Wealth creators and higher earners likely to be heading to airports in significant numbers after the tax raising budget expected from Reeves.
Fewer landlords likely too, making it more difficult to find properties to rent and with unemployment likely to rise further and growth slow with higher tax, more redtape and regulation and a minimum wage level that makes it too costly for small businesses to do much hiring fewer will be able to buy a home either.
We are heading for the worst Labour government for the economy since the 1970s
To be fair there’s only been one other Labour government since the 1970s!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of theaw is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Because they recognise they are generally ignorant?
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
This whole growing feeling that there is one rule for those at the top and another for everyone else, that we need to root out of our politics
Too right! If, say, a postman, had made a similar mistake to Rachel Reeves on this 'licence to rent' business they'd be fired from their job at the very least and could well be looking at some prison time.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
This whole growing feeling that there is one rule for those at the top and another for everyone else, that we need to root out of our politics
Too right! If, say, a postman, had made a similar mistake to Rachel Reeves on this 'licence to rent' business they'd be fired from their job at the very least and could well be looking at some prison time.
I just typed out something Reeves said in 2021, when she apparently had principles
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
The prosecuting people for incredibly minor infractions of fly tipping regulations is more a reflection of the pressures on LA budgets than it is the process state.
What’s happened is that, knowing that LA budgets are under incredibly pressure from the demands of old age care & SEND provision, companies run by chancers have seen an opportunity to make money & have gone to said LAs with the following offer: “We will take over all littering & fly tipping enforcement at no cost to you, paid out of fines levied on those who break the rules”. The company knows that there is money to be made prosecuting all the minor trivial infractions that go on ever day at the rate of £100s a time & fully intends to exploit this to extract as many £ as possible from every easy target they can find. Naive (or desperate in some cases) LAs have taken this deal, throwing their own voters to the wolves in the process.
In other words, this another example of the UK state circling the drain as different parts of it engage in rent seeking behaviour, tearing down the public realm in the process.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
Even if it was up to spec that doesn't excuse not having a licence, the point of which extends further than just providing habitable conditions.
It's not just the hypocrisy - it's about underlying values. I strongly agree with having a landlord register (shocked it's not a England wide thing as it is in Scotland) and so should anyone who is on the side of those renting.
On another note, I'd be deeply suspicious of any landlord complaining about the small sum and paperwork required for a licence. It took me 5 minutes and less than 1% of my total revenue, and I only have one small flat.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
It’s been tipped for an Oscar haul, I haven’t seen it yet but does it appear to you that it will live up to the predictions?
This whole growing feeling that there is one rule for those at the top and another for everyone else, that we need to root out of our politics
Too right! If, say, a postman, had made a similar mistake to Rachel Reeves on this 'licence to rent' business they'd be fired from their job at the very least and could well be looking at some prison time.
I just typed out something Reeves said in 2021, when she apparently had principles
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
I laid out my betting strategy for the 2028 White House race to which led to my companion calling me ‘a fucking idiot’
Care to set it out so we don't join you in the 'idiot' category?
The reason I bet Trump would win in 2024, the economy.
By 2028 the economy I expect will be more buggered than a gay porn star on OnlyFans and the Dems win.
The Dems still haven’t come to terms with why they lost last time. To Donald F*****g Trump!
See Kamala Harris on her book tour trying to blame everyone else, see AOC getting in an online fight with an advocate for women’s sports being for women, see Mamdani and his rent controls and state-owned groceries, see Democrat Senators describing food stamps as ‘leverage’ even if it means people starving… That’s all in the last 72 hours.
If they can regroup and find a sensible candidate, and there are a few decent Dem Governors out there, then they have a chance.
I’m betting on Rubio and Vance as the GOP ticket, but not sure which way around.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
To solve the problem, give a politician 20 years of hard labour for pouring their coffee down a drain.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
It’s been tipped for an Oscar haul, I haven’t seen it yet but does it appear to you that it will live up to the predictions?
Not Roger, but I thought it was a great film: blackly funny, scabrous & very, very over the top. Sean Penn is fantastic as the conflicted white supremacist, Leo is great as the bungling, incompetent revolutionary who keeps falling/failing forwards, del Toro is very watchable as always & the supporting cast are all having enormous fun chewing the scenery.
Don’t go in expecting a cerebral movie, but do expect to be thinking about it afterwards.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?
What deranged nonsense every side thinks each other is trying to steal the elections, and unlike the other side, this time it is serious, ive heard from a man who knows a man.
My postman told me a bloke down the pub told him his cousin’s mate knows Trump is going to steal the election. He watched a YouTube channel.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?
Because some landlords aren't competent enough to maintain the house they are renting out.
Equally councils need to spend money making sure badly maintained properties are repaired and that costs money - that money that needs to come from somewhere so why not get the landlords to pay the costs of policing landlords
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Wealth creators and higher earners likely to be heading to airports in significant numbers after the tax raising budget expected from Reeves.
Fewer landlords likely too, making it more difficult to find properties to rent and with unemployment likely to rise further and growth slow with higher tax, more redtape and regulation and a minimum wage level that makes it too costly for small businesses to do much hiring fewer will be able to buy a home either.
We are heading for the worst Labour government for the economy since the 1970s
To be fair there’s only been one other Labour government since the 1970s!
I think you can make a case that Brown's government was different from Blairs. After all people bang on endlessly about Truss's government.
The one where Brown was chancellor and liked to present himself as the domestic PM while Blair was the front man/foreign affairs guy? That one?
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
As I wrote above/below in almost every case like this you’ll find the enforcement has been outsourced to a company that happily goes after the easy cases (the law abiding person who is naive enough to give their name and address when stopped in the street after they've poured 1/4 a cup of coffee down the drain) but knows that chasing a dodgy builder is a hiding to nothing that won’t result in a profitable payout.
They’re not interesting in doing the hard cases that keep the public realm clear of chancers, because those cost money.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?
Because a liceeeeeense for your minkey solves everything. It is known.
The scum/slum landlords will carry on illegally letting their properties to 37 people per house. With an extra charge for the black mold.
The regular, reasonably honest people have another set of costs.
But, you ask, how do the scum get away with it? First, there is no enforcement. Second, layering.
I own a house. Well, actually, an offshore company owns a house via a couple of layers of Ltd’s. An onshore Ltd rents the house from the offshore company. The onshore Ltd then does all the illegal shit. If they are ever caught, the onshore Ltd goes bust - all it has are debts.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
£50k fine in Scotland 👀
Because of the scattergun approach in England, plus her agency missing it too, I think paying whatever fine it is and an apology in the Commons will see her through this.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
Anarcho-tyranny i heard it described as. Not a particularly catchy way, but does get it.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
I’ve never heard of it either, and I’ve been renting my old flat out for years… hope it’s licensed!
To be fair, the only reason I care at all about this is the pious criticism of any small breach of a technicality that Labour issued in opposition. They really set themselves up for something like this, and Rayner’s stamp duty, by thinking themselves perfect
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
It’s been tipped for an Oscar haul, I haven’t seen it yet but does it appear to you that it will live up to the predictions?
It's difficult to tell. I had to see it one and a half times to sort of 'get it'. It could be pretentious waffle which is what I thought when I watched the first half. But when I went back to see the whole thing I thought it was really original and I got the slight feeling I got when I first saw Pulp Fiction, Crap or genius? It was in fact genius but you had to get through a few prejudices first and then see it again. But it's like that with original stuff.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
I’ve never heard of it either, and I’ve been renting my old flat out for years… hope it’s licensed!
To be fair, the only reason I care at all about this is the pious criticism of any small breach of a technicality that Labour issued in opposition. They really set themselves up for something like this, and Rayner’s stamp duty, by thinking themselves perfect
Cake, f***ing cake. It was a travesty that both Boris and Rishi got issued an FPN which was quite clearly not a breach of the law/rules. But maybe deserved since they imposed such opaque pettifogging rules on the whole population.
I cannot believe a jury would convict them of breaking the rules, and I was flabbergasted at the time, even more so with Rishi, who not only didnt break the rules, was super careful and when saw what was happening left. The process - state took on a current PM, and chancellor.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
As I wrote above/below in almost every case like this you’ll find the enforcement has been outsourced to a company that happily goes after the easy cases (the law abiding person who is naive enough to give their name and address when stopped in the street after they've poured 1/4 a cup of coffee down the drain) but knows that chasing a dodgy builder is a hiding to nothing that won’t result in a profitable payout.
They’re not interesting in doing the hard cases that keep the public realm clear of chancers, because those cost money.
That reminds me of that council that recently decided to crack down on dangerous cycling by banning bicycles from the town centre, with the threat of heavy fines. The result was that the nuisance cyclists carried on as before because they were too hard to catch, but the little old ladies slowly and carefully pedalling their way to the shops were stopped and made to pay up.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
As I wrote above/below in almost every case like this you’ll find the enforcement has been outsourced to a company that happily goes after the easy cases (the law abiding person who is naive enough to give their name and address when stopped in the street after they've poured 1/4 a cup of coffee down the drain) but knows that chasing a dodgy builder is a hiding to nothing that won’t result in a profitable payout.
They’re not interesting in doing the hard cases that keep the public realm clear of chancers, because those cost money.
One of my friends once got pulled over for not having pedal reflectors on (had a 500/250 lumen front/rear lights).
On a typical cycle I'll see 10+ drivers on the phone.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
Blaming the agency is poor form. It's like blaming the accountant. They are her agents, she is responsible for everything.
They should give her professional advice. After all if they are being paid to manage a tenancy (or even if just to secure a tenant) they should be doing due diligence to make sure the tenancy is legal and above board, otherwise they are complicit in a criminal activity.
(OK they are basically just estate agents so maybe that is expecting too much. The last letting agent I knew was growing and processing cannabis in his flat, for sale not just for his own use)
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
Pretty much any system of government will give rise to a certain number of few perverse outcomes. This is a good reason to complain, but it's not an excuse for electing fascists to power.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
It is done at council level.
Reeves has publicly supported this and voted in favour of the statutory framework under which it is done (IIRC).
Yes, but if a council adopts this but doesn't inform?
There's a tweet (there's always one) from her congratulating the council for introducing these very rules.
Only a Hyper Neon Fascist Enslaver Of The Oppressed would suggest that just because a politician has publicly backed a law/rule, she should know the law/rule exists.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
Punished how ?
AFAICS, the usual procedure where someone has failed to register and then rectifies the matter, is no punishment. The penalties appear to be there for enforcement purposes.
For example: ..Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, has called for Rachel Reeves to be prosecuted over her rental licence error. She has posted this on social media.
Labour run Southwark Council boasts of “cracking down on” and having a “zero tolerance approach to rogue landlords” and have prosecuted landlords for renting unlicensed properties. Rachel Reeves has made thousands from renting without following the licensing laws. Southwark Council must now take action on Rachel Reeves and prosecute her. Patel has also posted links (here and here) to stories on Southwark’s website about landlords being fined for not having a rental licence – although both these cases involved landlords ignoring warnings from the council about the need for a licence, which is not what Reeves did.
Patel has not always been so zealous about seeing people punished for breaking rules. As home secretary, she was found to have broken the ministerial code because she had bullied officials. But, with the support of Boris Johnson, PM at the time, she did not resign and remained in post..
If the Tories are ever to be taken seriously as a political party again, they need to grow up. The country's problems do not included failing to prosecute individuals for inadvertent breaches of regulations which have caused no harm. They absolutely do include overly prescriptive and onerous regulation. While this scheme is perhaps not that, the controversy provides an excellent opportunity to have that debate.
Frankly I couldn't give a damn about the party politics, or indeed Reeves herself.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
It is done at council level.
Reeves has publicly supported this and voted in favour of the statutory framework under which it is done (IIRC).
Yes, but if a council adopts this but doesn't inform?
There's a tweet (there's always one) from her congratulating the council for introducing these very rules.
Only a Hyper Neon Fascist Enslaver Of The Oppressed would suggest that just because a politician has publicly backed a law/rule, she should know the law/rule exists.
The account is probably run by one of her staff though.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?
Because a liceeeeeense for your minkey solves everything. It is known.
The scum/slum landlords will carry on illegally letting their properties to 37 people per house. With an extra charge for the black mold.
The regular, reasonably honest people have another set of costs.
But, you ask, how do the scum get away with it? First, there is no enforcement. Second, layering.
I own a house. Well, actually, an offshore company owns a house via a couple of layers of Ltd’s. An onshore Ltd rents the house from the offshore company. The onshore Ltd then does all the illegal shit. If they are ever caught, the onshore Ltd goes bust - all it has are debts.
It might catch a few amateur landlords who aren't keeping up with regs. Some lazy small-scale landlords have just treated it as easy money without doing the work required to comply with regulations.
As a student we rented from a couple who'd inherited a property from a parent and rented it out. After a couple of months there were leaks and mould, before gas and electrical safety checks, gas boiler and oven hadn't been serviced in years. Looking back we were just very lucky there wasn't an accident.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
It is done at council level.
Reeves has publicly supported this and voted in favour of the statutory framework under which it is done (IIRC).
Yes, but if a council adopts this but doesn't inform?
There's a tweet (there's always one) from her congratulating the council for introducing these very rules.
Only a Hyper Neon Fascist Enslaver Of The Oppressed would suggest that just because a politician has publicly backed a law/rule, she should know the law/rule exists.
The account is probably run by one of her staff though.
Strict liability - your account your fuckup.
After all, if your WiFI is WarDrived and crimes committed from your IP address, you have to prove it wasn’t you.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Councils should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:
Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?
Because a liceeeeeense for your minkey solves everything. It is known.
The scum/slum landlords will carry on illegally letting their properties to 37 people per house. With an extra charge for the black mold.
The regular, reasonably honest people have another set of costs.
But, you ask, how do the scum get away with it? First, there is no enforcement. Second, layering.
I own a house. Well, actually, an offshore company owns a house via a couple of layers of Ltd’s. An onshore Ltd rents the house from the offshore company. The onshore Ltd then does all the illegal shit. If they are ever caught, the onshore Ltd goes bust - all it has are debts.
Pretty confident that the layering is the key bit. Mostly because it makes the cost/benefit ratio for pursuing the bad guys hopeless, and they know it. See the snail farm bloke.
But also, it makes it impossible to know who to shun. Social enforcement of taboos has always been important, and it's probably a better regulator of society than law enforcement. But we you don't know who is responsible for anything, we don't know how to shun.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Council's should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
This morning, I posted a report from Jan 23 in the Yorkshire Post when she was campaigning to expand the policy in her constituency
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Councils should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
It often doesn't. Which seems to be the case with Southwark Council and the licensing regime. They have prosecuted when landlords have failed to comply, despite warnings to do so. They don't appear to have done so for a simple failure to comply which is subsequently rectified.
OT but relevant. One Battle After Another by Thomas Paul Anderson is an intriguing look at prejudice and immigration in the US and plenty more. Difficult to categorise but nor run of the mill. A must see though at three and a half hours and pretty violent not for everyone.
It’s been tipped for an Oscar haul, I haven’t seen it yet but does it appear to you that it will live up to the predictions?
Not Roger, but I thought it was a great film: blackly funny, scabrous & very, very over the top. Sean Penn is fantastic as the conflicted white supremacist, Leo is great as the bungling, incompetent revolutionary who keeps falling/failing forwards, del Toro is very watchable as always & the supporting cast are all having enormous fun chewing the scenery.
Don’t go in expecting a cerebral movie, but do expect to be thinking about it afterwards.
I understand the point, but the "Blade Runner 2049" problem kicks in: it doesn't matter how good a film is, if it is too long it'll bomb at the box office (except if directed by James Cameron).
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
£50k fine in Scotland 👀
Because of the scattergun approach in England, plus her agency missing it too, I think paying whatever fine it is and an apology in the Commons will see her through this.
A years rent to Shelter perhaps? I don't think she should get off scot free but not sure it is sackable either.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Not entirely unconnected with why these landlord and HMO registration schemes are proving so popular with local councils in the first place….
Wealth creators and higher earners likely to be heading to airports in significant numbers after the tax raising budget expected from Reeves.
Fewer landlords likely too, making it more difficult to find properties to rent and with unemployment likely to rise further and growth slow with higher tax, more redtape and regulation and a minimum wage level that makes it too costly for small businesses to do much hiring fewer will be able to buy a home either.
We are heading for the worst Labour government for the economy since the 1970s
To be fair there’s only been one other Labour government since the 1970s!
And, we are now rediscovering why.
Stagflation with higher taxes and higher prices.
I remember saying here last year this election (2024) was 74 not 97
It’s not all labours fault but they’ve played a crap hand very poorly.
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Council's should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
This morning, I posted a report from Jan 23 in the Yorkshire Post when she was campaigning to expand the policy in her constituency
Don't defend this. It makes you look ignorant
Fuck off - I'll defend what I want. That's the point of a site like this, we get the chance to air different views.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Not entirely unconnected with why these landlord and HMO registration schemes are proving so popular with local councils in the first place….
Oh I covered that as well earlier - Councils love things that are self financing - so if they have to do anything connected to landlord properties making landlords pay their costs via licensing makes perfect sense - end result a small fiefdom for a manager that is cost neutral to the Council...
The sad reality is, despite the hat, and despite Steve Reed putting his job “on the line” if his mission fails, the chance of the government meeting its 1.5mn [housing] target is vanishingly small. As a result, it’s thrown itself into planning reform to unstick the system. Planning does need reform, but the reason why not enough homes are being built is because not enough homes are being bought.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Not entirely unconnected with why these landlord and HMO registration schemes are proving so popular with local councils in the first place….
Oh I covered that as well earlier - Councils love things that are self financing - so if they have to do anything connected to landlord properties making landlords pay their costs via licensing makes perfect sense - end result a small fiefdom for a manager that is cost neutral to the Council...
Things like landlord licensing, parking enforcement have social benefits too. That it happens to generate revenue for that council is a bonus.
I pay £100 per year to park my car on the street. That's brilliant value because 1) that land is worth loads more than that 2) it means I can park close to my flat 3) that cash can be used to fund local services. Benefits far outweigh the costs.
The sad reality is, despite the hat, and despite Steve Reed putting his job “on the line” if his mission fails, the chance of the government meeting its 1.5mn [housing] target is vanishingly small. As a result, it’s thrown itself into planning reform to unstick the system. Planning does need reform, but the reason why not enough homes are being built is because not enough homes are being bought.
The reason they are not being bought is prices are mental in the regions with most pent up demand and employment opportunities. If we had more of them, prices would come down and there would be more sales.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
We're going to get a Putin/Medvedev situation I reckon.
Get your aluminium hat on, quick.
Aluminum!
So if its aluminum why isn't it magnesum?
If its analyze why isn’t it advertize? If it’s honor and color, why isn’t it glamor and troubador?
A fair point, but specifically I'm talking about the bastardization of chemical element names by the septics. And why don't the septics say magnesum?
Spelling in English or American English has never worked on the basis of the consistency that you are seeking, variants and exceptions are all over the place.
"...Jesus. Zarah remaining the only remotely decent MP in the bunch, but goodness at this point I really hope she manages to get out of the wreckage. I don't think she can save Your Party from the crushing weight of its other MPs..."
"...A statement from me, @BethWinterCynon and @andrewfeinstein. We would like to announce our resignations as directors of MOU Operations Ltd (MOU). We set up MOU on April 2nd 2025 to support the creation of an alliance of progressive community independents, with Jeremy Corbyn playing a central role in its formation. Since that time, the nature of the project has changed significantly, as have the people involved..."
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Council's should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
This morning, I posted a report from Jan 23 in the Yorkshire Post when she was campaigning to expand the policy in her constituency
Don't defend this. It makes you look ignorant
Fuck off - I'll defend what I want. That's the point of a site like this, we get the chance to air different views.
You ignorantly claimed that my post was untrue. I'll respond to that however the hell I loke
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
The prejudice of the wealthy: the rules don't apply to them. Don't forget Wilhoit's Law.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Not entirely unconnected with why these landlord and HMO registration schemes are proving so popular with local councils in the first place….
Oh I covered that as well earlier - Councils love things that are self financing - so if they have to do anything connected to landlord properties making landlords pay their costs via licensing makes perfect sense - end result a small fiefdom for a manager that is cost neutral to the Council...
Things like landlord licensing, parking enforcement have social benefits too. That it happens to generate revenue for that council is a bonus.
I pay £100 per year to park my car on the street. That's brilliant value because 1) that land is worth loads more than that 2) it means I can park close to my flat 3) that cash can be used to fund local services. Benefits far outweigh the costs.
How do we make tackling shoplifting a revenue generator so that it happens?
What if we introduce prize money for the police/security guards (who hold a letter, marking them out as approved) so that there's a financial incentive for retrieving stolen goods?
We're going to get a Putin/Medvedev situation I reckon.
Get your aluminium hat on, quick.
Aluminum!
So if its aluminum why isn't it magnesum?
If its analyze why isn’t it advertize? If it’s honor and color, why isn’t it glamor and troubador?
A fair point, but specifically I'm talking about the bastardization of chemical element names by the septics. And why don't the septics say magnesum?
Spelling in English or American English has never worked on the basis of the consistency that you are seeking, variants and exceptions are all over the place.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Yet you've watched 'The Jewish State' commit a genocide?
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Yet you've watched 'The Jewish State' commit a genocide?
This is the first Presidential cycle I am not betting early on in decades. I probably would if Betfair were willing to offer the Don.
Where would you price him approx?
I'd expect there would be lots of layers in the 8-16 odds range and I'd be happy to backing anywhere in that. Not thought much about a fair price, maybe between 3 and 4.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Yet you've watched 'The Jewish State' commit a genocide?
It's different in Israel because Jews are the majority there and behave no differently from anyone else in the majority and perhaps worse than some. By contrast Jews in the diaspora are (frequently persecuted) minorities and so it's odd to see one of them advocating for nativist policies that would quite likely see them victimised if really acted upon. Especially when you consider their long history of persecution and historical involvement in civil rights causes. You'd just think that Miller would know better. The whole "Jews will not replace us" thing would you might think have woken him up, too. It's odd.
It's hilarious that people are still defending Reeves's ignorant negligence. She broke a law that she campaigned in favour of for over a year
Except that's not true is it? She welcomed Leeds Council's decision to extend licensing to a specific area. Her failure to licence was in a different council, different area.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Council's should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
This morning, I posted a report from Jan 23 in the Yorkshire Post when she was campaigning to expand the policy in her constituency
Don't defend this. It makes you look ignorant
Fuck off - I'll defend what I want. That's the point of a site like this, we get the chance to air different views.
Nice to see you posting again. Don't mind him. every site has got one.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Comments
Stagflation with higher taxes and higher prices.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
What’s happened is that, knowing that LA budgets are under incredibly pressure from the demands of old age care & SEND provision, companies run by chancers have seen an opportunity to make money & have gone to said LAs with the following offer: “We will take over all littering & fly tipping enforcement at no cost to you, paid out of fines levied on those who break the rules”. The company knows that there is money to be made prosecuting all the minor trivial infractions that go on ever day at the rate of £100s a time & fully intends to exploit this to extract as many £ as possible from every easy target they can find. Naive (or desperate in some cases) LAs have taken this deal, throwing their own voters to the wolves in the process.
In other words, this another example of the UK state circling the drain as different parts of it engage in rent seeking behaviour, tearing down the public realm in the process.
It's not just the hypocrisy - it's about underlying values. I strongly agree with having a landlord register (shocked it's not a England wide thing as it is in Scotland) and so should anyone who is on the side of those renting.
On another note, I'd be deeply suspicious of any landlord complaining about the small sum and paperwork required for a licence. It took me 5 minutes and less than 1% of my total revenue, and I only have one small flat.
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?!
The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
https://x.com/narindertweets/status/1983640251982868825?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Edit - make it Life + 99 years
Don’t go in expecting a cerebral movie, but do expect to be thinking about it afterwards.
Reeves has publicly supported this and voted in favour of the statutory framework under which it is done (IIRC).
This will all end badly.
The only question is the time frame.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing.
Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
Equally councils need to spend money making sure badly maintained properties are repaired and that costs money - that money that needs to come from somewhere so why not get the landlords to pay the costs of policing landlords
They’re not interesting in doing the hard cases that keep the public realm clear of chancers, because those cost money.
https://youtu.be/jGb8EKwDkBE?si=A7V4Itluc94SVEtu
It’s Process State stuff.
The scum/slum landlords will carry on illegally letting their properties to 37 people per house. With an extra charge for the black mold.
The regular, reasonably honest people have another set of costs.
But, you ask, how do the scum get away with it? First, there is no enforcement. Second, layering.
I own a house. Well, actually, an offshore company owns a house via a couple of layers of Ltd’s. An onshore Ltd rents the house from the offshore company. The onshore Ltd then does all the illegal shit. If they are ever caught, the onshore Ltd goes bust - all it has are debts.
Because of the scattergun approach in England, plus her agency missing it too, I think paying whatever fine it is and an apology in the Commons will see her through this.
To be fair, the only reason I care at all about this is the pious criticism of any small breach of a technicality that Labour issued in opposition. They really set themselves up for something like this, and Rayner’s stamp duty, by thinking themselves perfect
Shame she forgot it applies to her.
I must go and fire up the scanning electron microscope. So I can find my violin.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
I cannot believe a jury would convict them of breaking the rules, and I was flabbergasted at the time, even more so with Rishi, who not only didnt break the rules, was super careful and when saw what was happening left. The process - state took on a current PM, and chancellor.
On a typical cycle I'll see 10+ drivers on the phone.
(OK they are basically just estate agents so maybe that is expecting too much. The last letting agent I knew was growing and processing cannabis in his flat, for sale not just for his own use)
AFAICS, the usual procedure where someone has failed to register and then rectifies the matter, is no punishment.
The penalties appear to be there for enforcement purposes.
For example:
..Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, has called for Rachel Reeves to be prosecuted over her rental licence error. She has posted this on social media.
Labour run Southwark Council boasts of “cracking down on” and having a “zero tolerance approach to rogue landlords” and have prosecuted landlords for renting unlicensed properties.
Rachel Reeves has made thousands from renting without following the licensing laws.
Southwark Council must now take action on Rachel Reeves and prosecute her.
Patel has also posted links (here and here) to stories on Southwark’s website about landlords being fined for not having a rental licence – although both these cases involved landlords ignoring warnings from the council about the need for a licence, which is not what Reeves did.
Patel has not always been so zealous about seeing people punished for breaking rules. As home secretary, she was found to have broken the ministerial code because she had bullied officials. But, with the support of Boris Johnson, PM at the time, she did not resign and remained in post..
If the Tories are ever to be taken seriously as a political party again, they need to grow up.
The country's problems do not included failing to prosecute individuals for inadvertent breaches of regulations which have caused no harm.
They absolutely do include overly prescriptive and onerous regulation. While this scheme is perhaps not that, the controversy provides an excellent opportunity to have that debate.
Frankly I couldn't give a damn about the party politics, or indeed Reeves herself.
Some lazy small-scale landlords have just treated it as easy money without doing the work required to comply with regulations.
As a student we rented from a couple who'd inherited a property from a parent and rented it out. After a couple of months there were leaks and mould, before gas and electrical safety checks, gas boiler and oven hadn't been serviced in years. Looking back we were just very lucky there wasn't an accident.
After all, if your WiFI is WarDrived and crimes committed from your IP address, you have to prove it wasn’t you.
Having just come through the mill regarding what is and isn't allowed and/or required in one council area versus another, in respect of building your own house, I have every sympathy with her tbh.
Councils should have some leeway to do their own thing area by area but a (subsequently rectified) failure to comply with the requirements in one area versus another should not attract the same opprobrium as breaking a national law imo.
(hitches up braces, harrumphs harrumphingly)
But also, it makes it impossible to know who to shun. Social enforcement of taboos has always been important, and it's probably a better regulator of society than law enforcement. But we you don't know who is responsible for anything, we don't know how to shun.
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
Don't defend this. It makes you look ignorant
Which seems to be the case with Southwark Council and the licensing regime. They have prosecuted when landlords have failed to comply, despite warnings to do so. They don't appear to have done so for a simple failure to comply which is subsequently rectified.
It’s not all labours fault but they’ve played a crap hand very poorly.
The sad reality is, despite the hat, and despite Steve Reed putting his job “on the line” if his mission fails, the chance of the government meeting its 1.5mn [housing] target is vanishingly small. As a result, it’s thrown itself into planning reform to unstick the system. Planning does need reform, but the reason why not enough homes are being built is because not enough homes are being bought.
https://www.ft.com/content/90802404-9313-45b9-bb57-683f7132fbd4
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
I pay £100 per year to park my car on the street. That's brilliant value because 1) that land is worth loads more than that 2) it means I can park close to my flat 3) that cash can be used to fund local services. Benefits far outweigh the costs.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8P77lT2GmGs
https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/tk2025
"...Jesus. Zarah remaining the only remotely decent MP in the bunch, but goodness at this point I really hope she manages to get out of the wreckage. I don't think she can save Your Party from the crushing weight of its other MPs..."
https://x.com/BadWritingTakes/status/1983736180899508270#m
"...A statement from me, @BethWinterCynon and @andrewfeinstein. We would like to announce our resignations as directors of MOU Operations Ltd (MOU). We set up MOU on April 2nd 2025 to support the creation of an alliance of progressive community independents, with Jeremy Corbyn playing a central role in its formation. Since that time, the nature of the project has changed significantly, as have the people involved..."
https://x.com/JamieDriscollNE/status/1983677841289179557#m and the subsequent thread.
What if we introduce prize money for the police/security guards (who hold a letter, marking them out as approved) so that there's a financial incentive for retrieving stolen goods?
FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
https://x.com/rachelforlwp/status/1980224617865457790?s=61
‘ I welcome Leeds City Council's decision to expand their selective landlord licencing policy to include the Armley area.
While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing’
The Space Shuttle Orbiter called "Endeavour" was named after a specific ship, as were the others in the fleet.
https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1983882467577598423?s=61
https://x.com/rachelforlwp/status/1980224617865457790?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA
Edited: I see that @IanB2 has raised the same point.