keano77

Will he sell the freehold to you at a higher price if you don't grant him a lease? If so, and there is only the one garage there, it might be worth paying the higher price. You then have the freehold to the garage and the right of way will belong to you (cease to exist) unless you choose to rent out the garage/grant a lease etc where you would obviously need to provide access. Yes, you can include covenants in any lease to restrict to some extent what the leaseholder, or further sub-lessees can do with the garage but it can get messy. E.g., you grant lease to current freeholder. Unless specifically excluded he can sublet or rent out. If sub-lessee or renter breaches a covenant there is no contract between you and them. You need to chase the head-lessee (your current freeholder) to get his tenant to rectify the issue. In short, spend time and money talking the options through with you solicitor as a higher cost now can save you a lot of money down the line, especially if you sell.

I don't think you've thought this through JohnL

What would a united London signify? I guess that about about 50% go 'Londoners' weren't born in London. Who is qualified to vote on behalf of 'Londoners'?

To give you the benefit of doubt Loz, I can with a rational hat on, see why the EU might be wise not to take sides in an international dispute over sovereignty. But don't forget what we're dealing with here - a body that ordered the plunder of People's bank accounts in Cyprus. Say no more

Haven't a clue what you're babbling on about jaywalker One too many watching the Liverpool v Everton game at lunchtime?

The posturing is shaping up for an ugly fight with the EU handing Spain a veto on Gibraltar. I suggest we use some of the ?58.7 Billion we pay the EU each second to fund the separatist Catalans, Basques and Breton nationalists to sow discord. That'll learn 'em

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ???? Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Hermits Cave Otta - (no apostrophe for the > > pedant > > > of the thread) > > > > > > Actually there should be an apostrophe after > the > > s, hermits' (cave of hermits). If if were > plural > > it would be hermits caves (I think). > > > > And I agree with Otta above. > > Actually, I was being literal - there is no > apostrophe on the sign or hanging board of "The > Hermits Cave" (Sic) in SE5 and wouldn't the > "Hermits' Cave" be a paradox wot with them being > hermits? Good point quids, hermits do tend to be solitary. Next time you pop into the pub please ask they change the signage by putting an apostrophe between the t and s (cave of the hermit). You might want to do this after you've been served with a drink

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hermits Cave Otta - (no apostrophe for the pedant > of the thread) Actually there should be an apostrophe after the s, hermits' (cave of hermits). If if were plural it would be hermits caves (I think). And I agree with Otta above.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Pubs are for boozing not eating. However, like > > Brexit, it's too late to stop it. If you > > light-weights must have food then bring back > > scampi-in-the-basket and the cockle man turning > up > > at last orders. > > > I swear this guy is Louisa's husband. I wish ...

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Age Jeremy. The difference is that you're 36, > Keano is 77 and harking back to the early 1970's. Old enough to know you need to remove the apostrophe from 1970s please (it's plural)

Pubs are for boozing not eating. However, like Brexit, it's too late to stop it. If you light-weights must have food then bring back scampi-in-the-basket and the cockle man turning up at last orders.

I agree robbin

True. I have to say I agree with Juncker (see Guardian piece) that the EU was blamed for many of Britain's ills that the EU had no part in

Sorry titch but I seem to remember you made that point before on another thread. The referendum you refer to was in June 1975 (two and a half years after the UK had joined the European Community). There was an overwhelming yes vote of more than 67%. Unfortunately the current EU is a very different beast to the economic trading bloc people voted to join 42 years ago, hence Brexit.

Nope

Check your facts titch

1. Sean Spicer - White House Press Secretary (Hope he's paid well)

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you miss the point completely. > > Someone on here called someone a name based on > something they said/did. The original post is > about racial abuse. > > If you don't genuinely understand the difference > between name calling in response to an action by > that person and racial abuse based on nothing but > skin colour, it would be very worrying. I think I get the point titch juicy although the OP seems a bit unclear as to what offense has actually been committed Posted by Jim1234 February 24, 11:46PM OK seems I neglected to mention that the couple were assumedly muslim - the lady was wearing a headscarf. Clearly it was racism, islamophobia, discrimination, whatever you want to call it. If words like racism are misused they become devalued. You have made an assumption about skin colour. Have I missed where the OP mentioned the skin colour of the couple? The lady had a headscarf, her ethnicity wasn't mentioned. Islam is a religion, not a race. To call a muslim a terrorist would probably be more of a hate crime based on religion than racism. A careful use words is advisable

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "he might question whether the person who shouted > out 'terrorists' actually hated the couple he > directed it to. He might have thought he was being > funny, might have been trying to impress friends" > > I have to admit, my chief concern was the > recipients of the 'jest' from the perpetrator. > They're clearly identifiable as Muslims, so how, > when they're called a terrorist in a public place, > could they ever take offence and think it was > anything other than "just a laugh" ? You miss the irony of your post KK You took offence at GG's post because you thought he was belittling the reported incident but them called him a name. Two wrongs don't make a right

No, of course not. It was a silly thing to do. Can't speak for Richard Littlejohn I'm afraid because I never read him but I imagine he might question whether the person who shouted out 'terrorists' actually hated the couple he directed it to. He might have thought he was being funny, might have been trying to impress friends - we'll never know. Whatever the reason he shouldn't have said it. I'm sure you don't hate people people here on the edf and by admonishing them don't intend to 'abuse' them or make them 'victims'. But such adjectives are bandied about here on the edf like confetti. 'Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me'. Shame more people don't heed this old advice instead of running to the courts or expecting big-bucks compensation.

Oh they were screaming abuse now were they? Talk about Chinese whispers (am I allowed to use the word Chinese in your world?)

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KK was very wrong (above) to call you a tool, but > I guess what you should really be called wouldn't > get through the forum filters, so tool will do for > now. So let's just review this. A person calls someone a name. Cue knee-jerk reaction from the usual suspects. They then proceed to call GG names with an added personal element which was missing from the original name calling. You couldn't make it up

My, somebody has had his shredded wheat this morning. I could answer each of these 48 questions line by line but the way the questions are framed is to elicit answers that will support the Remain cause. Also edf readers will find it all very tedious. In my opinion the Brexit vote and Trump's victory were part of a bigger problem facing the world and that is Western Capitalism isn't working for the majority of people. Many working people are just about coping, dependent on tax credits to supplement poor wages. Many economies haven't recovered since the financial crisis of 2008. We are heading into the unknown and understandably people are nervous. There are many issues Theresa May and the government need to grapple with that you mention above, tax and welfare issues for example. A post Brexit Britain will need to create conditions that will unleash entrepreneurial talent for Britain to realise it's potential. A simple example here is the need for Business rates reform which is crippling small businesses. The only thing stopping Britain trading successfully with our European neighbours is the EU itself. It cannot be seen to give Britain a good deal outside the EU otherwise the house of cards will fall - hence the notion of a hard Brexit. If in 10 years time the EU still exists and has made substantial reforms there is nothing to stop the British people rejoining if they so choose.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where would one find the proletariat to be in the > vanguard for in 2017? > You raise a number of interesting points jaywalker but let me concentrate on your first sentence. If the proletariat, in Marxist terms, are those who have nothing to sell but their labour then look no further than the gig economy and zero hours contracts in 2017. Uber being a prime example. Use your own car, your own wear and tear and servicing, your own petrol, your own car tax, insurance and if you download Uber's app you may earn minimum wage. (I do however see that there are some benefits for Uber drivers using the service as a second or third job to bring in extra income). However, I digress.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > keano77 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Just another champagne socialist. Schooled at > > > Fettes in Edinburgh. Claims to speak for the > > > people but amassed a huge property portfolio > > and > > > now charges vast sums on the lecture circuit > > and > > > for advising dictators among others. > > > > > > When will people learn? > > > > How about the person that attended Harrow > School, > > opposed votes for women, regularly slept till > > noon, used opium in college, suffered severe > > depression, agreed to use his parliamentary > > influence to raise issues in return for money, > > drank whiskey every evening, plus devised a > > disastrous campaign in WW1 that cost over a > > quarter of a million lives and lost him his > > military job. > > > > Oh, that would be Winston Churchill. > > > > When the right person turns up at the right > time > > with the right argument, their past is a bit > > irrelevant, no? > > > Nice. On the contrary - no. Cometh the hour cometh the man - yes, I agree. Churchill (despite his father Lord Randolp's legacy) and, say, Lech Walesa, were people who rose to prominence at particular points in history for specific purposes. My point above is one's formative years, upbringing, socialisation etc, determine to a large extent what type of person one turns out to be (there are rare exceptions). Churchill lived beyond his means and sponged off contacts in the old boy network who paid off his debts. Blair had the right pedigree and education for his failed attempt to become president of the EU. His pedigree does not strike me as a possible leader of the vanguard of the proletariat - hence my classifying him as just another champagne socialist. I suspect, like Churchill, you'll find more Pol Roger Champagne in his household than cheap (champagne for the masses) Prosecco