kate

Post by Btms
I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.

That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.

Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?

As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

--
Flop

“I needed a password eight characters long so I picked Snow White and
the Seven Dwarves.”

krw

2018-07-01 22:23:21 UTC

I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.
That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.
Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?
As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

I am in the process of catching up so not sure what grounds Kate might
be using. The debts are pre-partnership and down to Brian who said he
would settle them and he owns the land being sold.

Alice and Kate have been defrauded by Brian through signing the
partnership agreement which required they hand back their cottages.
They did not take independent legal advice at that time and I think this
could undermine the partnership arrangement - but I don't think Kate has
any grounds to force sale of the farmhouse and Ruth is not a legal
expert either - she is R******'s voice and she should be against making
him homeless.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Sally Thompson

2018-07-02 07:14:37 UTC

I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.
That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.
Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?
As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

I am in the process of catching up so not sure what grounds Kate might
be using. The debts are pre-partnership and down to Brian who said he
would settle them and he owns the land being sold.
Alice and Kate have been defrauded by Brian through signing the
partnership agreement which required they hand back their cottages.
They did not take independent legal advice at that time and I think this
could undermine the partnership arrangement - but I don't think Kate has
any grounds to force sale of the farmhouse and Ruth is not a legal
expert either - she is R******'s voice and she should be against making
him homeless.

All Ruth said was that Kate was right to say it should be one of the
considerations; everything should be explored. She didn’t say it should be
sold.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

krw

2018-07-02 07:50:29 UTC

Post by Sally Thompson

I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.
That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.
Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?
As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

I am in the process of catching up so not sure what grounds Kate might
be using. The debts are pre-partnership and down to Brian who said he
would settle them and he owns the land being sold.
Alice and Kate have been defrauded by Brian through signing the
partnership agreement which required they hand back their cottages.
They did not take independent legal advice at that time and I think this
could undermine the partnership arrangement - but I don't think Kate has
any grounds to force sale of the farmhouse and Ruth is not a legal
expert either - she is R******'s voice and she should be against making
him homeless.

All Ruth said was that Kate was right to say it should be one of the
considerations; everything should be explored. She didn’t say it should be
sold.

Agreed, I had not heard it at that point, I have now - but given there
is no affordable housing in the village now (another nonsense story line
as the planning consent determines the number of affordable houses - not
the developer or builder) there is nowhere for the Aldridge family to live.

Also Brian has not yet sold his holding in BL. If he really wants to
keep the farm together that is probably more valuable than the silly
pieces of land he is trying to sell. That shareholding should go first
and that - like Hungary - does not need approval from the other
shareholders.

Twats are writing this mess and should be taken out and shot.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Sally Thompson

2018-07-02 08:03:13 UTC

Post by Sally Thompson

I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.
That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.
Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?
As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

I am in the process of catching up so not sure what grounds Kate might
be using. The debts are pre-partnership and down to Brian who said he
would settle them and he owns the land being sold.
Alice and Kate have been defrauded by Brian through signing the
partnership agreement which required they hand back their cottages.
They did not take independent legal advice at that time and I think this
could undermine the partnership arrangement - but I don't think Kate has
any grounds to force sale of the farmhouse and Ruth is not a legal
expert either - she is R******'s voice and she should be against making
him homeless.

All Ruth said was that Kate was right to say it should be one of the
considerations; everything should be explored. She didn’t say it should be
sold.

Agreed, I had not heard it at that point, I have now - but given there
is no affordable housing in the village now (another nonsense story line
as the planning consent determines the number of affordable houses - not
the developer or builder) there is nowhere for the Aldridge family to live.
Also Brian has not yet sold his holding in BL. If he really wants to
keep the farm together that is probably more valuable than the silly
pieces of land he is trying to sell. That shareholding should go first
and that - like Hungary - does not need approval from the other
shareholders.
Twats are writing this mess and should be taken out and shot.

Well, I find it helps my blood pressure to accept this as (sssshh!) a work
of fiction and not take it too seriously.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

Kate B

2018-07-02 08:22:56 UTC

Post by Sally Thompson

I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.

I would have assumed that if the 'partnership' owed a debt then that
debt would have priority over any funds raised by the partnership.
That is, the Environmental Agency [EA] would get first dibs on any cash
available. If they were not paid then they could sue the 'partners'
individually for the bill.
Then there is the question of an EA fine. Has the partnership taken over
liability for the contamination? Or is Brian personally liable.
I suspect the former but in forming the partnership, did anyone ask
about debt or liability?
As with most LA storylines, it is simplified out of all proportion. [Why
did Brian not employ a solicitor/loss adjuster to argue their corner
over the contamination?] And others ad nauseam.

I am in the process of catching up so not sure what grounds Kate might
be using. The debts are pre-partnership and down to Brian who said he
would settle them and he owns the land being sold.
Alice and Kate have been defrauded by Brian through signing the
partnership agreement which required they hand back their cottages.
They did not take independent legal advice at that time and I think this
could undermine the partnership arrangement - but I don't think Kate has
any grounds to force sale of the farmhouse and Ruth is not a legal
expert either - she is R******'s voice and she should be against making
him homeless.

All Ruth said was that Kate was right to say it should be one of the
considerations; everything should be explored. She didn’t say it should be
sold.

Alas, planning consent may decree the proportion of affordable housing,
but it is proving all too easy for developers to weasel out of those
obligations simply by saying they are unaffordable.

--
Kate B
London

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-07-02 10:08:12 UTC

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Kate B
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Kate B
Alas, planning consent may decree the proportion of affordable housing,
but it is proving all too easy for developers to weasel out of those
obligations simply by saying they are unaffordable.

Yes. If the planning consent does not include _sequential_ provisions.
(For example, the site owner of where I live isn't allowed to _sell_ any
new units - though he can site them - until _after_ he's upgraded the
sewage plant.) If planning consent for a mixed development such as that
Justin (and ?) is/are involved in doesn't stipulate that the affordables
must at least track the big-money ones, then the big-money ones will be
built first (and if we're _totally_ cynical, the developer will manage
to go bust before the others are even started).
4

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)

krw

2018-07-02 11:41:36 UTC

Planning consents have to be obeyed. Developers can seek changes and
councils can refuse.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Chris J Dixon

2018-07-03 07:11:43 UTC

Post by krw
(another nonsense story line
as the planning consent determines the number of affordable houses - not
the developer or builder)

However, the dodge that some developers use is to start off
accepting what the planners demand, then, once building is
underway, they start to winge about failure to sell the
"affordable" properties.AIUI, they put forward arguments about
the overall profitability of the site and offer an increased
section 106 payment instead, and build larger properties.

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.

krw

2018-07-03 09:10:38 UTC

Post by Chris J Dixon
AIUI, they put forward arguments about
the overall profitability of the site and offer an increased
section 106 payment instead, and build larger properties.

Still has to be negotiated with the planning council concerned. But
sadly it does happen too often.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Robin Stevens

2018-07-05 19:39:53 UTC

Post by Chris J Dixon
However, the dodge that some developers use is to start off
accepting what the planners demand, then, once building is
underway, they start to winge about failure to sell the
"affordable" properties.AIUI, they put forward arguments about
the overall profitability of the site and offer an increased
section 106 payment instead, and build larger properties.

Sounds rather like the tactic of bidding lots of money for the East Coast
rail franchise, then whinging about how it's not profitable and getting the
DoT to take it back again.

krw

2018-07-05 22:22:09 UTC

Post by Robin Stevens

Sounds rather like the tactic of bidding lots of money for the East Coast
rail franchise, then whinging about how it's not profitable and getting the
DoT to take it back again.

Not fair. the DfT likes the odd bidder to fail because it teaches these
nasty capitalists a lesson.

Trouble is it is always ECML and so they have engineered failure on
Thameslink as well. Sadly that is not costing the nasty capitalists any
real money - just huge reputation loss.

We have already seen National Express leave the rail industry and I
would not be at all surprised if Go considered it too difficult which
just leaves First, Stagecoach (and Virgin) as UK based contenders.
Stagecoach may well lose EMT and may feel the money spent on bidding is
wasted. So the days of domestic owned franchises may come to an end.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-07-06 07:59:10 UTC

Post by Robin Stevens

Sounds rather like the tactic of bidding lots of money for the East Coast
rail franchise, then whinging about how it's not profitable and getting the
DoT to take it back again.

"Tactic" sounds as if you think they got some success out of it; I can't
see how - if they bid a lot, then didn't make much if anything by
running it, then handed it back, how are they ahead? I presume they
don't get any of their bid back.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

krw

2018-07-01 23:06:21 UTC

Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a clause
in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if money is
spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate refusing to
approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.

That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-07-02 08:14:48 UTC

+1.

I do feel Kate has been a _bit_ ignored. Normally I dislike her total
fecklessness and laziness when it comes to following things through. But
- if we _do_ accept that her business has grown to something viable
(which I certainly hadn't really been aware of, but odd indications in
the last year or so have suggested it) - then imperilling it _is_ a
consideration, and also the way she's been excluded from meetings (or
close to that) would have been unacceptable if it had been anyone other
than "oh just Kate".

Post by krw
Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a
clause in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if
money is spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate
refusing to approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.

As another has said, this has not been thought out at all well (if at
all). If Brian still does own all the land (presumably including the
house - and cottages unless explicit transfers were made), then - as we
discussed a little while ago - this "partnership" actually owns what?
Some farm machinery perhaps, and the contract to _service_ the farm,
which presumably Brine could terminate at next renewal, though it could
be argued by now that it is "established practice" or some such phrase
(IANAL).

[_Does_ Brian still own the land? His name may be "on the deeds"
(presumably meaning what's at the Land Registry), but _did_ the land
become part of the assets when the partnership was formed? If it did,
then the fact that the registered owner wasn't changed _might_ be
somewhat academic: if the partnership papers mention it, then ... and if
they don't, then ... IANAL again.]

Post by krw
That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!

(Or against the house. Assuming they can find anyone willing to lend
[against either: lenders decide not just based on the value of the
offered assets, but on their assessment of the potential borrower's
ability to repay, mixed with their assessment of the possible returns on
a forced hostile sale after eviction costs].)

Perhaps TA needs a legal adviser to go with the agricultural adviser
(or, the ag. ad.'s brief includes such matters - which it probably
should).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't like activity holidays. I like /inactivity/ holidays.
- Miriam Margolyes, RT 2017/4/15-21

Flop

2018-07-02 09:51:10 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Perhaps TA needs a legal adviser to go with the agricultural adviser
(or, the ag. ad.'s brief includes such matters - which it probably should).

I think that a legal adviser would kill any story - or at least take out
all ?exciting bits and just lave a mundane plot spread over several years.

Sally has suggested that we take it as a work of fiction.
Unfortunately, it has skipped that stage and must be in the 'fantasy'
category by now.

--
Flop

“I needed a password eight characters long so I picked Snow White and
the Seven Dwarves.”

Vicky Ayech

2018-07-02 08:20:10 UTC

Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a clause
in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if money is
spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate refusing to
approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.
That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!

It was a huge sum, wasn't it? Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?

FB had a lovely thread on one group; a song challenge for the
Kate/Brian house selling storyline, starting with Culture Club's "Do
you really want to yurt me"

I suggested I want money by The Beatles and

krw

2018-07-02 11:43:10 UTC

Post by Vicky Ayech
Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?

So sell the shares in BL and keep the farm together. Brian is
responsible - his personal assets should be the first to go.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-07-02 12:19:19 UTC

Post by Vicky Ayech
Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?

So sell the shares in BL and keep the farm together. Brian is
responsible - his personal assets should be the first to go.

It _could_ be argued that the money he made by accepting the payments,
decades ago, has benefited the farm and thus everybody; unless you can
prove that, at that time, he did something for his own benefit (bought a
flash car or something), you can't gainsay. (It'd be rather delicious if
he'd actually bought Jenny an expensive piece of jewellery at the time,
and that comes to light ...)

I'm not saying I _am_ arguing that, but I'm surprised _he_ hasn't.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint
of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be
ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13

krw

2018-07-02 12:59:07 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Vicky Ayech
Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?

So sell the shares in BL and keep the farm together. Brian is
responsible - his personal assets should be the first to go.

It _could_ be argued that the money he made by accepting the payments,
decades ago, has benefited the farm and thus everybody; unless you can
prove that, at that time, he did something for his own benefit (bought a
flash car or something), you can't gainsay. (It'd be rather delicious if
he'd actually bought Jenny an expensive piece of jewellery at the time,
and that comes to light ...)
I'm not saying I _am_ arguing that, but I'm surprised _he_ hasn't.

Just to clarify Brian has previously said that the dumping of the
chemicals was during his time and he knew it was dodgy. He also said
that therefore he would sort it. However it goes so against the grain
for a farmer to sell land that his cavalier approach just seems out of
kilter. He is showing no other signs of dementia.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-07-02 15:30:26 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Vicky Ayech
Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?

So sell the shares in BL and keep the farm together. Brian is
responsible - his personal assets should be the first to go.

It _could_ be argued that the money he made by accepting the
payments, decades ago, has benefited the farm and thus everybody;
unless you can prove that, at that time, he did something for his own
benefit (bought a flash car or something), you can't gainsay. (It'd
be rather delicious if he'd actually bought Jenny an expensive piece
of jewellery at the time, and that comes to light ...)
I'm not saying I _am_ arguing that, but I'm surprised _he_ hasn't.

Just to clarify Brian has previously said that the dumping of the
chemicals was during his time and he knew it was dodgy. He also said

That was my point though: it was during his time, but he _was_ Home Farm
at that time - and thus what benefited him benefited Home Farm, making
it what it was when the others inherited (whatever it is that they
inherited, which is far from clear). In other words, though they don't
(now) approve of his actions, they were benefiting from them right up to
the point when the contamination was discovered, by Home Farm being as
prosperous as it was/is.

Post by krw
that therefore he would sort it. However it goes so against the grain
for a farmer to sell land that his cavalier approach just seems out of

I'd thought he had no option (until Kate suggested the house, anyway);
he certainly doesn't _want_ to sell the land.

Post by krw
kilter. He is showing no other signs of dementia.

Hmm, his epilepsy has been quietly buried, hasn't it!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003

krw

2018-07-02 15:59:10 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'd thought he had no option (until Kate suggested the house, anyway);
he certainly doesn't _want_ to sell the land.

There are I suspect a number of possibilities - but only one was offered
to the partners at the earlier meeting. I think selling BL shares
offers a better solution than Home Farm. But it cuts the stories!

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Nick Odell

2018-07-03 22:50:03 UTC

Post by Vicky Ayech

Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a clause
in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if money is
spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate refusing to
approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.
That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!

It was a huge sum, wasn't it? Would they have any chance of repaying
the loan?
FB had a lovely thread on one group; a song challenge for the
Kate/Brian house selling storyline, starting with Culture Club's "Do
you really want to yurt me"
I suggested I want money by The Beatles

I prefer this version...

Nick

Btms

2018-07-02 18:56:26 UTC

Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a clause
in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if money is
spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate refusing to
approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.
That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!

Iirc there was a bit of script around why didn’t you borrow...... may have
been there for a reason?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

krw

2018-07-02 20:54:51 UTC

Post by Btms