Plough Man

I'm trying to see the way forward on the registered title to a portion of land. Can anyone give a bit of clarification before I splash out on solicitors fees and then later find out that it was a lost cause in the first place. This is an issue where the proprietorship of the title (as registered with HM Land Registry) differs from that of the beneficial ownership. The property is leasehold land with 75 years remaining on the original 286 year lease. The last assignment was made in 1975 which gave title to two individuals. Lets call them Mr Brown and Mr Green. Mr Brown, died in 2004 before re-assigning his proprietorship to his son. Mr Brown?s son (Brown Jnr) was the sole beneficiary of his estate so he inherited the beneficial interest. He also requested Mr Green to arrange for him (Brown Jnr) to be recorded on the title as a proprietor. Green declined to do so because he wanted to buy out Brown?s interest on the cheap. Come December 2020, Green aged 92 is taken into a care home and gives his daughter (Green Jnr) legal power of attorney. Green Jnr agrees to Brown Jnr being made a proprietor on the Land Registry title. Both instruct their solicitors to arrange this. Come February 2021 and Green dies of Covid without re-assigning his proprietorship to his daughter (Green Jnr) who is the sole beneficiary of his estate. When Green Jnr and Brown Jnr last spoke last week , the former said that everything was at a stand still because of the death of Green and Green Jnr was awaiting Probate. The question is what can be done to get an assignment to Brown Jnr and Green Jnr as the new proprietors to the legal title? Both are the sole heirs to their parent's estates.

Over the years, there's been lots of posts about problems caused by:- 1. Parents dropping off their kids outside the local schools causing congestion & disruption to traffic on EDG and Calton Ave. 2. Foundation coaches clogging Townley Road. So, I shall float a suggestion that would well alleviate both these issues. It is to pave over the vacant site that was the old SG Smith workshop. It's up for sale at a bargain price. It's within easy walking distance of all the public schools and both Charter sites. Coaches could terminate there and park up all day.

Must be serious if the Boomers are out protesting! Bet he was on the CND marches. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So this is what they are supporting, just to be > clear: > > https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1398750 > 505501872128?s=21

@ heartblock, With you all the way. A very succinct and accurate assessment of the real consideration. Keep going and don't be put off by the spurious utterings of the minority who live in the newly created "gated" communities that have been created by LTN measures. There are thousands of of kids walking to schools in Dulwich (7 schools & preps in total). It is these young folks who are most vulnerable to the effects of increased pollution. The privileged wealthy residents of Court Lane, Calton Avenue and Gilkes Crescent are benefitting at the expense of the school pupils. Shame on them. They are soo, so selfish. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly it is so frustrating to be constantly > labelled by people like rahrahrah as wanting the > status quo. Many of us follow Rosamund Kissi > Debrah, Choked Up and Green accounts because we > want...demand a reduction in pollutants, > especially in areas that have illegal levels of > pollution historically. > This straw man argument that we want things to > stay the same...no reduction in pollution or car > use is flawed. > > Why do I oppose the current LTNs.. because I > believe they increase pollution, increase idling > and do not contribute to active travel in this > area. > > If people like Mums for Lungs and other pressure > groups really cared about pollution and green > spaces, they would be down at Bells, Greendale > etc, campaigning against building on open, green > spaces. > > It is about privileged, gated communities.. we all > know it..and nothing about pollution reduction. > > So take out the LTNs > Monitor levels of traffic and pollution > Cease building on green spaces > Come up with a plan that is fully consulted and > EqI assessed and number one priority - reduce > pollution on rds with illegal levels of pollution

@legalalien I am with you all the way. You have a certain clarity of though whereas Rah3 I think just works at being deliberately obtuse. I no longer read his/her contributions. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rx3 is it really hard to understand? I can't > speak for OneDulwich, but I'd suggest: > > (i) the point I make above. OD are unimpressed by > the way the council have "spun" survey results in > the past, and can see the potential for a "divide > and conquer". They won't be saying "80% oppose > the existing scheme", they'll be saying "the > existing scheme is the most popular option of > eight different options" (for example, say where > only 20% want the existing scheme, 10% want to go > back to the old scheme, and everyone else wants > some kind of variant) > > (ii) one of the key concerns about the existing > scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those > in the wider area were not properly consulted, > those not digitally engaged were not properly > consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no > objectively measured data - the list goes on. How > can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is > adequate/sufficient without going through that > sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and > if they do come up with a proposal it is subject > to challenge on all the same grounds as the > current scheme. > > So it makes sense to adopt a "let's go back to the > drawing board and try to come up with a solution > with a legal/ adequate/ properly informed by data" > process this time around. > > That makes sense to me. I don't think you can > take that approach to mean that OD (or others like > me who will choose the "reverse the changes" > option) don't support measures to improve air > quality/ active travel etc.

Can't figure out why the usual keyboard warriors have not mentioned this matter yet. No anguish and not even "I told you so" Is there any difference between (a) UK bivalves not meeting new EU regulations and (b) French fishing vessels not complying with the regulation on having tracking equipment?

For those of us who like techie solutions to this age old problem then this is what you want. https://goodnaturetraps.co.uk/

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Treating myself to a shed, now I?ve time to build > one in lockdown. > Putting a base down once I?ve levelled the ground > this week. > Question is what kind of shed base: concrete slab, > pavers, brick pillars, whatever ? > And why/advantages/benefits ? > Any suggestion welcome/appreciated. > Probably will be an 8x10ft shed, if that has a > bearing (pun not intended). > Cheers ! Take guidance from Bob Buzzard. He's knows all about spoof wind-ups threads :0

I'm not a 100% dedicated twitcher but fairly convinced we had a nuthatch on the feeder yesterday, Could this be possible? It had the very distinctive narrow eye stripe and rosy chest. It was clinging on tail up/head down whilst feeding.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FFS.... > > > Rant over. Your little rant is fully justified.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you can't see the derogatory and inflammatory > elements in his comments Plough Man then you are > as bad as he is. Why don't you cut him a bit of slack? He is only exercising his right to free speech. Y'all don't have to gang up on him every time he posts on the forum.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow indeed.....Uncle just sank to a whole new > level. Why the outrage? UG quoted accurate statistics and drew a conclusion that was a fair reflection on the opportunism of politicians. Why should you attempt to condemn UG?. His opinion was not prejudiced against any ethnic/religious minority. Rather it was an personal observation on the behaviour of politicians.

My understanding is that the underlying justification is it reduce vehicular pollution. Without doubt, the vehicles causing most pollution are those on short journeys where the engine and catalyser have not reached optimum temperature. This means local traffic - in particular the school run, with yummy mummies taking their kids to and from school, are the biggest polluters. In this technological age it is extremely easy to set up an ANPR monitored system in the area concerned. One could make it entirely free for 100% electric vehicles and a progressive charge thereafter depending on pollution rating. It could even be fine tuned to vary the charge depending on the time of day. In fact it could be fine tuned in a whole number of ways - e.g. by local residents postcode to give exemption.

Let's face it. Barnier has overplayed his hand. He thought he could maintain the dominance enjoyed by the EU when Theresa May was dithering in office and when David Davis was bumbling along.

Are you buying or selling?

The Bikehangar system is totally flawed. A crook just has to make the initial outlay to get a key. He/she rides around checking hangars and when he see a bike he wants, he/she applies for the key. Pays the ?25 and gets the key. Hey presto -access to hangar. The only lock that will deter them is the Altor Saf https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a28861849/altor-saf-lock-test/

Reckon it will bounce back within 6 months of all restrictions being lifted. Those businesses that were highly leveraged will have disappeared. Their premises will be vacant for a spell but will be occupied by a fresh wave of new operators. This new wave, if they get their timing right, will benefit from reduced rents. ED has a particular demographic that will ensure LL will be vibrant again quicker than most people realise. There's a lot of high earners out there and many dual income households. They are increasingly liquid because they have been denied the chance to spend anything big on holidays or fashion or eating out because of Covid19 If I was 50 years younger I would relish the opportunities that will emerge in around 3 to 6 months time. As the old investment saying goes..."When there is blood on the streets and fear rules then that is the time to invest" If you have the guts, go for it!

OK, most of us can do bunting and flags but anyone got novel ideas for celebrating VE +75 whilst social distancing prevails?

I wanted our first son to be called "Casper" but it was vetoed by SWNBO. So we agreed to propose 10 names each. I chose 9 which were totally outrageous ( eg Horace, Syd, Vince, etc etc) and the last was the one I wanted. I got it approved fairly quickly.

The one across the pond can barely rub two grey cells together and can only read script that is 140 characters in length whereas Hitler was extremely well read.

In response to your fundamental question, it is widely recognised that he was extremely intelligent. Here it is essential to distinguish between intelligence, education and wisdom. He would certainly have been in the MENSA category. His intelligence combined with his cunning, charisma, intellect and amazing memory gave him the ability to progress from being a corporal in WW1 into being someone who was revered by everyone in Germany. He had a shrewd insight into human nature, as every great confidence man does, but also he was dangerously egotistical and ruthless. He was an incredibly cunning individual -also a manipulator and an accomplished charmer when he needed to be. The ability to charm and manipulate people around one is usually a sign of intelligence. He was able to appoint capable staff into key positions eg Verner Von Braun and Joseph Goebels and AlbertSpeer. You may not like them but they were very capable. His ruthlessness was evident when he eliminated any opposition within the National Socialist party eg with the murder of Hans Rohm. Hitler was an accomplished judge of character as demonstrated by his handling of Chamberlain and his guess that Britain and France would do nothing when he invaded Alsace/Lorraine then later invaded Austria and Sudetenland. He was a gambler and had amazing success up until he invaded Poland. He had an amazing gift as an orator. Philosophy and practice aside, he was amazing in front of a group. He knew how to work a crowd. He could inspire and move people at all levels. He brought Germany out of economic despair and hyper inflation to become the most powerful country in Europe. He had total credibility because of that. In military terms, he was opportunistic but extremely stubborn in his views. He could see opportunities on a map that a table of generals could not. He drove the Wehrmacht on to greater achievements than any of his generals thought possible eg the conquering of France and Poland in a few weeks. He also had amazing success with Barbarossa until the winter of 1941. Where did he go wrong in terms of strategy? His downfall was underestimating (like Napoleon) the sheer scale of Russia and the horrors of the Russian winter. He didn?t reckon on the USA getting involved. He underestimated the amount of resources (both human and materiel) that would be required to accomplish his aims. His stubbornness cost millions of German soldiers? lives (95% died on the Eastern Front) because he would refuse the counselling of his general staff and repeated requests from the field to retreat from indefensible positions. Thereafter it was a slippery slope of decline into disaster. As the losses and setbacks mounted he became more stubborn and deranged. Intelligence and ruthlessness he had certainly, but wisdom he lacked. Discuss.

gabys1st Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re NHS and funding, a large no.of Tory MPs ( dunno > about the others) have "interest shares in private > medicine! Please provide the facts to back this up so we can understand better. A list of the MP's and their equity holdings would be greatly appreciated.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Rules' about lock-down > > 4. Thoroughly wash your hands if you touch > anything you have not brought with you when > outside. Which includes a seat you might have sat > on. > Only go out wearing a pair of boxing gloves. That way you can't get infected by picking your nose or rubbing your eyes PLUS other people will give you a wider berth than a measly 2 metres.

First post and it's an advert. Fake. NaomiSands Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When the bike was stolen from me, I was very > upset, but on the same day I was lucky and I won > money at https://www.hypercasino.org/ and bought > myself a new one. Try it, maybe it will come in > handy

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but the Highway Code suggests the opposite. You > are safest if you are walking towards oncoming > traffic as you can see the cars coming. > > The Highway Code is specifically talking here > about those walking on (rural) roads, not on > suburban pavements - on which it is entirely > silent. If you are walking on roads then walking > towards and on the same side as oncoming traffic > ensures that you see it coming and can step onto > the verge if necessary (and they may also be more > likely to see you). Wholly irrelevant if you have > a pavement to walk on, as cars are generally > discouraged from mounting these. Have to disagree about not being relevant where pavements are available because of another safety consideration. Pedestrians are much more vulnerable to attackers/abductors/muggers/snatchers who approach in a car from behind on the same side of the road as you. If you are facing the oncoming cars, you can be much more aware of what is happening or likely to happen and take evasive action such as running past the car because the car is unlikely to reverse against the flow of traffic It's all about minimising risks.