DaveR

Local firms recommended on here have included Glazer Delmar, William Bailey and Hepburns, but I don't know whether any of them do much of this kind of work (it's really not the same as conveyancing, which is the bread and butter property work for most high street firms). A local-ish firm that I do know do this work is Anthony Gold, who have offices near E&C and in Streatham https://anthonygold.co.uk/. These days you can also go direct to a barrister, and that can be quicker and cheaper - Tanfield Chambers are well known for this type of thing, and they offer direct access: http://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/

Your liability depends on the terms of the lease, but there are also statutory requirements that make it more complicated. In very general terms, tenants usually have to be consulted before major works are undertaken that they will be liable to pay for. Depending on how long ago you bought the property, and when the works were supposedly done, there may be an issue about whether it's your liability, and also about information provided to you by the seller. This is one of those areas where you need proper specialist advice, unfortunately. There are a few local law firms who have been recommended on here for property related stuff, and I think one or two lawyers from those firms who post on here. Good luck. Edited to add: this link might be helpful http://www.lease-advice.org/

The SC judgment is a bit more nuanced than reported above. What they said was that the rule is lawful in itself, but that the current guidance makes it too difficult to allow for exceptions, and consequently there will be quite a lot of cases where its application will be unlawful. The justification for the rule as found by the court was: "It is not difficult to see the benefits to integration of even a basic level of English language skills. It must be beneficial for a newly arrived partner to be able to go into a shop and buy groceries and other necessities, to say "hello" to the neighbours, to navigate public transport, to inter-act at a simple level with bureaucrats and health care professionals. Integration is a two way process. It must be beneficial for others to see that the people living in our midst and intending to stay here are able and willing to join in and play a part in everyday social interactions, rather than keeping themselves separate and apart." Difficult to disagree with. They go on to say: "The problem lies not so much in the Rule itself, but in the present Guidance......The appropriate solution would be to recast the Guidance, to cater for those cases where it is simply impracticable for a person to learn English, or to take the test, in the country of origin, whether because the facilities are non-existent or inaccessible because of the distance and expense involved. The guidance should be sufficiently precise, so that anyone for whom it is genuinely impracticable to meet the requirement can predictably be granted an exemption. As was originally proposed, those granted an exemption could be required to undertake, as a condition of entry, to demonstrate the required language skills within a comparatively short period after entry to the UK." Which seems very sensible. So actually not much of a story here, except perhaps that it is good to be wary of relying on simplified reports of complicated legal cases, and that judges are rarely as fusty/stupid/out of touch as they are often painted.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne

"It's not a class war thing, just an aknowledgement that too many people feel that MPs aren't like them. You only have to look at the growing divide between the wealthiest and poorest to see why people feel that way. You fail Dave to understand in turn that military action in Iraq and the middle east has been a disaster. I keep making this point and no-one is picking up on it. I also think the hysterical backlash against Corbyn is a reflection of how far public consciousness has shifted to the right. Terrorists if you can capture them and put them on trial is a better option in his view - nothing wrong with that. Privatisation hasn't always been a good thing either, so nothing wrong with being critical of that etc etc. You criticise him as though the opposite what he stands for is good! There are plenty of examples to show it's not. We need to be somewhere in between. Cameron isn't there either. Free markets are playing fields for exploitation when you look at the grossly unlevel playing field of trade for example. To even think poorer eceonomies are not being exploited for resources and labour etc is nonsense. So he's right. The arms trade is another problem. Who opened the pandoras box that is the mess in the middle east now? How far back do you want to go? We are complicit all the way back to the end days of the Ottoman Empire. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Part of the problem with it all is the denial from Western leaders and the US. I've said many times that I don't agree with Corbyn on everything (his views are not necessarily my own), but what I do know is that more of the same is not the answer either. If we want a safer world, we need to stop pretending we have nothing to do with creating any of it." You, Blah, miss the point entirely. You have a pop at Milne for sending his kids to grammar school when the vast majority of ordinary folks either envy him or at least accept his right to choose, whilst ignoring the fact that he says British troops in Afghanistan (essentially) deserved to get killed. You try to defend Corbyn on the facts and evidence, conveniently ignoring that they are irrelevant - Corbyn would never, under any circumstances, whatever the facts, support UK military action in Syria (or anywhere else) because opposition to it is hard wired into him and his very narrow political class. Corbyn thinks he is pure and the world is corrupt, and you don't get much more divorced from ordinary people than that.

"I think Dave those are just the beginning of the problems with Seamus Milne. He's the son of a millionaire and sends his kids to grammar Schools (and not just any grammar schools) and was himself privately educated at the best schools etc etc. Seems a really odd appointment to me all round." It's revealing (and laughable) that your concerns about Milne are all about class war/identity politics, rather than the fact that he is an unreconstructed Marxist. It mirrors your failure to understand what is really objectionable about Corbyn - he is not concerned with whether military action against IS will work because he is opposed in principle, just as he is opposed to shooting terrorists, and, for that matter, privatisation, and immigration control. Any policy that Corbyn supports has to fit with a doctrinaire hard left intellectual world view, where terrorists are victims of western oppression and free markets are playing fields for capitalist exploitation. he appointed Milne because they share those core beliefs. Moderate Labour MPs know that they either have to keep him quiet or loudly and publicly disagree with him, or else they are toast.

Below a letter written to Corbyn by Tory MP and ex-soldier Tom Tugendhat - worth reproducing in full: "Dear Jeremy, I am writing today with regards to reported comments made by the Labour Party?s Director of Strategy and Communication, Seumas Milne. The Sun newspaper reported this morning that Mr Milne had dismissed well-founded and valid concerns about equipment shortages as a ?red herring?, instead suggesting that British soldiers themselves were to blame for dying in Afghanistan ?because they are occupiers in another Muslim country where they?re not wanted?. Not only are these remarks ignorant and ill-informed, they are deeply disrespectful to those who served in Afghanistan at the time and to the friends and families of those who lost their lives in the conflict. Furthermore, and perhaps most absurdly, they recognise the authority of the Taliban, violent extremists who murdered thousands across the country, as more valid than the lawful government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the UN recognised, democratically elected government of the Afghan people. More sadly still, it ignores the courage of our allies in the Afghan Armed Forces alongside whom we served and in support of whom too many died. This is not an isolated incident. Not only has Mr Milne suggested 9/11 was America?s fault and appeared to support armed resistance against British troops in Iraq, he is also on record claiming that the murder of Lee Rigby, an innocent man murdered on a London street, wasn?t ?terrorism in the normal sense? because Mr Rigby was a member of the Armed Forces. By extension, am I to understand that this means that Mr Milne believes that I and other former servicemen and women on both sides of the House are also valid targets because of our records of military service? You have spoken eloquently about wanting to see a ?kinder politics? and I welcome this. It would make our county a more inclusive democracy. This is your opportunity to lead by example. As the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty?s Opposition, I urge you to consider the implication of having people on your team whose views support violent extremists rather than democrats. Our history is littered with despots whom British soldiers, sailors and airmen have fought against to secure the liberties we enjoy today, it seems sad that such anti-democratic elements should find voice in one of our important national political parties. I know that many on all sides of the House wish it were not so. I hope you will take this opportunity to condemn Mr Milne?s remarks. To stay silent would be wrong and may be seen as endorsing the views of those who choose violence instead of political debate. Neither we, nor the Afghan servicemen I was proud to serve alongside, were occupiers. We were both doing what I know you would support ? serving the lawful wishes of the democratically elected governments of the countries we each served. To forget that would be an insult to the memories of our brave serviceman and women and to treat democracy as an inconvenience when it is, in truth, the sole legitimate source of power. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience indicating what steps you intend to take. Yours, Thomas Tugendhat MBE MP" Tugendhat served in Afghanistan with Dan Jarvis MP (Labour)

"obviously some stupid saddos obviously consider that a bit of flaky paint and and a run down shop front is a danger to their rose tinted vision of gentrification and and the health of their property values" The stupid people are the ones who don't bother to read the posts, but just shoot their mouths off and reveal their tired and pathetic prejudices. Nobody has suggested that the premises are dangerous, and only the aforementioned stupid people have mentioned gentrification and property values. If you asked any shop owner whether they would rather have all the shops on their street in use and in good condition, what do you think they would say? And I suspect you'd get the same answer from most other people working/living in the area. I couldn't give a toss about 124 Lordship Lane but the level of intolerance on this forum is just absurd.

So now everybody's calmed down a bit, and actually considered the facts, some proper issues emerge that ought to be addressed during the planning process e.g. business continuity for existing traders, and soundproofing etc. to ensure future survival of the music venue. And the anti campaign as first launched and lauded here is exposed for the comedy spartist crap that (unfortunately) we've come to expect from everyone for whom gentrification is a dirty word. Ironically, largely those people who moved in to the neighbourhood during the first wave of gentrification i.e. when it was cheap, but now profess to hate the very thought, now it's expensive.

"In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'. At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices." There's obviously though a middle ground between "personal aesthetic tastes" and danger to health/property - not least in legal terms (where the word used is 'amenity'). Some posters on here have been unnecessarily vitriolic and/or absurd about perfectly reasonable opinions that it would be better if the shop was tidied up and/or in use. (FWIW I couldn't care less).

There is already a long thread on this, including discussion of the many inaccuracies and exaggerated claims being made about this application. It can be found here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1599726,page=2 At the very least I would hope that people check the accuracy of the template before putting their names to it.

"We believe that the introduction of residential apartments at 133 Rye Lane [The Gateway to Peckhams Cultural Hub] is fundamentally wrong and will stop dead in it?s tracks Peckhams creative and cultural rise. Heralding the beginning of the end of what makes Peckham so special. A sure sign of the on-set of full blown gentrification." This is the real objection it seems. And it's utter b0ll0cks. As is the 700 jobs lost figure, which no-one has sought to justify.

"DaveR are you really trying to suggest that LL is being brought to its knees by one 'interesting' ex shop not having a compulsory makeover which, if it had, would then make people 'want to visit or live here' and 'locate their businesses here'? I thought this building was a tiny representative of the diversity of the human condition which in itself deserves respect before needing to worry about the neighbours. I'd be happy to live next to it, but then I've never had a hankering for a 'managed' gated community. Some of you are really scary." I suggest you have a lie down, then read my post again.

"Agree. No ones business but the owners. Keep noses out." This isn't accurate. LAs have wide discretionary powers re property adversely affecting amenity, widely defined. It clearly includes visual impact ("eyesore"), and the fact that 'high street' retail or commercial premises are lying unused "prime retail space"). Gov guidance says: "Public perception of this kind of enforcement action has proven extremely popular. The issue of eyesores is clearly one that is close to people?s hearts and confronting the problem head on using s215 powers could potentially show the LPA in a positive light. Run-down and derelict buildings convey all sorts of negative impressions. If an LPA combats them with comprehensive remedial action, people will feel better about the area, whether they are residents, businesses or tourists. There is an important economic issue in favour of comprehensive s215 action: if a town is presentable, people will want to visit or live there, and businesses will want to locate there." Whether this is an appropriate case for action may be a matter of opinion, but an opinion that the empty shop should be tidied up and made fit for use is a perfectly valid one.

I would make a complaint about this, and follow it up if you don't get a satisfactory response. https://secure.met.police.uk/complaints/

LBC + Daily Mail = nutter central

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1566236,1569631#msg-1569631

What's the relevance of 'Mayfair based' other than to appeal to prejudice? There was another thread on here on the same topic and it was clear that there were serious credibility issues about Bold Tendency's proposals. Te Guardian article is disingenuous and IMHO misleading - it quotes the current occupiers as attracting '900,000 visitors' but it's pretty clear that that includes (and in all likelihood is dominated by) visitors to Franks, which AFAIK is an unconnected business.

There have been a load of really stupid stories, and the 'not bowing' one was just the most recent. To be fair though, there have been plenty of serious articles about Corbyn and the bizarre position the Labour Party is now in, where half the front bench disagree openly with the leader on core policies. Corbyn supporters have been branding every negative story a smear, and that's not accurate either.

"The whole designer thing is so vacuous and whilst you might disagree with me Dave on that wedding dress, many don't. Most people don't need a 5k dress to have a great wedding and I question the values of someone who does." The fact that other people are as patronising and/or stupid as you is not an excuse. This is not about whether you are entitled to have a view - it is about what weight, in a serious discussion, attaches to your view that a ?5k wedding dress is 'obscene'. Answer = zero. Edited to add: Having "strong views on poverty and inequality" doesn't make those views any more credible, either.

It's one thing to argue for ethical consumer behaviour, or to question the ultimate value (in human terms) of material goods. It's quite another to say to someone that the cost of their wedding dress is 'obscene', or to patronise a huge community of strangers by following that up with: "I'm not trying to single out anyone, just to make people think about what really matters in the world." That's too subjective (and also nauseating). Edited to add: I never went in to Give & Take - it's on the long list of 'shops that evidently don't cater to me so no point clogging them up with my unproductive presence'. So no comment on the actual topic.

The Standard article is a good example of how piecemeal changes do as much harm as good, and also how small numbers of vocal activists can force through changes against the will of (or at least without the support of) a more passive majority. However, if you read the Guardian article and click through to a previous article about the history of the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands, you'll find that this is exactly how it was achieved - comparatively small numbers of activists capturing the political processes and forcing through changes, the benefits of which were only felt once comprehensive routes were in place. The basic policy question is a simple one - should we try as far as possible to accommodate everybody who wants to use the road, whatever the mode of transport, or should we prioritise some over others? And specifically walking, cycling and public transport over cars? If you are a motorist egalitarian (to coin a phrase) then you're never going to agree with measures that make driving more difficult. I doubt, however, that this represents the majority view. Most people recognise the many and obvious reasons why trying to reduce urban car use is likely to be beneficial. On that basis, my real objection to the Standard article is this bit: " ?Motorists? are mothers, workers, midwives, van delivery drivers and carers, taxi and bus drivers, all performing vital trips for which bicycles, buses and trains simply aren?t always suited." It is of course true that some motorists fall into these 'virtuous' categories, but how many? What proportion? It's certainly way short of 100%, and I suspect well under 50%. So how do you find out how many motorists are engaged on trips for which another mode of transport may in fact be ideally suited? Bluntly, you need to alter the incentives i.e. make it more difficult and inconvenient to drive and easier to travel a different way. But that only works if it's done systematically across the city - and that's the real lesson. Incremental and unco-ordinated change is largely ineffective and just makes people complain. If we're going to get real benefits more change is required, not less.

There have been lots of threads regarding charges for overstaying in private car parks - supermarkets etc - and whether they are enforceable. In case anybody is interested, the issue has just been considered by the Supreme Court, who decided that in principle they are enforceable. That doesn't mean that they always will be enforced, of course, but I would expect the operators to be a lot more bullish from now on.

Saying we don't have free speech at all is kind of pointless - it's always relative. The old trope is should you be free to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre? Legal restrictions on speech/expression in the UK are actually fairly limited by current global standards - we don't ban holocaust denial, for example, or flag burning, and we don't have statutory privacy rights. However, the direction of legal travel appears to be towards more restrictions e.g. proposed hate speech laws, and spurious use of public order police powers to overly restrict legitimate protest. What is newer and also of concern is the non legal stuff - twitter hate mobs, people getting fired for airing 'unacceptable' views, speakers being banned from certain places. Which brings us back to the topic of the thread - I don't think people choose to be arbitrarily offended, rather claiming offence is now often an effective way of claiming victim status and thereby silencing opinions you disapprove of. It shouldn't be, but that depends on people actually putting their supposed belief in free speech into action.

I don't really understand what the OP was hoping to achieve, and I didn't see the original post, but it seems optimistic, to say the least, to expect a mature debate about free speech to follow from an initial post complaining in Gene Hunt language about too many gay or gay seeming acts on X Factor. On the issue of using claimed offence to stifle free speech, this is hardly news - it was discussed on here in the Germaine Greer thread and there has been lots of press comment & analysis generally about Greer, Burchill, bovcotts of Israel etc. Plus, there's increasing awareness in the UK of the 'microaggression' culture that seems to be paralysing any kind of open debate (and any kind of relaxed social interaction) in US universities and is rearing it's (ugly?) head here.