Discussion:
no headers for quite a while.
(too old to reply)
Vicky
2018-02-18 09:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is this foo bah or just everyone is busy or this is dying?
Ok. I am considering applying for the forward planner job for TA as
Btms hasn't got the editor job. I thought Friday was a bit depressing
and not a good end of week episode.

I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in
future she will do well in the local council and be invited to the
Women's Equality Party to stand and get in as local MP. She will then
spend five out of seven days in London and she and Ed will grow apart.
She might meet someone else.

Ed will realise he is not as upset as he should be and Fallon, who
never stopped loving him, comforts him. They get the band back
together on a mission to raise money for Pat's charity. Jazzer joins
them and Eddy and Jolene support them too, as does Wayne.

The band is a huge success and just as Emma gets a post as assistant
to the Min of Ag or DSS, after the WE party has a landslide victory
and Sandi is PM, or young Umbrella, the youngest PM ever, the band hit
the big time, tv, US tour, Australia, the old and young all going
along, with the kids too. Not PC Umbrella.

Ed and Fallon realise they are meant for each other. When they all get
home Eddy has been faithful to Clarrie and Jolene to Kenton and Ed and
Fallon have refrained from sausages or seabirds, but all realise this
is it and PC and Emma accept it. Will sneers. Nic is jealous of Emma's
success, and having run the teashop while the two owners were away she
gets it permanently.

Nolly accompanies Kate back to Ambridge after a few months in SA and
is able to help Nic as well as finish her education at the local
college, keeping her eye on Freddy. Lilly goes to university.

Justin meets with a nasty accident. Matt has been biding his time. He
escapes again back to SA. Jill doesn't live to see the new Archer Pip
has and Brookfield struggles to manage without her. David loses weight
as nobody bakes cakes for him. Kirsty finds out that Philip is Up To
Something Bad. I'd take suggestions.

--

Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-18 10:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(Spoiler alert near the end, re the BL board decision.)

In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>Is this foo bah or just everyone is busy or this is dying?

I hope it's just busy-ness! I too was surprised to find only this one
post here. Or, it's Sunday, and UMRAts are just having a lie-in.

>Ok. I am considering applying for the forward planner job for TA as

Is this just a flight-of-fancy, or has such a post been mentioned?

>Btms hasn't got the editor job. I thought Friday was a bit depressing
>and not a good end of week episode.

(I can't ATM remember what happened in it so can't comment.)
>
>I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in

That hadn't occurred to me. I hadn't really thought of them as being
unhappy _with each other_. Emma's been occasionally unhappy with Ed's
financial decisions (those sheep we now aren't hearing about, mainly),
and his depression about their depressing situation (which has always
seemed realism to me, though sad), but I didn't think they were unhappy
as such as a couple.

>future she will do well in the local council and be invited to the
>Women's Equality Party to stand and get in as local MP. She will then

I think she certainly has potential in that area. Mind you, she'd have
to learn to control herself (on political matters) a bit more: virtually
all her rants are justified, but can be counter-constructive. But I can
see that (her learning) as a definite possibility.

>spend five out of seven days in London and she and Ed will grow apart.
>She might meet someone else.

Hmm, good point, though I think that would be sad.
>
>Ed will realise he is not as upset as he should be and Fallon, who
>never stopped loving him, comforts him. They get the band back
>together on a mission to raise money for Pat's charity. Jazzer joins
>them and Eddy and Jolene support them too, as does Wayne.

I think Carpet could make things very difficult though.
>
>The band is a huge success and just as Emma gets a post as assistant
>to the Min of Ag or DSS, after the WE party has a landslide victory
>and Sandi is PM
I love it (-:
>, or young Umbrella, the youngest PM ever, the band hit
>the big time, tv, US tour, Australia, the old and young all going
>along, with the kids too. Not PC Umbrella.
>
>Ed and Fallon realise they are meant for each other. When they all get

I hadn't really registered what you say about Fallon still loving Ed;
but is it reciprocated, i. e. Ed having feelings for Fallon?

>home Eddy has been faithful to Clarrie and Jolene to Kenton and Ed and

I think Eddy would indeed; although he's weak and has been feckless in
many ways, I don't think he'd ever endanger what he has with Clarrie.
Jolene I think would behave too - I'm not so sure about Kenton though.

>Fallon have refrained from sausages or seabirds, but all realise this
>is it and PC and Emma accept it. Will sneers. Nic is jealous of Emma's

Will always sneers (-:.

>success, and having run the teashop while the two owners were away she
>gets it permanently.

Though Will would try to control. I think whoever it was here who said
Will was showing signs of being a Coercive Controller a la Rob, was very
perceptive.
>
>Nolly accompanies Kate back to Ambridge after a few months in SA and
>is able to help Nic as well as finish her education at the local

Sounds very plausible.

>college, keeping her eye on Freddy. Lilly goes to university.

Yes, again plausible. Though there is clearly a temptation among the SWs
for intelligent young women to go off the rails, as they seem to be
doing with Alice (is it Alice? The one who did well at uni/RAF, and is
now working for some not-very-believable tech company, but seems to have
an incipient drink problem). I hope it doesn't happen: I liked Alice,
and I like Lilly so far.
>
>Justin meets with a nasty accident.
I don't _yet_ share the dislike of Justin. I'm probably wrong, as I have
been in the past. Sure, he can be a ruthless businessman (as he was with
Umbrella after Matt encouraged him to call Justin's bluff over the land
- justifiably I thought!), and he clearly has some plans of his own he
hasn't revealed so far. But if I'm right, he could become the next Brian
in Ambridge - the current one can't go on for ever (how old _is_ he?),
though has been given a fillip by the Board decision.

> Matt has been biding his time. He

_Please_ can we not ever see Matt again. I thought "oh no" when he
reappeared (we don't do melodrama* - who are they kidding?) this time,
and seems to be something/'one the SWs bring up when they're a bit short
of ideas.

[* Who originally said that: was it the Beetle? It clearly isn't true
these days.]

>escapes again back to SA.
At first, I thought you meant South Africa, and were suggesting some
(new?) intrigue with Kate's family, then the penny dropped.

> Jill doesn't live to see the new Archer Pip
>has and Brookfield struggles to manage without her. David loses weight

Sounds very plausible.

>as nobody bakes cakes for him. Kirsty finds out that Philip is Up To
>Something Bad. I'd take suggestions.
>
I do hope not. I've not seen enough of Philip to form any opinion of
him, but I like Kirsty and would like some happiness for her, either
with him or Tom (was it?) or someone else (while not wanting to be
sucked into the convention that happiness means partnership [I'm happy
for example]).

And I like Lexi too. She has her faults (e. g. where she spoke up on
some matter that wasn't her purview, over hotel management), but I think
could be an interesting character to keep. And of course the surrogacy
story - and, more interesting perhaps, the elderly-parents story - has
potential legs, both dramatically and public-information-wise. (I know
TA nominally no longer has that brief, but I think all the soaps _do_ do
it from time to time.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)
Vicky
2018-02-18 11:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:42:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:

>(Spoiler alert near the end, re the BL board decision.)
>

>
>>Ok. I am considering applying for the forward planner job for TA as
>
>Is this just a flight-of-fancy, or has such a post been mentioned?

fof :)

>
>>Btms hasn't got the editor job. I thought Friday was a bit depressing
>>and not a good end of week episode.
>
>(I can't ATM remember what happened in it so can't comment.)

Ruth had words with Pip about the reality of being a working parent on
a farm. She wanted to be with her child when Pip cried for her but had
to leave her with Jill. She had David and her parents too to help. Pip
accepted this relunctantly.

Brian was supported by all except one of the board of BL, because
Justin spoke for him but later when Anabel asked why Justin said it
was good to have Brian owe him. Money in the bank. But I think maybe
Jenny persuaded Justin and he used the arguments he gave to the board
and Anabel as reasonable and might actually have wanted to support
Brian by then. A puppet chair for him? Or anyway family harmony.

Either way it was somehow depressing. Both Ruth and Justin stuff was.

>>
>>I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in
>
>That hadn't occurred to me. I hadn't really thought of them as being
>unhappy _with each other_. Emma's been occasionally unhappy with Ed's
>financial decisions (those sheep we now aren't hearing about, mainly),
>and his depression about their depressing situation (which has always
>seemed realism to me, though sad), but I didn't think they were unhappy
>as such as a couple.
I think they do love each other and are happy. It's me isn't about it
:). I wanted him to end up with Fallon, who loved him. He didn't love
her, too enchanted by Emma. I am hoping he will grow out of it.
>
>>future she will do well in the local council and be invited to the
>>Women's Equality Party to stand and get in as local MP. She will then
>
>I think she certainly has potential in that area. Mind you, she'd have
>to learn to control herself (on political matters) a bit more: virtually
>all her rants are justified, but can be counter-constructive. But I can
>see that (her learning) as a definite possibility.
>
>>spend five out of seven days in London and she and Ed will grow apart.
>>She might meet someone else.
>
>Hmm, good point, though I think that would be sad.
>>
>>Ed will realise he is not as upset as he should be and Fallon, who
>>never stopped loving him, comforts him. They get the band back
>>together on a mission to raise money for Pat's charity. Jazzer joins
>>them and Eddy and Jolene support them too, as does Wayne.
>
>I think Carpet could make things very difficult though.
>>
>>The band is a huge success and just as Emma gets a post as assistant
>>to the Min of Ag or DSS, after the WE party has a landslide victory
>>and Sandi is PM
>I love it (-:
>>, or young Umbrella, the youngest PM ever, the band hit
>>the big time, tv, US tour, Australia, the old and young all going
>>along, with the kids too. Not PC Umbrella.
>>
>>Ed and Fallon realise they are meant for each other. When they all get
>
>I hadn't really registered what you say about Fallon still loving Ed;
>but is it reciprocated, i. e. Ed having feelings for Fallon?
>
>>home Eddy has been faithful to Clarrie and Jolene to Kenton and Ed and
>
>I think Eddy would indeed; although he's weak and has been feckless in
>many ways, I don't think he'd ever endanger what he has with Clarrie.
>Jolene I think would behave too - I'm not so sure about Kenton though.
He would be stuck at home minding the pub.
>
>>Fallon have refrained from sausages or seabirds, but all realise this
>>is it and PC and Emma accept it. Will sneers. Nic is jealous of Emma's
>
>Will always sneers (-:.
Because Ed and Fallon have a hit and then more hits and merchandise is
sold they become rich. Much richer than Will and Nic. Hah!
>
>>success, and having run the teashop while the two owners were away she
>>gets it permanently.
>
>Though Will would try to control. I think whoever it was here who said
>Will was showing signs of being a Coercive Controller a la Rob, was very
>perceptive.
>>
>>Nolly accompanies Kate back to Ambridge after a few months in SA and
>>is able to help Nic as well as finish her education at the local
>
>Sounds very plausible.

And she gets back in time to enjoy time with Peggy, who lives on for a
bit. Jill going satisfies the dark figure on Binkie for a while. The
timers stay on the shelf.
>
>>college, keeping her eye on Freddy. Lilly goes to university.
>
>Yes, again plausible. Though there is clearly a temptation among the SWs
>for intelligent young women to go off the rails, as they seem to be
>doing with Alice (is it Alice? The one who did well at uni/RAF, and is
>now working for some not-very-believable tech company, but seems to have
>an incipient drink problem). I hope it doesn't happen: I liked Alice,
>and I like Lilly so far.
I hadn't got round to Alice's future. Twins! They look like Chris and
Susan and Jenny can hold one each at the christening. Alice has a
success at work before this and so they are happy to let her have the
maternity leave off and come back to her job afterwards. I suppose if
you insist on Lexi remaining she can run a creche then for Adam's kid,
Pip's and the twins.

>>
>>Justin meets with a nasty accident.
>I don't _yet_ share the dislike of Justin. I'm probably wrong, as I have
>been in the past. Sure, he can be a ruthless businessman (as he was with
>Umbrella after Matt encouraged him to call Justin's bluff over the land
>- justifiably I thought!), and he clearly has some plans of his own he
>hasn't revealed so far. But if I'm right, he could become the next Brian
>in Ambridge - the current one can't go on for ever (how old _is_ he?),
>though has been given a fillip by the Board decision.
>
>> Matt has been biding his time. He
>
>_Please_ can we not ever see Matt again. I thought "oh no" when he
>reappeared (we don't do melodrama* - who are they kidding?) this time,
>and seems to be something/'one the SWs bring up when they're a bit short
>of ideas.
>
>[* Who originally said that: was it the Beetle? It clearly isn't true
>these days.]
>
>>escapes again back to SA.
>At first, I thought you meant South Africa, and were suggesting some
>(new?) intrigue with Kate's family, then the penny dropped.
>
>> Jill doesn't live to see the new Archer Pip
>>has and Brookfield struggles to manage without her. David loses weight
>
>Sounds very plausible.
>
>>as nobody bakes cakes for him. Kirsty finds out that Philip is Up To
>>Something Bad. I'd take suggestions.
>>
>I do hope not. I've not seen enough of Philip to form any opinion of
>him, but I like Kirsty and would like some happiness for her, either
>with him or Tom (was it?) or someone else (while not wanting to be
>sucked into the convention that happiness means partnership [I'm happy
>for example]).
>
>And I like Lexi too. She has her faults (e. g. where she spoke up on
>some matter that wasn't her purview, over hotel management), but I think
>could be an interesting character to keep. And of course the surrogacy
>story - and, more interesting perhaps, the elderly-parents story - has
>potential legs, both dramatically and public-information-wise. (I know
>TA nominally no longer has that brief, but I think all the soaps _do_ do
>it from time to time.)

I thought it still did consider it has that brief, hence the badly
done Rob stuff.


--

Vicky
John Ashby
2018-02-18 15:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/18 11:26, Vicky wrote:

> I hadn't got round to Alice's future. Twins! They look like Chris and
> Susan and Jenny can hold one each at the christening. Alice has a
> success at work before this and so they are happy to let her have the
> maternity leave off and come back to her job afterwards.
Are twins at a greater risk from foetal alcohol syndrome?

john
John Ashby
2018-02-18 16:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/18 15:57, John Ashby wrote:
> On 18/02/18 11:26, Vicky wrote:
>
>> I hadn't got round to Alice's future.  Twins! They look like Chris and
>> Susan and Jenny can hold one each at the christening.  Alice has a
>> success at work before this and so they are happy to let her have the
>> maternity leave off and come back to her job afterwards.
> Are twins at a greater risk from foetal alcohol syndrome?
>

A bit of googling answers my question (TSE) in the affirmative, though
it depends a bit on mono- or di-zygoticity (identical or non-identical
twins). In identical twins there is strong equivalence of outcome, while
in non-identicals differences in susceptibility to alcohol are evident.

What's not clear at the moment is whether the susceptibility is still
greater in twins than in the general population due (for example) to
lower gestational weight for date.

john
Penny
2018-02-18 12:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:42:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
><***@gmail.com> writes:

>>I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in
>
>That hadn't occurred to me. I hadn't really thought of them as being
>unhappy _with each other_. Emma's been occasionally unhappy with Ed's
>financial decisions (those sheep we now aren't hearing about, mainly),
>and his depression about their depressing situation (which has always
>seemed realism to me, though sad), but I didn't think they were unhappy
>as such as a couple.

I think Ed and Emma are pretty good together although their life-plans
don't mesh at the moment. He is all about making some success of his
business so he can support his family. She is focussed on buying a house
and probably a bit unrealistic about being able to afford one.

---8<--- band fantasy

>> Will sneers. Nic is jealous of Emma's
>
>Will always sneers (-:.
>
>>success, and having run the teashop while the two owners were away she
>>gets it permanently.
>
>Though Will would try to control. I think whoever it was here who said
>Will was showing signs of being a Coercive Controller a la Rob, was very
>perceptive.

I don't think Will is controlling in the same way Rob was. He has a
somewhat old-fashioned world view where a man works and a woman stays home
and keeps house (whether she wants to or not). He is the boss, this is not
an equal partnership.

It's not clear where this comes from - it has not been the case in his own
family - Clarrie is the one who has kept things together there, sometimes
with several part-time jobs. Although she probably has put a meal on the
table at the end of every day. Will also seems to have missed the fact that
his mother, ultimately, rules the roost.

I loved the scene between Joe and Nic and was pleasantly surprised by her
response to Will when he whined about not finding a meal ready for him when
he came home (where were the children when Nic was with Joe?

>>Justin meets with a nasty accident.
>I don't _yet_ share the dislike of Justin. I'm probably wrong, as I have
>been in the past. Sure, he can be a ruthless businessman (as he was with
>Umbrella after Matt encouraged him to call Justin's bluff over the land
>- justifiably I thought!), and he clearly has some plans of his own he
>hasn't revealed so far. But if I'm right, he could become the next Brian
>in Ambridge - the current one can't go on for ever (how old _is_ he?),

Brian is 74 this year. I'd have thought Justin was much the same age (his
close friend is 71).

I don't really trust either of them to 'do the right thing' in any
situation. It's been interesting seeing an anxious Brian recently.

>> Matt has been biding his time. He
>
>_Please_ can we not ever see Matt again. I thought "oh no" when he
>(we don't do melodrama* - who are they kidding?) this time,
>and seems to be something/'one the SWs bring up when they're a bit short
>of ideas.
>
>[* Who originally said that: was it the Beetle? It clearly isn't true
>these days.]
Yes, it was VW.

>> Kirsty finds out that Philip is Up To
>>Something Bad. I'd take suggestions.
>>
>I do hope not. I've not seen enough of Philip to form any opinion of
>him, but I like Kirsty and would like some happiness for her, either
>with him or Tom (was it?) or someone else (while not wanting to be
>sucked into the convention that happiness means partnership [I'm happy
>for example]).

I still can't decide if I trust Philip or not. He does seem to be very good
at talking to women he doesn't know well as people - an admirable trait.

>And I like Lexi too. She has her faults (e. g. where she spoke up on
>some matter that wasn't her purview, over hotel management), but I think
>could be an interesting character to keep.

I agree, though I find her relationship with the dismal Roy a little
unbelievable. She has also provided an older female confidante for some of
the younger women in Ambridge - a job which otherwise falls to Lizzie
these days.

> And of course the surrogacy
>story - and, more interesting perhaps, the elderly-parents story - has
>potential legs, both dramatically and public-information-wise. (I know
>TA nominally no longer has that brief, but I think all the soaps _do_ do
>it from time to time.)

I'm less keen on this story. I think both Adam and Ian are too old to take
on a baby and don't feel their own relationship is strong enough to cope
with it.

Gosh, a whole post about TA - I must be slipping...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Fenny
2018-02-18 12:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:13:25 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>> And of course the surrogacy
>>story - and, more interesting perhaps, the elderly-parents story - has
>>potential legs, both dramatically and public-information-wise. (I know
>>TA nominally no longer has that brief, but I think all the soaps _do_ do
>>it from time to time.)
>
>I'm less keen on this story. I think both Adam and Ian are too old to take
>on a baby and don't feel their own relationship is strong enough to cope
>with it.

I suppose this is the "soaps reflect real life" storyline these days.
It's not as though we actually need any PSAs on the number of same sex
couples having children these days. I mean, you only have to see the
stories about who DM columnists are slagging off [1] to find out who
the latest one is.

[1] I completely missed the original announcement, but saw all the
stories about everyone pulling their adverts from the DM due to their
bloke's comment on it. Wouldn't it just be easier for companies not
to advertise in the DM to start with, then they wouldn't have to keep
reacting to the backlash?
--
Fenny
John Ashby
2018-02-18 16:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/18 12:45, Fenny wrote:

>
> [1] I completely missed the original announcement, but saw all the
> stories about everyone pulling their adverts from the DM due to their
> bloke's comment on it. Wouldn't it just be easier for companies not
> to advertise in the DM to start with, then they wouldn't have to keep
> reacting to the backlash?
>

But then their advertising wouldn't reach the Wives of the People Who
Run the Country [Hacker, J.]

john
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-18 17:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:42:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
>><***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in
>>
>>That hadn't occurred to me. I hadn't really thought of them as being
>>unhappy _with each other_. Emma's been occasionally unhappy with Ed's
[]
>I think Ed and Emma are pretty good together although their life-plans
>don't mesh at the moment. He is all about making some success of his
>business so he can support his family. She is focussed on buying a house
>and probably a bit unrealistic about being able to afford one.

I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
market forces. Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
_are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent. So why is demand so
much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
their parents than they wanted anyway. I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
_demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
that side of the equation).
[]
>>Though Will would try to control. I think whoever it was here who said
>>Will was showing signs of being a Coercive Controller a la Rob, was very
>>perceptive.
>
>I don't think Will is controlling in the same way Rob was. He has a
>somewhat old-fashioned world view where a man works and a woman stays home
>and keeps house (whether she wants to or not). He is the boss, this is not
>an equal partnership.

I think it _is_ a similar situation, just a more dinosaur thought behind
it: I don't think Will has the _intelligence_ of Rob. (I hate saying
_anything_ positive about Rob, but he was extremely ingenious - perhaps
I'll feel better if I use the more negative word cunning - in how he
_implemented_ his control.)
>
>It's not clear where this comes from - it has not been the case in his own
>family - Clarrie is the one who has kept things together there, sometimes
>with several part-time jobs. Although she probably has put a meal on the
>table at the end of every day. Will also seems to have missed the fact that
>his mother, ultimately, rules the roost.

But, on the whole, she does it quietly. Such that Will, of limited
intelligence as I have said, didn't notice the fact. Clarrie lets Eddie
_appear_ to make all the decisions, so Will perhaps "saw" that.
>
>I loved the scene between Joe and Nic and was pleasantly surprised by her

Yes, I thought it was nice, too. (I did wonder what Ed would have
thought if he came in and found them dancing, but then I remembered that
Joe _is_ ninetysomething, so that wasn't really a worry.)

>response to Will when he whined about not finding a meal ready for him when
>he came home (where were the children when Nic was with Joe?
(Good question, though I think we can accept it not being answered.)
>
>>>Justin meets with a nasty accident.
>>I don't _yet_ share the dislike of Justin. I'm probably wrong, as I have
>>been in the past. Sure, he can be a ruthless businessman (as he was with
>>Umbrella after Matt encouraged him to call Justin's bluff over the land
>>- justifiably I thought!), and he clearly has some plans of his own he
>>hasn't revealed so far. But if I'm right, he could become the next Brian
>>in Ambridge - the current one can't go on for ever (how old _is_ he?),
>
>Brian is 74 this year. I'd have thought Justin was much the same age (his
>close friend is 71).

Brian is showing flashes of being fed up with things though. Though only
occasionally, and perhaps the boardroom triumph will have given him a
new lease of enthusiasm. I don't _think_ Justin has shown any such
flashes.
>
>I don't really trust either of them to 'do the right thing' in any
>situation. It's been interesting seeing an anxious Brian recently.

Indeed!
[]
>>And I like Lexi too. She has her faults (e. g. where she spoke up on
>>some matter that wasn't her purview, over hotel management), but I think
>>could be an interesting character to keep.
>
>I agree, though I find her relationship with the dismal Roy a little
>unbelievable. She has also provided an older female confidante for some of
>the younger women in Ambridge - a job which otherwise falls to Lizzie
>these days.

A good point that I hadn't thought of. (I suppose Clarrie and Jolene are
_too_ old for them? [Let alone - god help us - Susan.])
>
>> And of course the surrogacy
>>story - and, more interesting perhaps, the elderly-parents story - has
>>potential legs, both dramatically and public-information-wise. (I know
>>TA nominally no longer has that brief, but I think all the soaps _do_ do
>>it from time to time.)
>
>I'm less keen on this story. I think both Adam and Ian are too old to take
>on a baby and don't feel their own relationship is strong enough to cope
>with it.

I think you are right about their shaky relationship; I was just
thinking about them as elderly parents would raise interesting issues,
even if their relationship were sound. (Not to mention, of course, the
gay aspect.) I suppose we've had a fair number of older parents in
Ambridge over the years, such as Brian and Jennifer with (the now
silent) rrrry, but I sort of feel - whatever the _actual_ ages - that
Ian and Adam are older in this respect. Especially for a _first_ child.
>
>Gosh, a whole post about TA - I must be slipping...

Me too - though I managed to deviate over the housing demand aspect (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]
Vicky
2018-02-18 18:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>I don't think Will is controlling in the same way Rob was. He has a
>>somewhat old-fashioned world view where a man works and a woman stays home
>>and keeps house (whether she wants to or not). He is the boss, this is not
>>an equal partnership.
>
>I think it _is_ a similar situation, just a more dinosaur thought behind
>it: I don't think Will has the _intelligence_ of Rob. (I hate saying
>_anything_ positive about Rob, but he was extremely ingenious - perhaps
>I'll feel better if I use the more negative word cunning - in how he
>_implemented_ his control.)

Will is actually doing what Roib did in trying to isolate Nic. Making
sure she is not friends with Emma is one way and perhaps the scene,
when retold to Clarrie, will mean Nic is not as close to her as
Clarrie will disapprove. Ed will say how it was and Will will even
brag about how Nic turned down Emma's olive branch.


>>
>>It's not clear where this comes from - it has not been the case in his own
>>family - Clarrie is the one who has kept things together there, sometimes
>>with several part-time jobs. Although she probably has put a meal on the
>>table at the end of every day. Will also seems to have missed the fact that
>>his mother, ultimately, rules the roost.

--

Vicky
Kate B
2018-02-18 18:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 17:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snippety>

> I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
> matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
> basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
> market forces. Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
> much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
> _are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
> there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
> has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
> hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent. So why is demand so
> much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
> young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
> parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
> change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
> rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
> LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
> Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
> long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
> their parents than they wanted anyway. I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
> _demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
> that side of the equation).
> []

A shocking number of newbuild and redeveloped dwellings are being sold
abroad, particularly in China - indeed, some developments are actually
being marketed in Shanghai before locally (this happened in Vauxhall and
also in Lewisham). Developers know they can get top dollar for an
investment property sold to an off-shore investor and often the
investors don't even want to let the property, too much hassle.
Associated scandals involve developers declaring that building
affordable housing is not affordable for them, or that providing
necessary social infrastructure such as play areas is also unaffordable,
but giving the council a sum of money 'in lieu' can always be arranged.
So the available affordable family-size housing stock diminishes, slowly
but very surely.

Sadiq Khan is trying his best - he wants to ensure that housing
developments are offered first to locals and key workers, and that
there's a limit on foreign-owned housing - but I'm not sure how far he
can get with that without government backing.


--
Kate B
London
Btms
2018-02-19 08:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2018 17:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> <snippety>
>
>> I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
>> matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
>> basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
>> market forces. Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
>> much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
>> _are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
>> there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
>> has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
>> hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent. So why is demand so
>> much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
>> young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
>> parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
>> change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
>> rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
>> LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
>> Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
>> long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
>> their parents than they wanted anyway. I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
>> _demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
>> that side of the equation).
>> []
>
> A shocking number of newbuild and redeveloped dwellings are being sold
> abroad, particularly in China - indeed, some developments are actually
> being marketed in Shanghai before locally (this happened in Vauxhall and
> also in Lewisham). Developers know they can get top dollar for an
> investment property sold to an off-shore investor and often the
> investors don't even want to let the property, too much hassle.
> Associated scandals involve developers declaring that building
> affordable housing is not affordable for them, or that providing
> necessary social infrastructure such as play areas is also unaffordable,
> but giving the council a sum of money 'in lieu' can always be arranged.
> So the available affordable family-size housing stock diminishes, slowly
> but very surely.
>
> Sadiq Khan is trying his best - he wants to ensure that housing
> developments are offered first to locals and key workers, and that
> there's a limit on foreign-owned housing - but I'm not sure how far he
> can get with that without government backing.
>
>

Are the Government entitled?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris McMillan
2018-02-19 15:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2018 17:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> <snippety>
>
>> I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
>> matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
>> basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
>> market forces. Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
>> much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
>> _are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
>> there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
>> has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
>> hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent. So why is demand so
>> much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
>> young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
>> parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
>> change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
>> rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
>> LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
>> Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
>> long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
>> their parents than they wanted anyway. I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
>> _demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
>> that side of the equation).
>> []
>
> A shocking number of newbuild and redeveloped dwellings are being sold
> abroad, particularly in China - indeed, some developments are actually
> being marketed in Shanghai before locally (this happened in Vauxhall and
> also in Lewisham). Developers know they can get top dollar for an
> investment property sold to an off-shore investor and often the
> investors don't even want to let the property, too much hassle.
> Associated scandals involve developers declaring that building
> affordable housing is not affordable for them, or that providing
> necessary social infrastructure such as play areas is also unaffordable,
> but giving the council a sum of money 'in lieu' can always be arranged.
> So the available affordable family-size housing stock diminishes, slowly
> but very surely.
>
> Sadiq Khan is trying his best - he wants to ensure that housing
> developments are offered first to locals and key workers, and that
> there's a limit on foreign-owned housing - but I'm not sure how far he
> can get with that without government backing.
>
>

Dratted Chinese, they built their own ‘new towns’, the infamous one is
Pudong in Shanghai, designed ro look British. Ghost town.

Sincerely Chris
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-19 20:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <TpCiC.79847$***@fx24.am4>, Chris McMillan
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
[]
>Dratted Chinese, they built their own ‘new towns’, the infamous one is
>Pudong in Shanghai, designed ro look British. Ghost town.
>
>Sincerely Chris
>
Can we send people over to live in them? Make them rook even more
authentic (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

This was before we knew that a laboratory rat, if experimented upon, will
develop cancer. [Quoted by] Anne (***@aol.com), 1997-1-29
Chris McMillan
2018-02-20 09:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <TpCiC.79847$***@fx24.am4>, Chris McMillan
> <***@ntlworld.com> writes:
> []
>> Dratted Chinese, they built their own ‘new towns’, the infamous one is
>> Pudong in Shanghai, designed ro look British. Ghost town.
>>
>> Sincerely Chris
>>
> Can we send people over to live in them? Make them rook even more
> authentic (-:!

LOL!

Sincerely Chris
Fenny
2018-02-18 19:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
>_demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
>that side of the equation).

There are more single person households. This is one of the main
factors. The houses that are being built are mostly not small
properties, as these don't command the same premiums for the building
companies.

There are also far more private houses being used as student
accommodation. One of the boom areas for building is student
accommodation, but this doesn't keep up with demand. The people who
complain about not being able to afford houses are the ones who want
nice places to live in as students.

And make no mistake, the reason for the lack of houses being built is
nothing to do with councils - they are passing planning applications
at a massive rate - it's the building companies limiting the number of
properties they build.

In London, where building is happening all over the place, the
properties are mostly for overseas investors. Try finding anyone
living in their own new apartments along the waterfront around
Greenwich who is a UK national.

What we need are more good quality, 2 bedroom apartments in blocks
with lifts, that are suitable for older people to downsize into.
Bungalows take up too much for builders to bother with them any more,
so the best option for older people is a flat in a place where they
don't have to carry the shopping up the stairs. But apart from
McCarthy & Stone, there aren't many companies bothered about building
decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
can't sell them.
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-18 21:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
<***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
>>_demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
>>that side of the equation).
>
>There are more single person households. This is one of the main

That was my opinion of part of the reason for the rise in demand. But
presumably that should settle down eventually: probably with more single
households, but the _proportion_ must settle.

>factors. The houses that are being built are mostly not small
>properties, as these don't command the same premiums for the building
>companies.

Then authorities - or government - or whoever, need to use the big stick
more with builders/developers.
>
>There are also far more private houses being used as student
>accommodation. One of the boom areas for building is student
>accommodation, but this doesn't keep up with demand. The people who

I hadn't thought of that being a specific cause, but it probably is -
but only a little. Those wanting student accommodation would probably
still want accommodation if they _weren't_ students, wouldn't they?
Perhaps not _quite_ so soon, but I'd have thought that aspect would have
filtered through by now.

>complain about not being able to afford houses are the ones who want
>nice places to live in as students.

I think that's a _bit_ unfair - surely they'd want nice places to live
whether they're students or not? Or maybe I'm not quite grasping your
point.
>
>And make no mistake, the reason for the lack of houses being built is
>nothing to do with councils - they are passing planning applications
>at a massive rate - it's the building companies limiting the number of
>properties they build.

See above. I _really_ can't see them making a loss - in fact anything
but a _reasonable_ profit - in all but the most depressed areas, for new
builds. So they need a boot up them.
>
>In London, where building is happening all over the place, the
>properties are mostly for overseas investors. Try finding anyone
>living in their own new apartments along the waterfront around
>Greenwich who is a UK national.

That's gonna be more difficult to control. Heavy taxes for
non-owner-occupiers (that _can't_ be passed on to tenants), perhaps, and
maybe (maybe easier after Brexit?) more controls on foreign ownership?
>
>What we need are more good quality, 2 bedroom apartments in blocks
>with lifts, that are suitable for older people to downsize into.

And one bedroom ones for single people (old _and_ young; I'm thinking
mainly of young). Yes, in blocks if necessary.

>Bungalows take up too much for builders to bother with them any more,
>so the best option for older people is a flat in a place where they
>don't have to carry the shopping up the stairs. But apart from
>McCarthy & Stone, there aren't many companies bothered about building
>decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>can't sell them.
Why would that appeal to McC&S?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010
Vicky
2018-02-18 21:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:09 +0000, Fenny
<***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:

>
>What we need are more good quality, 2 bedroom apartments in blocks
>with lifts, that are suitable for older people to downsize into.
>Bungalows take up too much for builders to bother with them any more,
>so the best option for older people is a flat in a place where they
>don't have to carry the shopping up the stairs. But apart from
>McCarthy & Stone, there aren't many companies bothered about building
>decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>can't sell them.


Why would they want the resale value to plummet and stop people
selling? If they are retirement flats usually people can only sell to
someone over 55. Usually also the flats are only sold when the owner
dies, and the family sell. Although i did have a retirement flat when
I bought my Spanish flat and then sold it when I came back to the UK
for good as I needed somewhere big enough for the menagerie. No pets
int he retirement flat.

Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?

--

Vicky
Fenny
2018-02-19 00:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:23:31 +0000, Vicky <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:09 +0000, Fenny
><***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What we need are more good quality, 2 bedroom apartments in blocks
>>with lifts, that are suitable for older people to downsize into.
>>Bungalows take up too much for builders to bother with them any more,
>>so the best option for older people is a flat in a place where they
>>don't have to carry the shopping up the stairs. But apart from
>>McCarthy & Stone, there aren't many companies bothered about building
>>decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>can't sell them.
>
>
>Why would they want the resale value to plummet and stop people
>selling? If they are retirement flats usually people can only sell to
>someone over 55. Usually also the flats are only sold when the owner
>dies, and the family sell. Although i did have a retirement flat when
>I bought my Spanish flat and then sold it when I came back to the UK
>for good as I needed somewhere big enough for the menagerie. No pets
>int he retirement flat.

Or when the person needs residential care. M&S flats are independent
living. But even the Extra Care complex where Ma doesn't provide
sufficient care for people with Alzheimers or other more advanced
conditions. Several people from Ma's place have moved on to
residential homes. Last summer, there were 3 flats on the market,
none of which went for the asking price (we know, as we considered
moving Pa into one of them).
>
>Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?

Because they just build more! There is currently a huge issue with
retirement flats not selling for what they were originally purchased
for. Many are now rented out - such as the two Pa has/is living in.
The owner of the previous flat is 107 and now lives in residential
care. Keeping the flat and renting out continues to bring in an
income. Selling it will merely realise the negative equity.

There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer. They
visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington. These people
bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price. Meanwhile,
M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
£200k.
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-19 06:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
<***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
[]
>>>decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>>resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>>can't sell them.
[]
>>Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>>if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?
>
>Because they just build more! There is currently a huge issue with
[]
>There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer. They
>visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington. These people
>bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price. Meanwhile,
>M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
>£200k.

There's obviously more to this than the report covered, then (so what's
new, of course): one needs to know _why_ flats for 200k are selling
"happily" while ones for 150k aren't.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

He who prides himself on giving what he thinks the public wants is often
creating a fictitious demand for low standards which he will then satisfy.
- Lord Reith
carolet
2018-02-19 12:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/02/2018 06:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
> <***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
> []
>>>> decent retirement flats.  And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>>> resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>>> can't sell them.
> []
>>> Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>>> if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?
>>
>> Because they just build more!  There is currently a huge issue with
> []
>> There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer.  They
>> visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington.  These people
>> bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price.  Meanwhile,
>> M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
>> £200k.
>
> There's obviously more to this than the report covered, then (so what's
> new, of course): one needs to know _why_ flats for 200k are selling
> "happily" while ones for 150k aren't.

I could be mixing up two stories here, but I think that the older flats
came with various facilities promised, some of these promises never
materialised and others came and went, or were not as promised. I
believe that one of the promises was free access to a neighbouring golf
course, but that never happened. Another was access to medical care, I
can't recall what the problem was but it turned out to be less good than
expected. The flats are clearly worth less without all of these selling
points. Because of the way that the promises were made (in the brochure,
but not the contract, I think), the owners can not claim any compensation.

Meanwhile, the new flats have glossy brochures designed to lure in new
buyers.

--


CaroleT
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-19 14:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <p6eegl$uuh$***@dont-email.me>, carolet
<***@btinternet.com> writes:
>On 19/02/2018 06:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
>><***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
>> []
>>>>> decent retirement flats.  And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>>>> resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>>>> can't sell them.
>> []
>>>> Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>>>> if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?
>>>
>>> Because they just build more!  There is currently a huge issue with
>> []
>>> There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer.  They
>>> visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington.  These people
>>> bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price.  Meanwhile,
>>> M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
>>> £200k.
>> There's obviously more to this than the report covered, then (so
>>what's new, of course): one needs to know _why_ flats for 200k are
>>selling "happily" while ones for 150k aren't.
>
>I could be mixing up two stories here, but I think that the older flats
>came with various facilities promised, some of these promises never
>materialised and others came and went, or were not as promised. I
>believe that one of the promises was free access to a neighbouring golf
>course, but that never happened. Another was access to medical care, I
>can't recall what the problem was but it turned out to be less good
>than expected. The flats are clearly worth less without all of these
>selling points. Because of the way that the promises were made (in the
>brochure, but not the contract, I think), the owners can not claim any
>compensation.
>
>Meanwhile, the new flats have glossy brochures designed to lure in new
>buyers.
>
In which case more fool they (the new buyers); surely if thinking of
buying something, certainly as expensive as property, they should be
examining the contract, not the brochure - ideally with a solicitor. And
the local media should be making a fuss, too, especially if this sort of
con has already been perpetrated nearby.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I too prefer constructive decay to futile progress. (George Mikes, "How to be
Decadent" [1977].)
Jim Easterbrook
2018-02-19 14:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32:04 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
> In which case more fool they (the new buyers); surely if thinking of
> buying something, certainly as expensive as property, they should be
> examining the contract, not the brochure - ideally with a solicitor. And
> the local media should be making a fuss, too, especially if this sort of
> con has already been perpetrated nearby.

Have you heard about leasehold houses where the ground rent doubles every
10 years? Not many solicitors spotted the problem with that and the
owners are now having difficulty selling their properties. A testament to
the functional innumeracy of many "educated" people.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Mike
2018-02-19 17:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <p6eegl$uuh$***@dont-email.me>, carolet
> <***@btinternet.com> writes:
>> On 19/02/2018 06:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
>>> <***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
>>> []
>>>>>> decent retirement flats.  And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>>>>> resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>>>>> can't sell them.
>>> []
>>>>> Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>>>>> if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?
>>>>
>>>> Because they just build more!  There is currently a huge issue with
>>> []
>>>> There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer.  They
>>>> visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington.  These people
>>>> bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price.  Meanwhile,
>>>> M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
>>>> £200k.
>>> There's obviously more to this than the report covered, then (so
>>> what's new, of course): one needs to know _why_ flats for 200k are
>>> selling "happily" while ones for 150k aren't.
>>
>> I could be mixing up two stories here, but I think that the older flats
>> came with various facilities promised, some of these promises never
>> materialised and others came and went, or were not as promised. I
>> believe that one of the promises was free access to a neighbouring golf
>> course, but that never happened. Another was access to medical care, I
>> can't recall what the problem was but it turned out to be less good
>> than expected. The flats are clearly worth less without all of these
>> selling points. Because of the way that the promises were made (in the
>> brochure, but not the contract, I think), the owners can not claim any
>> compensation.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the new flats have glossy brochures designed to lure in new
>> buyers.
>>
> In which case more fool they (the new buyers); surely if thinking of
> buying something, certainly as expensive as property, they should be
> examining the contract, not the brochure - ideally with a solicitor. And
> the local media should be making a fuss, too, especially if this sort of
> con has already been perpetrated nearby.

And please, whatever you do, don’t have the audacity to enquire if the
property is freehold....

--
Toodle Pip
Btms
2018-02-19 19:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <p6eegl$uuh$***@dont-email.me>, carolet
>> <***@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> On 19/02/2018 06:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
>>>> <***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
>>>> []
>>>>>>> decent retirement flats.  And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
>>>>>>> resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
>>>>>>> can't sell them.
>>>> []
>>>>>> Why would the company not want the flats sold when the owner dies? And
>>>>>> if the value plummets then surely they sell more easily?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they just build more!  There is currently a huge issue with
>>>> []
>>>>> There was an item on Money Box about it earlier in the summer.  They
>>>>> visited people who live in a M&S block in Bridlington.  These people
>>>>> bought for around £150k, but can't sell for that price.  Meanwhile,
>>>>> M&S are building a new block across town which are happily selling at
>>>>> £200k.
>>>> There's obviously more to this than the report covered, then (so
>>>> what's new, of course): one needs to know _why_ flats for 200k are
>>>> selling "happily" while ones for 150k aren't.
>>>
>>> I could be mixing up two stories here, but I think that the older flats
>>> came with various facilities promised, some of these promises never
>>> materialised and others came and went, or were not as promised. I
>>> believe that one of the promises was free access to a neighbouring golf
>>> course, but that never happened. Another was access to medical care, I
>>> can't recall what the problem was but it turned out to be less good
>>> than expected. The flats are clearly worth less without all of these
>>> selling points. Because of the way that the promises were made (in the
>>> brochure, but not the contract, I think), the owners can not claim any
>>> compensation.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the new flats have glossy brochures designed to lure in new
>>> buyers.
>>>
>> In which case more fool they (the new buyers); surely if thinking of
>> buying something, certainly as expensive as property, they should be
>> examining the contract, not the brochure - ideally with a solicitor. And
>> the local media should be making a fuss, too, especially if this sort of
>> con has already been perpetrated nearby.
>
> And please, whatever you do, don’t have the audacity to enquire if the
> property is freehold....
>

Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
properties were history. So how does it work now?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
the Omrud
2018-02-20 14:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:

> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
> properties were history. So how does it work now?

New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
usually are) leasehold.

--
David
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-20 14:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 14:09, the Omrud wrote:
> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>
>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>> properties were history.  So how does it work now?
>
> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
> usually are) leasehold.
>

Must they? When did that come in? I thought I'd read, quite recently,
that more developers were opting for leasehold for new developments,
even for houses, both because of the long term income stream and because
it gave them long term control over the look and feel of the development.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What can you make that cannot be seen?
A. A noise.
Jim Easterbrook
2018-02-20 15:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:25:31 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> On 20/02/2018 14:09, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>>
>>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>>> properties were history.  So how does it work now?
>>
>> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
>> usually are) leasehold.
>>
> Must they? When did that come in?

It was a proposal in December 2017. I expect there are exemptions for
land owned by the Duke of Westminster.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-unfair-leasehold-
practices--2
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Jim Easterbrook
2018-02-20 15:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:13:52 +0000, Jim Easterbrook wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:25:31 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2018 14:09, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>>>
>>>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>>>> properties were history.  So how does it work now?
>>>
>>> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
>>> usually are) leasehold.
>>>
>> Must they? When did that come in?
>
> It was a proposal in December 2017. I expect there are exemptions for
> land owned by the Duke of Westminster.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-unfair-leasehold-
> practices--2

Try that URL again:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-unfair-leasehold-practices--2
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-20 15:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 15:15, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:13:52 +0000, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:25:31 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/02/2018 14:09, the Omrud wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>>>>> properties were history.  So how does it work now?
>>>>
>>>> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
>>>> usually are) leasehold.
>>>>
>>> Must they? When did that come in?
>>
>> It was a proposal in December 2017. I expect there are exemptions for
>> land owned by the Duke of Westminster.
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-unfair-leasehold-
>> practices--2
>
> Try that URL again:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-unfair-leasehold-practices--2
>

Thanks. I hope that goes through.

--
Best wishes, Serena
All great truths begin as blasphemies. (George Bernard Shaw)
Btms
2018-02-20 15:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
the Omrud <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>
>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>> properties were history. So how does it work now?
>
> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
> usually are) leasehold.
>

Makes sense. Do you know if owners can buy the lease .... as a group of
owners.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
the Omrud
2018-02-20 18:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 15:03, Btms wrote:
> the Omrud <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>>
>>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>>> properties were history. So how does it work now?
>>
>> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
>> usually are) leasehold.
>
> Makes sense. Do you know if owners can buy the lease .... as a group of
> owners.

Freeholds are commodities and can be bought and sold. Were you asking
if the flat owners can compel the freeholders to sell to them? In
general, yes, under "collective enfranchisement", but it might not be
cheap. And of course the individual owners are still leaseholders, but
they each also own a share of the freehold.

--
David
Sid Nuncius
2018-02-21 08:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 18:34, the Omrud wrote:
> On 20/02/2018 15:03, Btms wrote:
>> the Omrud <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2018 19:35, Btms wrote:
>>>
>>>> Flats could never be freehold back in the day but I thought leasehold
>>>> properties were history.  So how does it work now?
>>>
>>> New houses must be freehold, but flats may still be (and probably
>>> usually are) leasehold.
>>
>> Makes sense.  Do you know if owners can buy the lease .... as a group of
>> owners.
>
> Freeholds are commodities and can be bought and sold.  Were you asking
> if the flat owners can compel the freeholders to sell to them?  In
> general, yes, under "collective enfranchisement", but it might not be
> cheap.  And of course the individual owners are still leaseholders, but
> they each also own a share of the freehold.

There are conditions which must be met. We bought our freehold between
the four flats here a few years ago (and no, it wasn't cheap). IIRC at
least 50% of leaseholders must agree to the purchase and each of those
leaseholders must have owned the lease for a minimum of 2 years.

Ours was relatively straightforward (FSVO "straightforward") because we
all wanted to buy the freehold, we all qualified and we all get on
pretty well together so everyone co-operated, agreed the share of costs
fairly readily, signed everything promptly, paid up on time etc. Even
so, it wasn't simple; I imagine purchases in large blocks can be a
nightmare.


--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Jenny M Benson
2018-02-19 17:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18-Feb-18 07:24 PM, Fenny wrote:
> What we need are more good quality, 2 bedroom apartments in blocks
> with lifts, that are suitable for older people to downsize into.
> Bungalows take up too much for builders to bother with them any more,
> so the best option for older people is a flat in a place where they
> don't have to carry the shopping up the stairs. But apart from
> McCarthy & Stone, there aren't many companies bothered about building
> decent retirement flats. And McCarthy & Stone are happy to watch the
> resale value of their flats plummet so that the people living in them
> can't sell them.

I don't know how true it is, but someone told me that they had heard
that "retirement flats" are very difficult to sell after the initial
purchase.

That same person also told me that "so many people" say things like "I
can't sell my house for less that £n,000 because I want to buy one with
x, y and z." I thought the way it is supposed to work is "I will have
to sell my house for whatever someone is prepared to pay and maybe I
won't be able to afford exactly what I want."

--
Jenny M Benson
Penny
2018-02-18 19:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
>matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
>basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
>market forces.

Except there are new rules regarding 'social housing' I think which has put
off some developers so now they bring in new rules about empty building
plots.

The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
houses.

I think we have a relatively large elderly population here. Lots of West
Midlanders retiring to the area. The local NHS is crumbling rapidly with a
shortage of GPs who want to work in this lovely area and no hospital within
30 miles.

But I don't think house prices are rising that rapidly here - have they
anywhere since the recession?

>Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
>much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
>_are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
>there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
>has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
>hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent.

It puzzles me. When building stopped here (about 10 years ago) the Polish
tradesmen mostly went home. I think that happened elsewhere too - where had
they been living?

Other elements of population have already been sent 'home', even though
they had contributed greatly to their new community. A local friend with an
Australian husband still worries he'll be next - though he has been
teaching 'difficult' kids in a local unit for years and they now have a
child themselves.

>So why is demand so
>much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
>young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
>parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
>change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
>rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
>LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
>Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
>long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
>their parents than they wanted anyway.

The student loans thing will not have helped youngsters to leave home
although in some cases it will have left the bank of Mum & Dad in funds
which might previously have subsidised the grant system.

The rise in house prices has always puzzled me.
The house I grew up in near Watford, 4/5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 3 recep,
double garage and a huge garden, sold in 1965 for £7,000. The one we moved
to, near Stansted Mountfitchet, 4 bedrooms, 1 bath, 2 recep, tumble-down
shed and large garden - £11,000.

When bother#3 bought a 2 bed mid-terrace in Bishop's Stortford in about
1970 it cost around £2,500.
By 1985 a terraced house in Sittingbourne (or Bishop's Stortford) cost
about £28,000.

Husgod paid too much at £7,000 for a 4 bed Tudor cottage in Kent in 1970.
When it was valued for his divorce in 1978 the figure was £24,000, when he
died in 1989 it was valued at £200,000.
When I first put it on the market in 2005 one local estate agent reckoned
he could sell it for £480,000 which was way over the top and seemed to
confirm my view that estate agents were to blame for the rise in house
prices - I didn't like him, thought he was crazy and went with someone who
seemed to be a bit more realistic.

There were, of course, high levels of inflation in the last 3 decades of
C20 which will account for the steepness of the rise at that time. This has
slowed markedly in recent years with deflation instead so things should
have slowed down - I think they have in most places.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-18 21:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
>>matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
>>basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
>>market forces.
>
>Except there are new rules regarding 'social housing' I think which has put
>off some developers so now they bring in new rules about empty building
>plots.
>
>The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
>here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
>One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
>includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
>houses.

To me, a block is _more_ suitable as sheltered housing - unless there
are many candidates who love gardening, a flat is better. And in that
case I presume they were allowed to develop the 3-4 bedroom houses to
get them going at all.
[]
>But I don't think house prices are rising that rapidly here - have they
>anywhere since the recession?

It is my understanding that they still are in "London and the south
east" - which must represent a significant proportion of the population.
[]
>It puzzles me. When building stopped here (about 10 years ago) the Polish
>tradesmen mostly went home. I think that happened elsewhere too - where had
>they been living?

Indeed! Even if mostly packed illegally into sub-standard housing, it
must have yielded _some_ stock.
[]
>The student loans thing will not have helped youngsters to leave home
>although in some cases it will have left the bank of Mum & Dad in funds
>which might previously have subsidised the grant system.

It's a grant in all but name, to a large extent.
[]
>shed and large garden - £11,000.
[]
>about £28,000.
[]
>died in 1989 it was valued at £200,000.
>When I first put it on the market in 2005 one local estate agent reckoned
>he could sell it for £480,000 which was way over the top and seemed to
[]
>There were, of course, high levels of inflation in the last 3 decades of
>C20 which will account for the steepness of the rise at that time. This has
>slowed markedly in recent years with deflation instead so things should
>have slowed down - I think they have in most places.
>
Yes, certainly one should always express such things "in today's
prices", or as a proportion of average income, otherwise the figures are
meaningless; they've still gone up depressingly, but not nearly as much
as those figures suggest. (On this evening's episode of "Call the
Midwife", at one point someone announced that there was 9/6 in the
kitty, and this was _good_ news.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010
Penny
2018-02-18 23:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:20:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
><***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:

>>The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
>>here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
>>One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
>>includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
>>houses.
>
>To me, a block is _more_ suitable as sheltered housing -

What struck me when I viewed the plans and model was the undercover
'parking' for mobility scooters. If there is a fire in a block you cannot
use the lifts and if you're not very mobile this could be a problem.

Mind you, the top floor flats facing south will have a stunning view of the
hills - which those in the top floor flats in the old mill building behind
them will have lost when the new block went up...

>unless there
>are many candidates who love gardening, a flat is better.

Many of the tiny balconies are full of potted plants.

>And in that
>case I presume they were allowed to develop the 3-4 bedroom houses to
>get them going at all.

They are on a different site - not sure if it's the same developer. If they
have gardens at all they will be tiny, probably just 'communal' green
spaces. But they back onto the riverside walk so not a bad spot - unless we
get floods to beat those in the '60s.

>[]
>>The student loans thing will not have helped youngsters to leave home
>>although in some cases it will have left the bank of Mum & Dad in funds
>>which might previously have subsidised the grant system.
>
>It's a grant in all but name, to a large extent.

But the onus is very much on the student now, not the parents.

>>There were, of course, high levels of inflation in the last 3 decades of
>>C20 which will account for the steepness of the rise at that time. This has
>>slowed markedly in recent years with deflation instead so things should
>>have slowed down - I think they have in most places.
>>
>Yes, certainly one should always express such things "in today's
>prices", or as a proportion of average income, otherwise the figures are
>meaningless; they've still gone up depressingly, but not nearly as much
>as those figures suggest. (On this evening's episode of "Call the
>Midwife", at one point someone announced that there was 9/6 in the
>kitty, and this was _good_ news.)

I noticed that. 1963 I think Mars bars had just gone up to 7d BIMBAM.

When I first served behind a bar a pint of bitter was 2/- and the old men
reminisced about paying 4d - which I found hard to believe.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-19 09:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 23:53, Penny wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:20:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
>> <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
>>> here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
>>> One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
>>> includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
>>> houses.
>>
>> To me, a block is _more_ suitable as sheltered housing -
>
> What struck me when I viewed the plans and model was the undercover
> 'parking' for mobility scooters. If there is a fire in a block you cannot
> use the lifts and if you're not very mobile this could be a problem.

The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
(both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
recharge, mobility scooters. I don't remember seeing any which admitted
to having scooter parking. Given the target market, there are likely to
be a number of residents who need to (or who REALLY should) give up
driving and who would benefit enormously from being able to have a
mobility scooter.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Doing any activity with M.E. and not expecting kickback is like going
swimming and being surprised that you got wet. (Twitter: @chestnutkay)
Vicky
2018-02-19 09:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:23:44 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
<***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:

>The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>(both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>recharge, mobility scooters. I don't remember seeing any which admitted
>to having scooter parking. Given the target market, there are likely to
>be a number of residents who need to (or who REALLY should) give up
>driving and who would benefit enormously from being able to have a
>mobility scooter.

The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
to a scooter be safe?

--

Vicky
Jim Easterbrook
2018-02-19 09:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:30:36 +0000, Vicky wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:23:44 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
> <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>>(both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>>recharge, mobility scooters. I don't remember seeing any which admitted
>>to having scooter parking. Given the target market, there are likely to
>>be a number of residents who need to (or who REALLY should) give up
>>driving and who would benefit enormously from being able to have a
>>mobility scooter.
>
> The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
> mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
> to a scooter be safe?

Obviously it does a lot less damage when it hits something. 200 kg of
scooter plus rider at 8 mph has 1.2 kJ of kinetic energy. 1.5 tonnes of
car plus passenger at 30 mph has 130 kJ of kinetic energy.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Penny
2018-02-19 11:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:30:36 +0000, Vicky <***@gmail.com> scrawled
in the dust...

>The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
>mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
>to a scooter be safe?

They can be unsafe for the user if local pavements have steep dropped
kerbs. They have been known to tip over sideways, depositing the driver in
the road.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2018-02-19 13:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:30:36 +0000, Vicky <***@gmail.com> scrawled
> in the dust...
>
>> The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
>> mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
>> to a scooter be safe?
>
> They can be unsafe for the user if local pavements have steep dropped
> kerbs. They have been known to tip over sideways, depositing the driver in
> the road.

Or being told off for speeding by the local pliceman.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris J Dixon
2018-02-19 11:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vicky wrote:

>The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
>mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
>to a scooter be safe?

I have heard that in some areas such scooters are used as
transport of choice simply because it is (generally) cheaper and
less hassle than a car for local journeys. Not sure that all
users are safe in traffic.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-19 12:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/02/2018 09:30, Vicky wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:23:44 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
> <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>> (both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>> recharge, mobility scooters. I don't remember seeing any which admitted
>> to having scooter parking. Given the target market, there are likely to
>> be a number of residents who need to (or who REALLY should) give up
>> driving and who would benefit enormously from being able to have a
>> mobility scooter.
>
> The people who should give up driving would be those whose eyesight or
> mental or physical abilities make it no longer safe? Would downgrading
> to a scooter be safe?
>

It depends just how disabled they are. My concentration and spatial
awareness are nowhere near good enough to be safe driving a car,
especially in traffic. I think I'm OK at 4 / 8 mph though - I certainly
haven't hit anything/one.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Expect nothing. Live frugally on surprise (Alice Walker)
Btms
2018-02-19 10:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2018 23:53, Penny wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:20:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
>>> <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>>> The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
>>>> here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
>>>> One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
>>>> includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
>>>> houses.
>>>
>>> To me, a block is _more_ suitable as sheltered housing -
>>
>> What struck me when I viewed the plans and model was the undercover
>> 'parking' for mobility scooters. If there is a fire in a block you cannot
>> use the lifts and if you're not very mobile this could be a problem.
>
> The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
> (both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
> recharge, mobility scooters. I don't remember seeing any which admitted
> to having scooter parking. Given the target market, there are likely to
> be a number of residents who need to (or who REALLY should) give up
> driving and who would benefit enormously from being able to have a
> mobility scooter.
>

I predict the minute we provide parking for mobility scooters, users will
be banned from parking close to an entrance.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Chris J Dixon
2018-02-19 11:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower wrote:

>The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>(both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>recharge, mobility scooters.

They would be handy on a development in my village. It is a long
and narrow rising site, with the spaces for the elderly right at
the top, past all the large detached houses, furthest from the
village centre.

Another block, built right in the centre and providing apartments
targeted at the elderly, is allegedly proving popular with small
families who can just about afford the tiny rooms.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-19 12:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/02/2018 11:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>> The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>> (both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>> recharge, mobility scooters.
>
> They would be handy on a development in my village. It is a long
> and narrow rising site, with the spaces for the elderly right at
> the top, past all the large detached houses, furthest from the
> village centre.

Yes, there's a new McCarthy & Stone development in my village. About
quarter of a mile from the High Street, including a steepish hill. I
imagine quite a few of their residents would really benefit from being
able to trundle into the village but there didn't appear to be anywhere,
either in the flats or the communal spaces, where a scooter could be parked.



--
Best wishes, Serena
Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
Chris McMillan
2018-02-19 15:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2018 11:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>>> The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>>> (both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>>> recharge, mobility scooters.
>>
>> They would be handy on a development in my village. It is a long
>> and narrow rising site, with the spaces for the elderly right at
>> the top, past all the large detached houses, furthest from the
>> village centre.
>
> Yes, there's a new McCarthy & Stone development in my village. About
> quarter of a mile from the High Street, including a steepish hill. I
> imagine quite a few of their residents would really benefit from being
> able to trundle into the village but there didn't appear to be anywhere,
> either in the flats or the communal spaces, where a scooter could be parked.
>
>
>

Not to be recommended, years ago the campus where McT worked had some new
hostels built: in the first year a lady from Taiwan arrived. She could
only use a manual chair indoors. She paid god knows what for an electric
wheelchair. First thing she found, the outside door was nor disability
compliant, only the inner door to the flats. First of all she was told to
charge it in another building a long way away (where McT worked). First
problem, building locked early Sunday mornings, no staff. Tough on
student. Solution No 2. Put charging point on *outside* of her hostel.
Solved? Nope, was vandalised a couple of times, it only had a standard
rain cover, and it met rain, snow, sleet as well as baking sun for the next
five years.

Sincerely Chris
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-19 19:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/02/2018 15:59, Chris McMillan wrote:
> Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2018 11:32, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>
>>>> The thing which struck me, when I was looking at a few such developments
>>>> (both old and new) was the lack of anywhere that you could park, or
>>>> recharge, mobility scooters.
>>>
>>> They would be handy on a development in my village. It is a long
>>> and narrow rising site, with the spaces for the elderly right at
>>> the top, past all the large detached houses, furthest from the
>>> village centre.
>>
>> Yes, there's a new McCarthy & Stone development in my village. About
>> quarter of a mile from the High Street, including a steepish hill. I
>> imagine quite a few of their residents would really benefit from being
>> able to trundle into the village but there didn't appear to be anywhere,
>> either in the flats or the communal spaces, where a scooter could be parked.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not to be recommended, years ago the campus where McT worked had some new
> hostels built: in the first year a lady from Taiwan arrived. She could
> only use a manual chair indoors. She paid god knows what for an electric
> wheelchair. First thing she found, the outside door was nor disability
> compliant, only the inner door to the flats. First of all she was told to
> charge it in another building a long way away (where McT worked). First
> problem, building locked early Sunday mornings, no staff. Tough on
> student. Solution No 2. Put charging point on *outside* of her hostel.
> Solved? Nope, was vandalised a couple of times, it only had a standard
> rain cover, and it met rain, snow, sleet as well as baking sun for the next
> five years.

Which is a pretty good example of why, given that a number of residents
are likely to want / need mobility scooters, their stabling and feeding
should be planned for and proper provision for them should be built in
from the start.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Velcro - what a rip off!
kosmo
2018-02-24 12:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:53:31 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:
> I noticed that. 1963 I think Mars bars had just gone up to 7d
BIMBAM.

Later than 1963. Parents had a shop from 1967 and it went from 6d to
7d after they bought the shop.

--
kosmo
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-24 13:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@nntp.aioe.org>, kosmo
<***@whitnet.uk> writes:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:53:31 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>> I noticed that. 1963 I think Mars bars had just gone up to 7d
>BIMBAM.
>
>Later than 1963. Parents had a shop from 1967 and it went from 6d to
>7d after they bought the shop.
>
I remember when VAT was introduced (197x), obviously replacing other
taxes, the price went _down_ - I think it might have been 4 to 3 p.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)
Penny
2018-02-24 20:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:52:42 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>In message <***@nntp.aioe.org>, kosmo
><***@whitnet.uk> writes:
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:53:31 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>>wrote:
>>> I noticed that. 1963 I think Mars bars had just gone up to 7d
>>BIMBAM.
>>
>>Later than 1963. Parents had a shop from 1967 and it went from 6d to
>>7d after they bought the shop.
>>
>I remember when VAT was introduced (197x), obviously replacing other
>taxes, the price went _down_ - I think it might have been 4 to 3 p.

I remember a brief period, probably in 1972, when purchase tax had gone
away and VAT had not arrived. I took advantage of this to buy a gold ring.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris McMillan
2018-02-19 15:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:22:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
>> matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
>> basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
>> market forces.
>
> Except there are new rules regarding 'social housing' I think which has put
> off some developers so now they bring in new rules about empty building
> plots.
>
> The last two years have seen two large building plots, empty since we moved
> here 10 years ago, finally being built on by a local housing association.
> One specifically as sheltered housing for the elderly or infirm (though it
> includes a large four-storey block) and the other a close of 3-4 bedroom
> houses.
>
> I think we have a relatively large elderly population here. Lots of West
> Midlanders retiring to the area. The local NHS is crumbling rapidly with a
> shortage of GPs who want to work in this lovely area and no hospital within
> 30 miles.
>
> But I don't think house prices are rising that rapidly here - have they
> anywhere since the recession?
>
>> Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
>> much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
>> _are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
>> there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
>> has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
>> hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent.
>
> It puzzles me. When building stopped here (about 10 years ago) the Polish
> tradesmen mostly went home. I think that happened elsewhere too - where had
> they been living?
>
> Other elements of population have already been sent 'home', even though
> they had contributed greatly to their new community. A local friend with an
> Australian husband still worries he'll be next - though he has been
> teaching 'difficult' kids in a local unit for years and they now have a
> child themselves.
>
>> So why is demand so
>> much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
>> young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
>> parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
>> change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
>> rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
>> LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
>> Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
>> long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
>> their parents than they wanted anyway.
>
> The student loans thing will not have helped youngsters to leave home
> although in some cases it will have left the bank of Mum & Dad in funds
> which might previously have subsidised the grant system.
>
> The rise in house prices has always puzzled me.
> The house I grew up in near Watford, 4/5 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 3 recep,
> double garage and a huge garden, sold in 1965 for £7,000. The one we moved
> to, near Stansted Mountfitchet, 4 bedrooms, 1 bath, 2 recep, tumble-down
> shed and large garden - £11,000.
>
> When bother#3 bought a 2 bed mid-terrace in Bishop's Stortford in about
> 1970 it cost around £2,500.
> By 1985 a terraced house in Sittingbourne (or Bishop's Stortford) cost
> about £28,000.
>
> Husgod paid too much at £7,000 for a 4 bed Tudor cottage in Kent in 1970.
> When it was valued for his divorce in 1978 the figure was £24,000, when he
> died in 1989 it was valued at £200,000.
> When I first put it on the market in 2005 one local estate agent reckoned
> he could sell it for £480,000 which was way over the top and seemed to
> confirm my view that estate agents were to blame for the rise in house
> prices - I didn't like him, thought he was crazy and went with someone who
> seemed to be a bit more realistic.
>
> There were, of course, high levels of inflation in the last 3 decades of
> C20 which will account for the steepness of the rise at that time. This has
> slowed markedly in recent years with deflation instead so things should
> have slowed down - I think they have in most places.
>

They haven’t all gone home. Just seen yet another Polish deli opening in
Reading town centre.

Sincerely Chris
LFS
2018-02-19 11:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 17:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> I've been giving a little thought to the housing crisis in the country
> matter. Why are house prices going up so fast? Presumably, in a
> basically capitalist society, it's supply and demand, also known as
> market forces. Now, supply, it seems, is not going to increase _that_
> much - there just isn't the money in the kitty; though a lot of councils
> _are_ (sometimes against their will) passing plans for lots more. But
> there doesn't seem to have been much attention given to why the _demand_
> has grown so much: since house prices were a lot lower, the population
> hasn't grown _that_ much: maybe 10 to 15 per cent. So why is demand so
> much higher? I used to think it was a change in demographics - more
> young people wanting to live alone, or at least separate from their
> parents; and thus I thought this will settle down eventually, as the
> change becomes the norm. (And there's _some_ evidence that house price
> rises _have_ slowed considerably - but that's only outside
> LondonAndTheSouthEast, so it has elements of "apart from that, Mrs.
> Lincoln". I think any slowdown is more likely just due to the
> long-running recession.) But it seems people are now staying longer with
> their parents than they wanted anyway. I'm just somewhat puzzled by why
> _demand_ is so high (and why hardly any attention seems to be paid to
> that side of the equation).
>

My impression is that demand has been inflated over a lengthy period by
buy-to-let activity. This has been particularly problematic in areas
with large numbers of students: the demand not only raises prices but
changes the nature of entire neighbourhoods, and not in a good way.

I think the biggest shift in viewing property as investment rather than
homes took place under Thatcher - not just the sale of council housing
but also encouragement to invest. I can remember a colleague coming up
with a plan to buy a whole street in a run-down part of Doncaster and
trying to persuade people to invest with him because the incentives
offered by government were quite significant.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Btms
2018-02-19 13:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LFS <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/02/2018 17:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[][][]
>
> My impression is that demand has been inflated over a lengthy period by
> buy-to-let activity. This has been particularly problematic in areas
> with large numbers of students: the demand not only raises prices but
> changes the nature of entire neighbourhoods, and not in a good way.
>
> I think the biggest shift in viewing property as investment rather than
> homes took place under Thatcher - not just the sale of council housing
> but also encouragement to invest. I can remember a colleague coming up
> with a plan to buy a whole street in a run-down part of Doncaster and
> trying to persuade people to invest with him because the incentives
> offered by government were quite significant.
>

But better than being left derelict, shurely!

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
vk
2018-02-18 16:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 10:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> (Spoiler alert near the end, re the BL board decision.)
>
> In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> Is this foo bah or just everyone is busy or this is dying?
>
> I hope it's just busy-ness! I too was surprised to find only this one
> post here. Or, it's Sunday, and UMRAts are just having a lie-in.
>
I wish. Working :(
SODAM
2018-02-18 12:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vicky <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this foo bah or just everyone is busy or this is dying?
> Ok. I am considering applying for the forward planner job for TA as
> Btms hasn't got the editor job. I thought Friday was a bit depressing
> and not a good end of week episode.
>
> I don't think Emma and Ed are really right for each other. I think in
> future she will do well in the local council and be invited to the
> Women's Equality Party to stand and get in as local MP. She will then
> spend five out of seven days in London and she and Ed will grow apart.
> She might meet someone else.
>
> Ed will realise he is not as upset as he should be and Fallon, who
> never stopped loving him, comforts him. They get the band back
> together on a mission to raise money for Pat's charity. Jazzer joins
> them and Eddy and Jolene support them too, as does Wayne.
>
> The band is a huge success and just as Emma gets a post as assistant
> to the Min of Ag or DSS, after the WE party has a landslide victory
> and Sandi is PM, or young Umbrella, the youngest PM ever, the band hit
> the big time, tv, US tour, Australia, the old and young all going
> along, with the kids too. Not PC Umbrella.
>
> Ed and Fallon realise they are meant for each other. When they all get
> home Eddy has been faithful to Clarrie and Jolene to Kenton and Ed and
> Fallon have refrained from sausages or seabirds, but all realise this
> is it and PC and Emma accept it. Will sneers. Nic is jealous of Emma's
> success, and having run the teashop while the two owners were away she
> gets it permanently.
>
> Nolly accompanies Kate back to Ambridge after a few months in SA and
> is able to help Nic as well as finish her education at the local
> college, keeping her eye on Freddy. Lilly goes to university.
>
> Justin meets with a nasty accident. Matt has been biding his time. He
> escapes again back to SA. Jill doesn't live to see the new Archer Pip
> has and Brookfield struggles to manage without her. David loses weight
> as nobody bakes cakes for him. Kirsty finds out that Philip is Up To
> Something Bad. I'd take suggestions.
>

Don’t worry about Philip, Vicky. He’s just A Man, cobbled onto the script
because now that half the village has been moved out or forgotten, there
aren’t enough people to go around. He has been brought in to give Kirsty an
Experience - maybe a broken heart, maybe a marriage, maybe just a
relationship that will show her she still loves John. Nobody in The Archers
ever gets married without it being on and off several times first, just as
no baby is born without some attendant problem.

Soosan will find that her particular skills are superfluous in the
Borsetshire job market, and once she realises this,content herself with
selling goat’s milk kefir. This will become very successful, as all
business ideas do in Ambridge even with no planning nor experience. John
may stop whingeing for a while because this will make his scholarship
worthwhile and he can win an award.

Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has some kind
of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful reconciliation.

Christine will die and the family be shocked when she has nothing to leave
in her will. Peggy will die. Nobody will want her cat. Joe Grundy will die
and Oliver can then give notice to the family and regain his home. Justin
will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything. Jill
will die, as Vicky suggests, and Brookfield fall apart domestically . Toby
will get a new girlfriend.

Rob will turn up again, twirling his mustachios, and fall into the slurry
pit and drown while attempting a midnight abduction.

--
SODAM
The thinking umrat’s choice for editor
Penny
2018-02-18 13:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> scrawled in
the dust...

>Don’t worry about Philip, Vicky. He’s just A Man, cobbled onto the script
>because now that half the village has been moved out or forgotten, there
>aren’t enough people to go around. He has been brought in to give Kirsty an
>Experience - maybe a broken heart, maybe a marriage, maybe just a
>relationship that will show her she still loves John.

Ooo, as resurrection storyline in time for Easter?
(although I don't recall Kirsty ever declaring any interest in John)

>John
>may stop whingeing for a while because this will make his scholarship
>worthwhile and he can win an award.

Ah, I wasn't sure before but think your umbrella may be broken.

>Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has some kind
>of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful reconciliation.

I'd put money on that one.

>Christine will die and the family be shocked when she has nothing to leave
>in her will. Peggy will die. Nobody will want her cat.

No one will be surprised about Cardboard lack of money - or was that
'secret' better kept than I think?

>Joe Grundy will die
>and Oliver can then give notice to the family and regain his home.

But Oliver doesn't want to live there - maybe he'll let the Grundys
continue in residence. Time for the usual Grundy crisis when Oliver dies.

>Justin
>will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.

Sounds plausible. If he made a will in contemplation of marriage it
presumably won't be valid since they didn't.

I think theTrust set up by Matt may still exist to support Lilian though.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky
2018-02-18 13:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:16:22 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> scrawled in
>the dust...
>
>>Don’t worry about Philip, Vicky. He’s just A Man, cobbled onto the script
>>because now that half the village has been moved out or forgotten, there
>>aren’t enough people to go around. He has been brought in to give Kirsty an
>>Experience - maybe a broken heart, maybe a marriage, maybe just a
>>relationship that will show her she still loves John.
>
>Ooo, as resurrection storyline in time for Easter?
>(although I don't recall Kirsty ever declaring any interest in John)
>
>>John
>>may stop whingeing for a while because this will make his scholarship
>>worthwhile and he can win an award.
>
>Ah, I wasn't sure before but think your umbrella may be broken.

No don't tell her. I loved the Easter special.

--

Vicky
Fenny
2018-02-18 16:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:16:22 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>>Justin
>>will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>
>Sounds plausible. If he made a will in contemplation of marriage it
>presumably won't be valid since they didn't.

Any will Justin made while he was married to Miranda is no longer
married. Any will he has made since them would have to have been
amended when he & Lilian got married. But they didn't, so it's still
valid.
--
Fenny
Btms
2018-02-18 17:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:16:22 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Justin
>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>
>> Sounds plausible. If he made a will in contemplation of marriage it
>> presumably won't be valid since they didn't.
>
> Any will Justin made while he was married to Miranda is no longer
> married. Any will he has made since them would have to have been
> amended when he & Lilian got married. But they didn't, so it's still
> valid.

Praps this is real reason the gods ordained they should not marry?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky
2018-02-18 18:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:51:32 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
wrote:

>Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:16:22 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Justin
>>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>>
>>> Sounds plausible. If he made a will in contemplation of marriage it
>>> presumably won't be valid since they didn't.
>>
>> Any will Justin made while he was married to Miranda is no longer
>> married. Any will he has made since them would have to have been
>> amended when he & Lilian got married. But they didn't, so it's still
>> valid.
>
>Praps this is real reason the gods ordained they should not marry?

If whoever it was is very much against Matt being the instrument of
Justin's death, it could be Will,who shoots him, in defence of Brian,
how Master. :). There will be some scene, perhaps at a shoot, when
Watchdog Will sees Justin as a threat to Brian's peace, or life.

--

Vicky
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-18 14:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
> Justin
> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.


I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
absolute.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Why is Europe like a frying pan?
A. Because it has Greece at the bottom.
Penny
2018-02-18 18:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
<***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>> Justin
>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>
>
>I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>absolute.

So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Fenny
2018-02-18 19:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:40:11 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
><***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>>> Justin
>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>
>>
>>I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>>he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>>Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>>then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>>absolute.
>
>So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
>woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?

Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will. As soon
as his divorce went through, he will have drawn up a new will. This is
currently the valid one. He may have written a new one to be signed
following his marriage to Lilian, but they didn't get married. So
it's his choice as to whether to adjust the current one or not.
--
Fenny
Vicky
2018-02-18 21:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:27:06 +0000, Fenny
<***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:40:11 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>><***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>>On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>>>> Justin
>>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>>>he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>>>Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>>>then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>>>absolute.
>>
>>So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
>>woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?
>
>Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will. As soon
>as his divorce went through, he will have drawn up a new will. This is
>currently the valid one. He may have written a new one to be signed
>following his marriage to Lilian, but they didn't get married. So
>it's his choice as to whether to adjust the current one or not.

I might be remembering wrong, but did Lilian sign some sort of
disclaimer of intention of taking any of Justin's worldly goods after
marriage? I suppose that is not valid as they didn't marry, but then
she is not entitled to any as they didn't.

--

Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-18 21:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
>I might be remembering wrong, but did Lilian sign some sort of
>disclaimer of intention of taking any of Justin's worldly goods after
>marriage? I suppose that is not valid as they didn't marry, but then
>she is not entitled to any as they didn't.
>
Although there's been some change in the last year or two, of which I
forget the details, I thought "prenups" still have dubious validity in
this country (as opposed to USA).

Perversely, I have the feeling that a prenup where there _wasn't_ an
actual nup might have _more_ validity, but IANAL!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010
the Omrud
2018-02-19 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 21:43, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
> []
>> I might be remembering wrong, but did Lilian sign some sort of
>> disclaimer of intention of taking any of Justin's worldly goods after
>> marriage? I suppose that is not valid as they didn't marry, but then
>> she is not entitled to any as they didn't.
>>
> Although there's been some change in the last year or two, of which I
> forget the details, I thought "prenups" still have dubious validity in
> this country (as opposed to USA).
>
> Perversely, I have the feeling that a prenup where there _wasn't_ an
> actual nup might have _more_ validity, but IANAL!

Without checking, I think you are right, and that further, any such
agreements are heavily frowned upon by the courts unless the parties
both took independent legal advice.

But of course this only matters if Justin dies and Lillian makes a claim
on his estate. If she doesn't then the matter is immaterial.

--
David
Fenny
2018-02-19 00:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:25:21 +0000, Vicky <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:27:06 +0000, Fenny
><***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:40:11 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>>><***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>>
>>>>On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>>>>> Justin
>>>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>>>>he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>>>>Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>>>>then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>>>>absolute.
>>>
>>>So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
>>>woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?
>>
>>Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will. As soon
>>as his divorce went through, he will have drawn up a new will. This is
>>currently the valid one. He may have written a new one to be signed
>>following his marriage to Lilian, but they didn't get married. So
>>it's his choice as to whether to adjust the current one or not.
>
>I might be remembering wrong, but did Lilian sign some sort of
>disclaimer of intention of taking any of Justin's worldly goods after
>marriage? I suppose that is not valid as they didn't marry, but then
>she is not entitled to any as they didn't.

Justin's will covers a heck of a lot more than the house he lives in.
Whether or not Lilian signed anything, Justin's will will have been
well and truly checked out by his lawyers and will be valid for his
current state of matrimony. Real business people are generally not as
dumb as soap opera writers make them out to be.
--
Fenny
Penny
2018-02-18 23:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:27:06 +0000, Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net>
scrawled in the dust...

>Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will.

I'd have said the same of the husgod...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
carolet
2018-02-19 01:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/2018 19:27, Fenny wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:40:11 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>> <***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>>>> Justin
>>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>>> he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>>> Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>>> then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>>> absolute.
>>
>> So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
>> woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?
>
> Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will. As soon
> as his divorce went through, he will have drawn up a new will. This is
> currently the valid one. He may have written a new one to be signed
> following his marriage to Lilian, but they didn't get married. So
> it's his choice as to whether to adjust the current one or not.
>

Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
problem that he might have missed.

I have a friend whose situation was somewhat similar to Lilian's. She
also moved in with a man who was divorced. They said that they would
marry but never did so. There was no spectacular non-marriage, as there
was with Lilian and Justin, they just hadn't got round to tying the knot
when he died suddenly. He had written a will to make sure that my friend
and their young children were provided for, he had written it in
anticipation of their supposedly forthcoming nuptials, so that a wedding
would not automatically revoke it. I can't remember all of the details,
but because they hadn't married in a reasonable time, it was not deemed
to be valid, and my friend was not left in the position that she might
have supposed.



--


CaroleT
Fenny
2018-02-19 17:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>problem that he might have missed.

I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
pages when the need arises.
--
Fenny
Btms
2018-02-19 19:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>> problem that he might have missed.
>
> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
> pages when the need arises.

Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sally Thompson
2018-02-19 22:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> wrote:
> Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
>> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>>> problem that he might have missed.
>>
>> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
>> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
>> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
>> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
>> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
>> pages when the need arises.
>
> Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
> of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.
>

Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
expertise. I’m sure most firms do.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Chris J Dixon
2018-02-20 08:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sally Thompson wrote:

>Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
>expertise. I’m sure most firms do.

Somebody who was a colleague for a while told us kept his local
practice busy; one guy handling his conveyancing, one his
drink-driving and one his divorce.

One Friday lunchtime he went to the pub across the road and
hadn't returned by close of play. He left the company soon
after, apparently intending to go grape picking somewhere warmer.

Looking back, it already feels like a different era, when a
lunchtime drink was quite usual. Nowadays, in many disciplines
there is a strict drink and drugs policy in place.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Btms
2018-02-20 09:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> wrote:
>> Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
>>> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>>>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>>>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>>>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>>>> problem that he might have missed.
>>>
>>> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
>>> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
>>> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
>>> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
>>> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
>>> pages when the need arises.
>>
>> Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
>> of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.
>>
>
> Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
> expertise. I’m sure most firms do.
>

Yes but Company Law is usually handled by a specialist firm entirely -
wheels within wheels is rarer.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Serena Blanchflower
2018-02-20 09:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 09:21, Btms wrote:
> Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
>>>> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>>>>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>>>>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>>>>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>>>>> problem that he might have missed.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
>>>> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
>>>> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
>>>> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
>>>> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
>>>> pages when the need arises.
>>>
>>> Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
>>> of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.
>>>
>>
>> Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
>> expertise. I’m sure most firms do.
>>
>
> Yes but Company Law is usually handled by a specialist firm entirely -
> wheels within wheels is rarer.
>

Is it? I just had a look at the fairly large firm of solicitors I used
when I moved house. Checking the list of areas of expertise they claim,
a large proportion are commercial / company law, along with the more
domestic stuff. The only area they don't seem to take much interest in
is common or garden criminal law.

<https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk>

--
Best wishes, Serena
Way down deep, we're all motivated by the same urges. Cats have the
courage to live by them. (Jim Davis)
Jim Easterbrook
2018-02-20 09:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:33:58 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> The only area they don't seem to take much interest in
> is common or garden criminal law.

"We've got a criminal practice that takes up most of our time."
(From the "Bona Law" sketch in Round The Horne.)
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Btms
2018-02-20 14:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2018 09:21, Btms wrote:
>> Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
>>>>> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>>>>>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>>>>>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>>>>>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>>>>>> problem that he might have missed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
>>>>> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
>>>>> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
>>>>> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
>>>>> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
>>>>> pages when the need arises.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
>>>> of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
>>> expertise. I’m sure most firms do.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but Company Law is usually handled by a specialist firm entirely -
>> wheels within wheels is rarer.
>>
>
> Is it? I just had a look at the fairly large firm of solicitors I used
> when I moved house. Checking the list of areas of expertise they claim,
> a large proportion are commercial / company law, along with the more
> domestic stuff. The only area they don't seem to take much interest in
> is common or garden criminal law.
>
> <https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk>
>

I did say”usually”. Like barristers e.g., C Blair’s chambers specialise in
employment law iirc. I once worked for a huge firm of lawyers that did
have a separate Company Law function, set up entirely to manage the work of
one large local firm. I just think we cant assume Justin’s Company lawyers
have a matrimonial department. I also said that even within the same firm
it would not be the same lawyer.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Flop
2018-02-20 09:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/02/2018 09:21, Btms wrote:
> Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:05 +0000, carolet
>>>> <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Justin probably wrote a will, after his divorce, that was designed
>>>>> to remain valid after his forthcoming marriage to Lillian. The question
>>>>> is, did he write another one when he failed to marry her. As others have
>>>>> said, he wouldn't dream of not having a valid will, but this could be a
>>>>> problem that he might have missed.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that Justin, like Brian, has the solicitor on speed
>>>> dial and probably sees them on a fairly regular basis. If the
>>>> solicitor is actually worth the hefty retainer they no doubt charge,
>>>> this would be something they would actively be monitoring. Unlike the
>>>> rest of us poor plebs who have to look up solicitors in the yellow
>>>> pages when the need arises.
>>>
>>> Possibly but I think a solicitor who deals in Company law will not be part
>>> of a firm who deals with wills, divorces etc.
>>>
>>
>> Our solicitors has different partners who deal with different areas of
>> expertise. I’m sure most firms do.
>>
>
> Yes but Company Law is usually handled by a specialist firm entirely -
> wheels within wheels is rarer.
>
OTOH it is possible to have your 'own' personal solicitor who knows your
boot size etc and who coordinates with more specialised solicitors.
It may sound like an expensive hobby but communicating with legal
specialists is not for the faint-hearted [or impatient].

Having to need everything explained is not cheap.

--

Flop
General Norman Schwarzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for
forgiveness toward terrorists.
The General said, "I believe that forgiving them is God's function...
OUR job is to arrange the meeting."
Fenny
2018-02-20 21:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:21:36 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
wrote:

>
>Yes but Company Law is usually handled by a specialist firm entirely -
>wheels within wheels is rarer.

No, it isn't.


--
Fenny
Btms
2018-02-19 08:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.onetel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:40:11 +0000, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:42:15 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>> <***@blanchflower.me.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> On 18/02/2018 12:39, SODAM wrote:
>>>> Justin
>>>> will die and Lilian be thrown out of the Dower House because she has no
>>>> claim on it. His original will will stand and Miranda get everything.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the first part of that prediction is all too likely but unless
>>> he had made a new will, since the divorce, leaving everything to
>>> Miranda, she won't inherit. The effect of divorce on a will made before
>>> then, is that it is as if Miranda had died on the day of the decree
>>> absolute.
>>
>> So he'd die intestate - I wonder what possible heirs might creep out of the
>> woodwork - we know nothing of his family - siblings? cousins?
>
> Justin would never be stupid enough to not have a valid will. As soon
> as his divorce went through, he will have drawn up a new will. This is
> currently the valid one. He may have written a new one to be signed
> following his marriage to Lilian, but they didn't get married. So
> it's his choice as to whether to adjust the current one or not.

Except this is fiction. 🤣

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
kosmo
2018-02-24 10:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has
some kind
> of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful
reconciliation.

That could be difficult.

--
kosmo
Vicky
2018-02-24 11:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 15:42:32 +0530, kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has
>some kind
>> of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful
>reconciliation.
>
>That could be difficult.
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

Unless Will blames Emma for making Nic's last days miserable and kills
her. Nic will have to play nice up there, I assume.

--

Vicky
Mike
2018-02-24 13:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has
> some kind
>> of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful
> reconciliation.
>
> That could be difficult.
>

Graveside knicker parties?

--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-02-24 13:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <gpdkC.1726307$***@fx47.am4>, Mike
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>> Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has
>> some kind
>>> of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful
>> reconciliation.
>>
>> That could be difficult.
>>
>
>Graveside knicker parties?
>
OK, I'll be the one: BTN ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)
Jenny M Benson
2018-02-24 20:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24/02/2018 13:50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <gpdkC.1726307$***@fx47.am4>, Mike
> <***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:39:25 +0000, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>> Nic and Emma will make friends again when one of the children has
>>> some kind
>>>> of crisis and the other steps in to help. Expect a tearful
>>> reconciliation.
>>>
>>> That could be difficult.
>>>
>>
>> Graveside knicker parties?
>>
> OK, I'll be the one: BTN ...


Oh, Jpeg, I was hoping no one would do that while I am having to lapdog
it,.but I'll try not to lose this one.


Accepted!


--
Jenny M Benson
Loading...