Do You Accept Reeves Apology?

[baggieal]

No - she can p iss off along with gutless Starmer!

[bordering]

two tier kier asgain and again and again

No - she can p iss off along with gutless Starmer!

You me fail to register as landlord and this is what happens ....

Failing to register as a landlord can lead to several consequences:
Legal Obligations: Landlords must register with their local council to ensure they are "fit and proper" to let properties, which protects tenants and increases rental property safety.
2
Penalties: Local authorities can impose fines, which may start around £7,000 and can rise to £40,000 for serious breaches.
1
Tenant Rights: Unregistered landlords may face difficulties in regaining possession of properties and may not be able to use the courts for eviction without a legal reason.
1
Tenant Protection: Tenants have rights to a safe and legal tenancy, including deposit protection and clear eviction procedures.
2
Compliance: It is essential for landlords to comply with registration requirements to avoid legal issues and protect their properties.
2

For more detailed guidance, you can refer to the official resources provided by local authorities or legal experts.





So how 2 tier do you want it to be - the Labour party is being destroyed by the current leadership

[Leicesterbaggie]

It may have been an oversight but the most worrying aspect is that if she is incapable of keeping her own finances in order how is she going to look after that of this country? No wonder she had to lie on her CV, she has not got the ability to do the job. That is obvious!

[Omegstrat6]

IMHO, in isolation it's all a bit of a storm in a tea cup whipped up by her political opponents. The selective licence that Southwark Council require for private landlords costs about ?950 so on her salary I don't think this was deliberate avoidance. As for the notion that such licences are designed to help protect tenants as well as landlords and provide accommodation that meets a certain standard etc, this is true-if only it was a legal requirement for all landlords!

However, this is not an isolated case and- whilst I'm pretty sure that Boris and co were probably guilty of worse- yet another embarrassment for Labour, especially after the Rayner debacle. Another member of his cabinet has provided their blind leader with a garden rake for him to stumble onto and smack him in the face.

Regardless of the above and ignoring all the political point-scoring surely the main point, however, is that the electorate should be entitled to expect the highest standards from those in such positions. Unlike the Rayner case, I don't particularly believe that Reeves deliberately avoided paying for the licence but that is irrelevant because as Chancellor she of all people should be fully aware and on top of such issues. Moreover, she was a supporter of such licences which makes it look even worse.

Is it enough for her to lose her job? If the ethics advisor decides there is no case to answer then she may not and, in any other field you would not expect someone to actually lose their job over such an error. But this is politics and given the pressure on him Starmer may feel he has no choice. Reeves is unpopular enough with many as it is.

Bordering is right, the current Labour leadership are doing a fine job at wrecking the party.

[baggieal]

IMHO, in isolation it's all a bit of a storm in a tea cup whipped up by her political opponents. The selective licence that Southwark Council require for private landlords costs about ?950 so on her salary I don't think this was deliberate avoidance. As for the notion that such licences are designed to help protect tenants as well as landlords and provide accommodation that meets a certain standard etc, this is true-if only it was a legal requirement for all landlords!

However, this is not an isolated case and- whilst I'm pretty sure that Boris and co were probably guilty of worse- yet another embarrassment for Labour, especially after the Rayner debacle. Another member of his cabinet has provided their blind leader with a garden rake for him to stumble onto and smack him in the face.

Regardless of the above and ignoring all the political point-scoring surely the main point, however, is that the electorate should be entitled to expect the highest standards from those in such positions. Unlike the Rayner case, I don't particularly believe that Reeves deliberately avoided paying for the licence but that is irrelevant because as Chancellor she of all people should be fully aware and on top of such issues. Moreover, she was a supporter of such licences which makes it look even worse.

Is it enough for her to lose her job? If the ethics advisor decides there is no case to answer then she may not and, in any other field you would not expect someone to actually lose their job over such an error. But this is politics and given the pressure on him Starmer may feel he has no choice. Reeves is unpopular enough with many as it is.

Bordering is right, the current Labour leadership are doing a fine job at wrecking the party.

I agree Omeg. To save the Labour Party there should be a no confidence vote called so gutless Starmer walks. The worst PM in history and even giving that dirty filthy scumbag ?500 for s exually assaulting a young school girl takes the biscuit. That?s a years wage in his country and what must the father of that girl be thinking?

We need to pull out of the ECHR and stop all these lawyers getting super rich because that?s what they are doing. It?s a pot of gold!

[Omegstrat6]

I agree Omeg. To save the Labour Party there should be a no confidence vote called so gutless Starmer walks. The worst PM in history and even giving that dirty filthy scumbag ?500 for s exually assaulting a young school girl takes the biscuit. That?s a years wage in his country and what must the father of that girl be thinking?

We need to pull out of the ECHR and stop all these lawyers getting super rich because that?s what they are doing. It?s a pot of gold!

I'd read that it wasn't ministers who authorised the ?500 but someone closer to the issue who justified the payment saying that it was, in essence, a bribe in exchange for Kebatu agreeing not to appeal his deportation as this would have led to further delays and far higher costs. From a pragmatic point of view (getting shot of him as quickly as possible and saving the tax payer a not inconsiderable amount of money) this was the right thing to do but how f uc king farcical is it that such a situation is allowed to arise in the first place and that he even has a right to appeal after all the evidence stacked against him! In other areas you have to prove that you have sufficient grounds for an appeal before one is allowed -and this need not be a lengthy process drawn out by greedy lawyers.

There are clearly far too many loopholes and failings in the system but personally, I think that leaving the ECHR completely could be the start of a slippery slope. I would much prefer that amendments were pushed for and rules tightened to prevent its exploitation by smart lawyers. I'm sure that many other member countries must feel similarly.

[Omegstrat6]

It now appears that e-mail correspondence between Reeve's husband and the letting agency reveals that the agency contacted him to let them know that they were applying for the licence but a relevant member of staff subsequently leaving meant that this process was not followed through. If her husband was aware of the need for a licence then surely Reeves knew too.

The moot point is whether she was transparent about this with Starmer and the ethics advisor. If she was, fair does, she may be at fault for not chasing the letting agency up on it but really the failure was down to them and not chasing it was an oversight on her behalf but nowhere near as serious as Bad Enoch would have us believe. If, on the other-hand, she told Starmer and the ethics advisor that she was unaware of a need to apply for a licence and that she had simply left the matter in the hands of her agency, this would seem to be a lie (and an un-necessary one) and therefore casts a big question over her honesty and integrity which is far more likely to cost her her job.

[kettering_baggie]

There is so much to criticise Labour for, it is a waste of time to focus on this, it’s a non-story. Some places require a licence, others don’t, easy oversight to make and it looks as if the letting agents were supposed to get one and forgot, who cares? The woman is an incompetent chancellor, give her grief over that.

[Omegstrat6]

There is so much to criticise Labour for, it is a waste of time to focus on this, it’s a non-story. Some places require a licence, others don’t, easy oversight to make and it looks as if the letting agents were supposed to get one and forgot, who cares? The woman is an incompetent chancellor, give her grief over that.

Can't disagree with a lot of that Ketts!
The whole licence thing in itself is nothing and Bad Enoch and the rest are scrapping the barrel to try and make political gain when they should be far more focussed on challenging Reeves on her policies and job performance. The only genuine interest should be whether Reeves was transparent or deliberately lied as this would indicate her level of integrity for the role.

[Lindenbaggie]

I'd read that it wasn't ministers who authorised the ?500 but someone closer to the issue who justified the payment saying that it was, in essence, a bribe in exchange for Kebatu agreeing not to appeal his deportation as this would have led to further delays and far higher costs. From a pragmatic point of view (getting shot of him as quickly as possible and saving the tax payer a not inconsiderable amount of money) this was the right thing to do but how f uc king farcical is it that such a situation is allowed to arise in the first place and that he even has a right to appeal after all the evidence stacked against him! In other areas you have to prove that you have sufficient grounds for an appeal before one is allowed -and this need not be a lengthy process drawn out by greedy lawyers.

There are clearly far too many loopholes and failings in the system but personally, I think that leaving the ECHR completely could be the start of a slippery slope. I would much prefer that amendments were pushed for and rules tightened to prevent its exploitation by smart lawyers. I'm sure that many other member countries must feel similarly.

Can't see us leaving the ECHR by any of the Lib/Lab/Con as most within those parties are still pro Europe. Not much into law, but why can't we have our own version of HR without reference to Europe?

[baggieal]

Can't see us leaving the ECHR by any of the Lib/Lab/Con as most within those parties are still pro Europe. Not much into law, but why can't we have our own version of HR without reference to Europe?

The problem with the ECHR is lawyers are getting very very rich. Everything is blocked on human rights. The way Labour is going Farage will walk in or there will be some pact with Tories,

Even members of my family to the left are of the view illegal immigration and the costs are spiralling out of control. Even many in the US who hate Trump applaud the decision to cut migrants down from the Biden figure of 125,000 per year to under 8,000. 8000 is what we sometimes get arriving in 2 weeks FFS!

Then they won?t to raise taxes!

[Albionic68]

The problem with the ECHR is lawyers are getting very very rich. Everything is blocked on human rights. The way Labour is going Farage will walk in or there will be some pact with Tories,

Even members of my family to the left are of the view illegal immigration and the costs are spiralling out of control. Even many in the US who hate Trump applaud the decision to cut migrants down from the Biden figure of 125,000 per year to under 8,000. 8000 is what we sometimes get arriving in 2 weeks FFS!

Then they won?t to raise taxes!

Have any of the more left sided members of your family got a better idea than machine gunning the boats in the Channel to prevent a seaborne invasion of our green and pleasant land from illegal immigrants? Because if they have I may vote for them if or when they run for election 😁 .

[Albionic68]

PS. Regardless of whether we stay with the ECHR lawyers will always get rich on the back of something. It's kind of what they do and should be part of their job description in fairness as they're clearly very good at it.

[Omegstrat6]

Can't see us leaving the ECHR by any of the Lib/Lab/Con as most within those parties are still pro Europe. Not much into law, but why can't we have our own version of HR without reference to Europe?

I don't see any reason why the UK could not pull out of the ECHR and set up its own version just for this country but whilst the origins of the ECHR are very much rooted in its time that does not necessarily mean that the reasons for its initiation are no longer valid, particularly in a period of rising populism.

Basically, the ECHR was set up in 1950 on the back of the Declaration of Human Rights which was proclaimed by the newly formed UN in 1948. The aim was to prevent situations that could lead to a repeat of some of the atrocities that occurred leading up to and during WW2 as well as countering the then very real threat of Stalinism. It's main focus was to ensure political and religious freedoms but it also worked to promote democracy and civil rights, bind its member European nations together and help create stability within the continent and prevent future conflicts.

The court imposes legally binding conditions on all member states which helps to ensure the continuation of the original aims but there are provisions for amendments to be made including when individual countries can legitimately argue that they are under threat (e.g.from terrorist attacks) and need to take appropriate steps to protect themselves.

I don't think that many would disagree with the protections offered under the various articles but it is the interpretation of these that can differ between countries and cause issues (whilst, yes, making lawyers a lot of money in the process). Nonetheless, it is still arguably better that we continue to be a member of the ECHR and fight for reforms rather than leave all together as some in the Conservative party and Reform suggest. Any ideas of "splendid isolation" are long gone, we are no longer a major world power and our political and economic ties with Europe are important to the UK's well being, even more so as our "special relationship" with the US has declined further since Trump took office again.

To pull out of the ECHR would weaken our links with Europe, weaken our reputation as a democracy that defends freedom of the individual and potentially enable more authoritarian laws to be introduced in this country as no-one would then have the recourse available to them of appealing to the ECHR as they would no longer have any jurisdiction. The latter are likely some of the reasons why Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all prefer the option of pressing for reform rather than pressing to leave.