YOU THINK THE UK IS OK ?

[Jaime]

Hmmm........ since when has a name been racist ?

It could be Smith, Jones (sorry might offend the welsh). My two business partners are and Indian and a Russian Jew, I am married to a non white demonstrates there is no racism in my camp. Its such a pity that today people look for what is not there ! But i'll use the name Mary Poppins instead and that will stop those sad people from reading something innocent and twisting it. Is that OK ?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

I don't think anyone actually used the term 'rascist' Essbee. It is a term that is bandied about too lightly these days, as you rightly imply. I think it was more the way you connected the name Patel with a lack of hygiene and created the usual reactionary vision of hordes of immigrants descending upon our septic isle. Fact is you didn't use Smith or Jones and it's disingenuous to post that you would have used them in that context - you wouldn't have. Maybe the fictional Clampets or some other allusion to white trash would have been more appropriate though....

The reality is actually more like the Clampets will be renting from the Patels!

You can wriggle and justify yourself all you like but it was just not really necessary, as it undermines the other useful stuff you have posted on this subject by, possibly unintentionally, placing your comment within the context of some other, more sinister political agenda. This was picked up on by TTM. I am fairly ambivalent to politics and especially to single interest politics like 'diversity' and all the other PC stuff but if you can't see that your comment was a little out of place then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



My apologies for this further stray off topic Essbee but I felt it was important that I clarified my comments, given your slightly defensive response. Now, back to the property matters.......

[lomuamart]

essbee,
All that's happening is the government trying to claim inheritance tax from "the idle rich".
Seems as simple as that to me.
If the council tried to enter my property in London, without due cause (and this isn't one of them) they would be shot down in flames, legally.

[essbee]

Iomuamart (can't you change your name to Patel.... easier to remember )

Yes maybe, but did you see the reference to "a tribunal" that is rather worring. Also the earlier press reports suggested that the council can move in and it is up to the owner to go to court to extract Mary Poppins, that would not go down very well with young children!

Please let me clarify the situation in the next few days
SB

[essbee]

Jamie

There was no offence taken, I was amused by your response but NF is not something I am happy with.
sensitive ................. me ? no way, ouch!

[essbee]

For the record can I change the following:

Iomuamart (can't you change your name to Patel.... easier to remember )

To:

Iomuamart (can't you change your name to Mary Poppins.... easier to remember )

Less radical................................

[Guess]

I
As for the law being slipped through, I just can't see it. I studied Law for 4 years through degree and Law Society Finals and whilst that was a while ago, i do remember that this change of direction would have required a major upheaval in Property Law. Such that you certainly wouldn't have missed the debates in Parliament. I've seen nothing in the British Press about this and I do read some of them every day.
As I said at the begining, I'm sure this "new law" will only apply to council tenants.
Having said that, I'll contact my management agency on Monday and report back.

I too have studied law albeit at a very basic high overview level and my understanding is that the laws of ownership and rights of occupancy date back to to the Magna Carta and are written into the British Constitution. (Also the basis of US LAW).

There is huge significance in the Leashold versus Freehold situation which was highlighted when the government tried to modify the leasehold puchase laws about twenty years ago.

My understanding is that nobody can take possession of someones elses freehold property without a court decision. The freehold property on the owners land could only be taken from the owner if a debt elsewhere was proven. This law applies to other properties not just buildings.

If the house is owned by a bank and a mortgage is applied then the owner and deed holder is the bank, not the individual owner even though the mortgagee retains his right to the equity on the property as per his contract with the mortgagor/s. However the government (local or national) do not have to power to order the bank to agree to any proposal of re-occupoancy. In fact it would not be in the bank's interest to do so as they will then be owners, or part owners of a house that has residents with which they have no contract therefore leaving them exposed.

So as Lomu says, it would need a major change of property laws that would take years to pass. My understanding is that it would also need a change in the British Constitution. The US have and amendment mechanism but as far as I am aware the UK does not. If the story is true and it indeed applies to Freehold Properties then it means that the UK is no longer a Kingdom with an elected government but is has been taken over by a dictatorship.

As for the Leasehold situation things are much more complex and the status of the leasor would have some bearing on the outcome.

If the landowner happens to be government then they would obviously be forced to comply. A house or more likely an appartment could be occupied under certain conditions in the same way as a motor car parked on someone elses land can be legally entered and removed by the landowners. Major leaseholders rights laws would need to be changed which would require lengthy debates in both houses which would go on for a lot longer than the world cup.

It took about five years to get the majority right to lease purchase bill passed.

[essbee]

So as Lomu says, it would need a major change of property laws that would take years to pass. My understanding is that it would also need a change in the British Constitution. The US have and amendment mechanism but as far as I am aware the UK does not. If the story is true and it indeed applies to Freehold Properties then it means that the UK is no longer a Kingdom with an elected government but is has been taken over by a dictatorship.

Well over the last few years this has become a worrying matter !!!

Increasingly the budget and changes in the law are not what is said in the House BUT what appears in the small print. Any government that slips through important changes in the law the day of 9/11 on the basis that MORE IMPORTANT things have happened is rather disconcerting, I would suggest.

Now please ............. I have never studied law so dont hang me out ( see still very sensitive !!!) BUT I find His Tonyship and his merry men rather frightening.
SB
So Thailand thinks Mr T is a problem ?

[splitlid]

I was kind of thinking along the sames lines as you Mike when I read essbee's response, so I'm glad someone else got in first - I didn't think there was any need to bring racial slurs about hygiene into the discussion. When talking about dodgy hygiene standards there's no need to look much further than our wonderful LoS, eh? Maybe we should be more worried that Khun Somchai and family may be ushered into our vacant houses.....

and you didnt think there was any need to bring in racial slurs into the topic

No embarrasment on my part - you have obviously missed the irony that I was trying to illustrate. Sorry, obviously too cerebral for you!

yes, far to intellectual for me to notice.
in future please use big smilies after posting sarcastic comments so i know when your are taking the p!ss
ooopppps

[red dwarf]

The Uk Is Far From OK new thread to air some veiws

http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/vi ... 4024#24024

[essbee]

Red Dwarf

Seems that I have opened a can of dogs dooos

[Guess]

Red Dwarf

Seems that I have opened a can of dogs dooos

I think, with reference to the topic on the merits of the English soccer team, it may well make a suitable desert ro Randy Cornhole when is is finally rounded up and made to keep his promise.

As for the puppet Blair, my belief is that this issue could turn into Maggie Thatcher's Poll Tax.

The problem is that he will then be replaced by another puppet and the master will become stronger. Sorry if I am begining to sound Nostradamusesque.

[Digger]

[quote="lomuamart"]essbee,
If the council tried to enter my property in London, without due cause (and this isn't one of them) they would be shot down in flames, legally.[/quote]
Afraid Esbee is right,as everyone was settling down to Football on friday afternoon Edmos were passed into law in the commons and go on the statute book with immediate effect,
The lowdown is this
A local authoritycan take controlof a privately owned house that has been empty for more than 6 months.
Britain has an estimated 690,000 empty homes
An edmo can last for 7 years
local authority must get permission from the owner before it can let the property but if permission is refused,the local authority can make a final Edmo
Properties exempt from Edmos include second homes and holiday homes
If the authority cannot track down the owner they can seize the property
Edmo means empty dwelling management order and the bill was thought up by none other than our famous croquet playing deputy prime minister whose department is now run by Ruth Kelly
for more info visit wwwcommunities.gov.uk or www.emptyhomes.com
This imformation was condensed from article in Sunday Times
Digger

[lomuamart]

I stand corrected. I suppose that if a property is idle and empty for so long and no attempt is being made to let it, there's half a reason for the council to insist that it be used.
I would assume that any rent is paid to the owner and the council would be ultimately responsible for the upkeep and any damage caused whilst tenants were in there?
I've let my place out in London for 8 years and it's never been empty for even a month. What would happen in the unlikely event that I couldn't rent it, for whatever reason, for 6 months, but was trying to do so? Could the council potentially seize it then? If that were the case, I'd simply fly back and live in it for a bit.
It's always been necessary for me to inform the building society if the place might be empty for more than 3 months, but that's been for insurance reasons.
I'm certainly not concerned about my property, just really surprised that a law like this went through so quickly, with so little media coverage.
There you go. I've been away for 8 years and quite evidently things have changed just a bit.
BTW, Essbee - as I already have an Indian surname, I don't think there's much need to change it to Patel, do you? Mary Poppins is another matter, but I won't be applying for a change of name by deed poll just yet thanks.

[Digger]

Lomu,no big reason to worry,its a law that has been brought in to target property thats been empty a long time but it as usual gives authorities draconian power if they wish to abuse it which they might if they felt spiteful enough.Its similar in a way to the 73 year old staunch labour supporter who was ejected from last years Labour party conference for heckling a minister during his speech and then found himself detained,albeit only temporarily,under the prevention of terrorism legislation.I am in Londond just now selling a flat I have been renting for 10 years,it too much hassle now.This year we had HMO,s which is legislation for homes of multiple occupation,next year its HIPS or home imformation packs.The new electrical regulation on simple work done needing to be signed off is just another example.For sure a mandatory electrical certificate like a gas Corgi is just around the corner.Got to stop its time for a few pints of Pride down at the castle in South Ealing,all thai bar staff as well

[lomuamart]

Thanks for the Digger. Purely by coincidence, I spoke to my BSoc just 45 mins ago, on a totally seperate issue. The two girls I spoke to didn't have a clue about this new legislation and I didn't expect them to have - it wasn't the legal department I was talking to.
I would agree with you that the hassle of renting a property out when you're so far away, is difficult. My agents are good, in the main, but when maintenence needs to be done, I would reckon I'm paying about 50% more than I actually need to. C'est la vie. And, with a renewed tenancy only a month ago, I was charged 82 quid for the gas saftey check, despite having Brit Gas 3 Star cover. That will be refunded this month.
BTW. I've got good old friends in Ealing. They live not too far from E.Common tube station now. I stay with them whenever I'm down in London. What's the name of the pub with Thai staff? I'll let them know and keep it for reference myself.