats habitable and safe, the leaseholders having been assured that they were habitable and safe when they bought them. They are having to spend money to put themselves in the position they thought they were in on purchase.
The reason is because the developers and builders did not comply with the rules - or the rules set by the government were inadequate - or council officers authorised the buildings despite the construction being unsafe.
It was not the fault of the leaseholders that they are in this position and if they don't have the money or can't raise it, they will lose their home and/or face bankruptcy. Meanwhile those primarily responsible walk away.
We cannot have a situation where people are living in unsafe flats. What if there is another fire?
The government should stump up the cash to make the flats safe now and then seek to recover from the developers, builders, manufacturers of the unsafe cladding etc, and the leaseholders on sale of the property eg a percentage of capital gain, say.
Instead we have a building scandal where materials known to be unsafe were used in construction and leaseholders who could not be expected to have known this or even found out about it are left with the liability.
Developers and the construction industry deserve to be hauled over the coals for this. Shoddy workmanship, cutting corners, mis-selling, a lack of care. As does the government, which wholly failed in its regulatory obligations.
It’s time that property investment was treated like any other investment, that the risk of losing some or all of your investment is highlighted and accepted. It seems that too many people expect property investment to be a no lose situation, which for many it has been.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
On this case, surely it is a) a matter of contract or private agreement between indiividuals, and b) that the other team chose to respect that contract.
I'm a little surprised they are willing to do it, as Islam does make provision for external constraints, or impracticality.
O/T - I've just been harangued by my Sainsbury deliveryman on the evils of Biden. "Did you see his rambling speech?" "No." "It was terrible! The Yanks made such a blunder when they picked him over Trump." "He seems quite popular, though." "I don't believe that. Still, their problem. They can't be as good as us." I glanced at him to look for a hint of irony. Not a bit of it. He was glaring and red-faced. Perhaps I should have argued, but it's like racist taxi-drivers - it never seems worth the effort...
Tsk, Nick! You should have just told him, in immortal PB style:
Biden 81 million votes Trump 74 million votes
Could it be, that Nick would rather get timely grocery deliveries, than defend Uncle Joe?
While not what you'd call a profile in courage, still quite understandable!
There is a break in play in Southampton v Leicester to allow a Muslim player to take on food and water after sunset.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
I think it just shows respect. It happened against Crystal Palace on Monday too, with Fofana and a CP player fasting.
On this case, surely it is a) a matter of contract or private agreement between indiividuals, and b) that the other team chose to respect that contract.
I'm a little surprised they are willing to do it, as Islam does make provision for external constraints, or impracticality.
We know Fofana is breaking his fast because it is an evening match. We don't know who is fasting in earlier kick offs, and of course Muslim players are quite common in PL teams.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
One clear step this country could take is the disestablishment of the CoE (and all religions). Can we please become a secular state? It would make it much easier to set simple guidelines about the influence of a multitude of religions in public life, treat everyone equally, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Hindu, atheist or Buddhist. It seems to me to be an obvious step.
I think part of it is that undergraduates are more multiethnic than my cohort in university, and more traditional in terms of behaviour..
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
Is that because personality is becoming more important than sex? The Fox Jrs will have no doubt inherited their personalities from their parents, so will be at an advantage over their peers.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
• In asking the police and the gendarmerie to interview during the Gilet Jaune protests, the government has provoked a loss of confidence in law enforcement — 62% pic.twitter.com/ovQUOL4ZUr
"@kylegriffin1 President Biden is at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station to mark the 50th anniversary of Amtrak. He says that, as a senator, he'd take the late train home from D.C., fall asleep, miss his Wilmington stop, and end up in Philadelphia."
Easy to do even if you are NOT a demented vegetable.
As far as the cladding issue is concerned it all seem pretty clear to me.
If the cladding met the regs but were nevertheless a risk to life the regs were not fit for purpose. the governments error and they should pay.
If they didn't meet the regs then the builder/building control are at fault and the builder and whoever signed off on the building be council/nhbc etc should pay.
Govt will say not our fault. Builder will say not our fault. Council will say not our fault. NHBC will say not our fault.
Leaseholders wont know who is at fault, and will find it extremely costly, difficult and time consuming (5-10 years?) to successfully sue any of the above.
Two separate issues
1. who should pay the cost
2. How do you make it happen.
I agree that 2. would be difficult without political support but it doesn't stop 1. being the right way to apply the costs.
State pensions are funded from current taxation. There is no pot built up as there is with an Abrdn or Ryl Lndn fund - which are paid to wherever in the world the pensioner lives. After independence, state pensions should be paid by whichever jurisdiction the pensioner lives in when the pension is first paid. That country pays their pension, from current taxation, for as long the person lives, and wherever they live. If someone in Scotland retires, the Scottish Government pays their pension whether they remain in Scotland or move to rUk, France, Australia or wherever. The same principle applies to someone retiring in rUk, whether they remain in rUk or move to Scotland, France, Australia or wherever. It will be up to each government to decide whose pensions are index linked or not; the same as now. Tax on the pensions will be paid to the person’s current country of residence. Any other system would be as a result of politics or racism, which should not be allowed to interfere with the payment of pensions.
Didn’t take long to spot the bit that Wings’ overlooked. There’s a difference between country A paying the pension of someone moving to country B and country A splitting up into countries C and D, and a citizen of either C or D moving to B.
He's stretching it, isn't he.
The letter does not say anything at all about how responsibility would be divided up between UK Gov and iScot Gov.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
It would have been a major headache for the Germans. Given the tensions pre-WW 1, it is likely that the UK would have turned Heligoland into a major fortress and naval base, as the Germans did in WW1. Given this was pre-air power days, that would have left the Germans with the alternative of either leaving it there (thus across their shipping lanes) or trying to get the High Seas Fleet to blast it into submission, with all the obvious risks there, including a major battle with the Grand Fleet.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Yes. Yet another triumph of Conservative foreign policy.
Well, certainly a bit short-sighted although nobody thought Germany would threaten the UK at that point. Russia and France were seen as the bigger issues
Thus similar to the foresight shown in the 20th century by Tory PMs Baldwin & Chamberlain.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
• In asking the police and the gendarmerie to interview during the Gilet Jaune protests, the government has provoked a loss of confidence in law enforcement — 62% pic.twitter.com/ovQUOL4ZUr
The French state has effectively lost control of the suburbs of Paris, as well as large tracts of the North / NW parts of Paris. Try walking by Stade de France at night.
It's a British Overseas Territory and not part of the UK.
We should make it a constituent part of the UK
After that, Boris should look to EXPAND the UK, to change the narrative from secession.
Aquitaine. I want Aquitaine. Used to be ours. Nice climate, fine wines, decent food.
Do it, Boris
Reclaim Heligoland!
Thus making amends for the rank treason of Lord Salisbury & the Tories in selling out the loyal Heligolanders to the Kaiser back in 1890.
Heligoland was actually swapped with Germany for Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).
Selling out the Heligolanders, for Zanzibar (which Brits already controlled) AND to curry favor with Kaiser Bill . . . by giving him a VERY strategic North Sea island on the eve of massive German naval expansion.
But it didn't do the German Navy much good during WW1. Viz. Jutland.
Heligoland.
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
I think part of it is that undergraduates are more multiethnic than my cohort in university, and more traditional in terms of behaviour..
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
Is that because personality is becoming more important than sex? The Fox Jrs will have no doubt inherited their personalities from their parents, so will be at an advantage over their peers.
When I first came out with this thesis, ie that young men are nice, but a bit sexless and apathetic, and lacking in machismo, I was assured I was talking absolute nonsense, blah blah, I was just talking to a self-selected group of young women, yada yada, and so on
Turns out I was right. Feminism and cancel culture have combined with weird hormones in plastics to neuter our men, and literally shrivel their penises, and it is young women who are complaining.
I think part of it is that undergraduates are more multiethnic than my cohort in university, and more traditional in terms of behaviour..
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
Is that because personality is becoming more important than sex? The Fox Jrs will have no doubt inherited their personalities from their parents, so will be at an advantage over their peers.
No, I think it is the Zeitgeist. Fox Jr 1 had his first girlfriend aged 20, but is still with her, now cohabiting and clearly long term. Fox Jr 2 is more of a serial monogamist, but one girl lasted a year. Being heterosexual in the acting world shifts the odds in his favour.
I think part of it is that undergraduates are more multiethnic than my cohort in university, and more traditional in terms of behaviour..
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
Is that because personality is becoming more important than sex? The Fox Jrs will have no doubt inherited their personalities from their parents, so will be at an advantage over their peers.
When I first came out with this thesis, ie that young men are nice, but a bit sexless and apathetic, and lacking in machismo, I was assured I was talking absolute nonsense, blah blah, I was just talking to a self-selected group of young women, yada yada, and so on
Turns out I was right. Feminism and cancel culture have combined with weird hormones in plastics to neuter our men, and literally shrivel their penises, and it is young women who are complaining.
Plenty of openings for an enterprising dildo knapper to fill then.
I notice that Arlene is going to resign her DUP membership after stepping down from the leadership, because she is unhappy with the direction the party has been taking. Under her own leadership. Truly bizarre.
Certainly a more significant situation than a mere change in leadership. Curious.
In refusing to tell us who first paid that bill for overpriced wallpaper, or to give full details of who paid for his December 2019 holiday in Mustique, Johnson has offended the public trust.
Johnson’s Brexit protocol that put a border down the Irish sea, even after he’d vowed never to put a border down the Irish sea, thereby imperilling a union he swore blind he would protect. His proposal of an internal market bill that proudly declared its intention to break international law, prompting the UK’s top legal civil servant to quit – one of a disturbing number of mandarins driven to resignation on Johnson’s watch.
His illegal suspension of parliament, overturned as a violation of fundamental democratic practice by unanimous verdict of the supreme court. The lies that led to that moment: the £350m on the side of the bus or the scare story that Turkey was poised to join the EU and that Britain would be powerless to stop it. Siding with Vladimir Putin to suggest that the EU had provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Scandals, all.
The real scandal lies with us, the electorate, still seduced by a tousled-hair rebel shtick and faux bonhomie that should have palled years ago. Americans got rid of their lying, self-serving, scandal-plagued charlatan 100 days ago. They did it at the first possible opportunity. Next week, polls suggest we’re poised to give ours a partial thumbs-up at the ballot box. For allowing this shameless man to keep riding high, some of the shame is on us.
Comments
But, that does not exempt leaseholders from the principle of caveat emptor. Do you think more than a tiny minority had proper surveys carried out at the time of purchase, rather than relying on “free” drive buy valuations by their mortgage lenders? How many of them are buy to let speculators, as opposed to owner occupiers?
Whatever, the 18m distinction is appalling.
As far as I understand it, the flats are worthless and cannot now be sold at any price. So at the moment there is no capital gain.
I wouldn't be against some form of means test either - ie help out those whose sole property / home this is as opposed to say, professional investors from overseas etc with lots of properties.
We’ve had hundreds of years of building regulations, designed to make property safer and more sanitary. Older buildings will not comply with modern building regulations, and one accepts that is going to reflected in the price one pays for older buildings.
Could the buyer have discovered the problem through a survey? If not, then caveat emptor does not really help, does it?
But it is an issue. One of my colleagues has a twenty something daughter and son who have never had a serious partners. She is more worried by it than they are. Few of my nieces and nephews turn up with a plus one at functions. Both Fox Jr 1 and 2 seem to be sorted though.
There is no way that the Govt should fund the cladding, and then let the private leaseholders trouser the profits.
In theory.
I admire your lack of interest in why he won't answer the one and only question put to him that would or would not clear it up. Not interested in the slightest? I recently supported Boris on an issue here, but his failure to respond on this just looks very shifty and he definitely has a reputation. Any reasonable person would want to resolve that issue asap if they could.
The gap between events (as in "events, dear boy") and changes in voting intentions is way longer than we might expect.
For example, if you're presented with a graph of polls from 1992, you can't easily see where Black Wednesday happened.
That's not to say that the last week or so will cut through- very few things do. But it might be a bit early to tell.
Unless I'm imagining this.
That is beyond ridiculous. I always thought Muslims didn’t have to fast if it interfered with their job.
If, however, someone did know and ignored it, then the Government should cheerfully seize his assets. He won't need them in jail.
It feels like a collective punishment. Someone did something REALLY bad, and now we must all suffer
Come on, who was it? What did you do?
Voted for Brexit
Obviously
Drinks breaks have featured in a number of matches in recent years.
Wait til they ask to be given a break for prayers. Who would dare say No?
Appeasing militant Islam in this way is dangerous, because they will always come after more. Always. And I bet many Muslims think it is absurd, as well
Amsterdam. 7C right now. No sign of a real change for ten days... ie for the foreseeable future
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2759794
However, one of the driest Aprils for many years.
Apparently, that's CRIMINAL (or so you tell us). I would call days of unrelenting heat and humidity in London criminal but I wouldn't want to capitalise on other people's good fortune.
I think it’s ridiculous and actually I think it’s potentially dangerous.
Biden 81 million votes
Trump 74 million votes
Also, I don't respect their religion, not as it is practised in much of the world. I don't respect the misogyny and I don't respect the homophobia. I don't respect the anti-scientific nonsense. There is much I do not respect.
I'm not going to egregiously insult their beliefs or their prophet, that is just bad manners. But automatic "respect"? No.
Same goes for fundamentalist Protestantism or hardcore polygamist Mormonism. I don't "respect" them, either
On a website I frequent, there's an individual who claims Biden isn't really in charge - the man we see is a double with the real Biden, his wife and leading Democrats arrested by the military acting on the orders of Trump who is still in charge and will return in triumph once it is proved the vote last November was fraudulent.
Perhaps someone should turn off the Internet for a couple of years.....
If the cladding met the regs but were nevertheless a risk to life the regs were not fit for purpose. the governments error and they should pay.
If they didn't meet the regs then the builder/building control are at fault and the builder and whoever signed off on the building be council/nhbc etc should pay.
1) The Hindu festival of Kumbh Mela attended by MILLIONS of devotees, and helping the spread Covid in India.
2) The stampede in Israel just today, when 100,000 turned up for a festival that was only authorised for 10,000 devotees.
It wasn't a prolonged break. Shorter than many interruptions to play.
It still hold true today, it's just moved on to different creeds
President Biden is at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station to mark the 50th anniversary of Amtrak. He says that, as a senator, he'd take the late train home from D.C., fall asleep, miss his Wilmington stop, and end up in Philadelphia."
Leaseholders wont know who is at fault, and will find it extremely costly, difficult and time consuming (5-10 years?) to successfully sue any of the above.
A snippet on how powerful Heligoland was as a fortress:
"Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civilian population was evacuated to the mainland. The island was fortified with concrete gun emplacements along its cliffs similar to the Rock of Gibraltar. Island defences included 364 mounted guns including 142 42-centimetre (17 in) disappearing guns overlooking shipping channels defended with ten rows of naval mines."
Learned it on his mother’s lap in Old Polperro.
I'm a little surprised they are willing to do it, as Islam does make provision for external constraints, or impracticality.
While not what you'd call a profile in courage, still quite understandable!
1. who should pay the cost
2. How do you make it happen.
I agree that 2. would be difficult without political support but it doesn't stop 1. being the right way to apply the costs.
The letter does not say anything at all about how responsibility would be divided up between UK Gov and iScot Gov.
Too early to tell re: 21st century. But a queasy feeling comes over me stealing . . .
Can anyone explain how we would defend it in WW1?
Or why, for that matter, not having it was a handicap. The WW1 blockade was not tight to the coast and because WW1 U-Boats were very heavily a coastal blockage would have been difficult. Plus minefields.
I'd say it was like the Channel Islands in WW2. In practice huge resources were wasted on it by the Germans, which caused little problem for the UK.
Turns out I was right. Feminism and cancel culture have combined with weird hormones in plastics to neuter our men, and literally shrivel their penises, and it is young women who are complaining.