Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

A clampdown on gazumping and other tactics that cause misery to housebuyers and sellers is being drawn up by the government as part of a renewed attempt to reduce the cost and stress of buying a home.

The Tories want to sort this out  and are asking for evidence from industry professionals within 8 weeks. This is a commendable and justified to finally make an offer a legally binding matter in English law at a distinct point in the proceedings.

In another area of housing policy alongside this announcement, Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary revealed a possible move by the government in the November budget of partially reversing its austerity doctrine by borrowing to invest heavily in new homes and associated infrastructure.

However, in these potential housing policy announcements, a further comment in relation to the new homes investment by Mr. Javid indicates yet again where the priorities lie for this government.

‘While councils “have a big part to play” in the plan, as do housing associations, the “biggest role” should be taken by the private sector’

In contrast, only about ten families so far from the  Grenfell Towers fire disaster have been rehoused, and apparently the government have decided sprinkler systems in tower blocks are an additional safety precaution that’s unnecessary.

At a time of a housing crises where social housing should at the forefront of policy, the percentage target number of 300,000 new homes per year will no doubt be higher in the private sector.

In addition, there is a case for the more than 200,000 homes sitting empty in England – worth a total of £43bn to be utilised and renovated for the social hosing sector. Is there an issue here though? Is it because property speculators in the UK, from abroad and offshore fund investors are of the ‘family’ of rich and privileged that also include members of the Conservative Party and/or their wealthy business backers?

Consequently, is it not surprising this Tory government won’t provide the resources to local councils to track down these mysterious property owners and fund the compulsory purchase and renovations of these empty dwellings?

There is a genuine belief in the Conservative Party that a homeowner is more likely to vote Conservative. It’s even alleged George Osborne stated this privately when Chancellor in discussions about the possible political fallout electorally of the benefit cuts. He is alleged to have commented this would be negligible due to a majority affected were unlikely never to own their own homes, and this would probably reflect in their voting choices to be of no political advantage to a Tory government.

‘Gazump’ – make a higher offer for a house than (someone whose offer has already been accepted by the seller) and thus succeed in acquiring the property.

Sources: Guardian/Observer UK editions and associated published official documents.

Advertisements

​I find it intriguing that based on the agreed political definition of ‘right wing’ and also historical fact, it seems to indicate this country lurches further that way each time we have a female Tory Prime Minister.

Interestingly enough the previous incumbent Margaret Thatcher at that time was criticised for not having enough women in the cabinet. 

This time we have Theresa May redressing the lack of female representation in the cabinet to a certain degree .. and what do we find? 

Liz Truss, in her combined roles as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, staying silent about the extreme abusive and homophobic reaction of High Court Judges concerning the Brexit ruling until under severe criticism from Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, the chairperson of the Bar Council to break this silence.

Only then was a statement issued that was of the most basic generic form with no reference or defence of the actual judges.

In the independent legal requirements on behalf of the Government and Parliament, the  combined post of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Liz Truss has been accused by the Bar Council of not fulfilling her accepted role as “the conscience of the government”.

I bring this point up about female ministers on the right of politics because it appears to follow a pattern. Margaret Thatcher was divisive to say the least and was “Miss Confrontation’ in the UK,  Europe and beyond.

Theresa May appears to assume we should accept everything she does or say with head bowed finger on the cap with a deferent “yes Miss, coz you knows best .. cor blimey don’t yer know”

God forbid some upstart of a group headed by Gina Miller challenging Theresa May’s authority ….. particularly as an unelected Prime Minister…. to negotiate Brexit and present it to Parliament and the country afterwards as a fait accompli.

“House of Commons! … Lords, Dames and citizens of the UK … these are terms of Brexit! This is the best deal we could have got because of the simple fact you are plebs … we are superior to all of you because we were clever enough to turn you over with the obscure constitutional Royal Prerogative ruse”

Well I’m extremely grateful to Ms Miller because the team assembled for Brexit negotiations I wouldn’t trust with a groceries shopping list.

Many of the papers headlines and lead articles have printed some disgraceful abusive and divisive comments at such an apparent outrage of a court ruling.

They’ve not even worked out what the actual case was brought before the High Court using the sovereign laws of this country which was one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign.

Apparently it’s all a conspiracy of a fucked up gay Judicial system and some British female who was born in Guyana but grew up in Britain to overturn the referendum result.

Oh … and just for good measure it appears at least one newspaper darkened the skin of Ms Miller in their photograph of her.

I wonder how some of the statements, views and insults published would have been viewed differently by Liz Truss if they’d come from an UK Islamic source.

 As “the conscience of the government” I wonder what the reaction of Liz Truss would have been if a leading member of the Muslim Council publicly warned of mass unrest and calling for protests in the street. 

One would assume nothing because the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor hasn’t as ‘conscience of the Government’ condemned a white leader of a right wing racist political party who has already said that to Andrew Marr on the BBC. 

(Awkward Silence Moment)

Oh I’m sorry! … I was off in thought there recalling how I read it was okay to beat up, destroy businesses and intimidate Jews  … but dangerous for Jews to fight back, complain and also have no chance of legal redress from an independent judiciary in Germany in the mid to late 1930’s 

Is it because women feel they have to justify their positions in any high ranking post? 

Is it because they’ve been at an unjustifiable gender disadvantage for so long they can’t get out of being tough and uncompromising … and having to keep showing they are?

Or is it coincidence and just the fault of enough of the electorate succumbing to the age old tendency to tolerate more than normal lurches in one political direction or other in perceived or real times of crisis?

To all who have been kind or bored enough to read this … I will leave you to decide 

The last Plantagenet king, Richard III is in the news again due to a a high court judge giving permission for his descendants to challenge plans to rebury the king’s remains in Leicester.

The Plantagenet Alliance, which claims 15 descendants of relatives of the king as members, want his remains to be buried in York, which, it claims, he regarded as his home.

So, on Friday (16th August 2013), Mr Justice Haddon-Cave gave the go-ahead for the alliance to bring judicial review proceedings against the justice secretary and the University of Leicester, which excavated the car park under licence from the Ministry of Justice.

In a nutshell, the judge ruled the decision taken prior to the excavation licence is open to challenge quite simply because it could be argued they didn’t comply to their full legal remit … in other words they didn’t ask the family of the deceased.

I find it quite astounding that what we can assume are fairly intelligent people … well, at least the University of Leicester must have some …. didn’t take a step back for a moment and think “hey! are there any living relatives to this guy? If so, shouldn’t we consult with them as well?”

Apart from Edward V who it’s considered likely to have been murdered in the Tower of London and secretly buried there, the smattering of my knowledge of English monarchs concludes most of them were buried in places where they either chose or would have been happy to be interned.

Looking down a list burial sites of English monarchs there are a collection of cathedrals, abbey’s, castles or designated royal burial grounds, for example…

Alfred the Great – Old Minster, Winchester

Edward the Confessor – Westminster Abbey

Richard 1st – Fontevraud Abbey, Anjou, France (with heart buried in Rouen)

Queen Victoria – Royal burial ground, Frogmore, Windsor

These places were either close to their hearts … in Richard 1st case literally … or were completely appropriate … Edward the Confessor’s major building project of his reign was indeed Westminster Abbey. At least a vast majority of the others it could be reasonably argued the same applies.

Now, if you’ve got this far you might be asking…”so?”

Well, the point is this is our historical heritage we’re talking about, allied to living descendants of the deceased. Both deserve consideration with the caveat of what should be regarded as ‘doing right’ by Richard III.

I say ‘doing right’ because we as a nation are custodians of our heritage and history. People who would be asked about their impression of Richard III, on the pretext they know what you’re talking about, will reply “humped back, murdered Princes, evil” Well!, definitely one …and possibly two… out of three isn’t bad in that he did have a bad curvature of the spine and had good reason to get rid of the two young Princes’

We have a legacy of ‘knowledge’ from the Tudors who took over and basically did a character assassination on Richard because quite frankly Henry VII had less of a claim to the throne than the curved spine incumbent he despatched at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. This came from propaganda which William Shakespeare ‘confirmed’ later by writing his play, and he wasn’t going to be stupid and upset Queen Elizabeth, grand-daughter of Henry VII.

His appearance and likely involvement in the death of the two young Princes’ helped to portray Richard as an evil king. This by the standard of today could be regarded as ‘evil’. However, by the standards of the time killing the nearest rival claimants or focal point for opposition was the way to go about securing your throne. If you get out of your head the assumption close relatives such as nephews were cherished at that level of hierarchy during that time you can begin to understand the reasoning, however terrible it seems to us today.

There is also another aspect to challenge the Tudor tag of ‘evil’. During his time as supporting his brother Edward IV he attained several titles and land stretching from Wales and Gloucester in the west, Richmond in the north and lands in East Anglia to the east. His primary title could be considered as Duke of Gloucester, and by all accounts he was considered a fair Duke within the context of the time. He controlled all his estates with reason and wasn’t prone to excess of gratuitous subjugation or cruelty. Overall he did what was necessary at the time depending on the circumstances.

In 1462, he was made Constable of Gloucester and appointed Governor of the North, becoming the richest and most powerful noble in England. From all the titles and lands he had his closest connection was in the north though. His father was the Duke of York and he certainly preferred that part of the country given the choice.

This is the crux of the judgement awarded to the descendants of Richard III who will challenge that he should be buried in York. Historical records point to Yorkshire being the one area he controlled as closest to his heart. Also, there is the evidence of the close family connection to this part of the country, which surely should account for something.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave also tellingly recognised the prestige and financial benefit to the location where Richard III is finally interned. It’s extremely important for an important historical discovery such as the remains of the last Plantagenet king to be concluded in an historically accurate way. It seems evidently reasonable to say that the conclusion should be the internment of his remains in the place he is most closely associated with, both historically and in family tradition, plus a location in that area befitting a former king of England…. which is York.