comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 5 minutes ago
Baked....good for you too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s a right few jakeys on here would agree with you

comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Magnum. (U22391)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 29 minutes ago
Ghod. We’re in a ballot to attend. So fans are being allowed back in.

Mags. What in Scotland isn’t?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The sizes of gatherings in Scotland don't change on Monday afaik
----------------------------------------------------------------------

True but no doubt there will be a slight variation on the theme. The Glasgow restrictions are enough mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s like we are making decisions spinning the arrow like twister and using the phrase or decision it punts too
To paraphrase Jim Royle “following the science my rse”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, they are finally listening to the people charged with enforcement. Only took them 6mon this

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: JA606 Liaison Manager (U3627)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw... (U1850)
posted 11 seconds ago
I’m not eating until he’s free
I done the same when I wanted him back to the site
Stopped right in the middle of a steak pie it was still warm when he came back
----------------------------------------------------------------------



The fork hadn't been put down by the time he was back
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there’s guys on here said their soup was still warm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

If reports are true 4 clubs interested in Boli? A feat of Houdini proportions if we recover any money out of that shambles.

comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 4 seconds ago
I see theres still 2500 fans attending the St Leger festival at Doncaster today

obviously the virus is checking its calendar n making sure it's Monday before it starts spreading again
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And laughing aside that’s why the “ rules” are largely treated with contempt
I believe the loophole is you have an opticians stand at the course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A site for sore eyes.

Guess who i bumped into at the opticians yesterday?

Everybody.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)


Not really. You just maintain that there should be no responsibility on the owners/landlords to ensure that their buildings are safe to live in. Many other people have already dosagreed with you and clearly don't get this attitude.

Your justification for this is that it will be expensive and it might not have been the owners fault initially. This ignores how such things already work in this country. If a landlord wants to rent out his property then it is the landlords responsibility to ensure it meets safety standards (even if it used to and those standards get updated). If the issue can be proven to be the fault of someone else then the landlord can try to get that party to foot the bill and go through the legal system if necessary. In some cases they may have building insurance that can foot the cost.

It may be that the government should or even will make a fund available to help cover these costs (I wouldnt be opposed to this) but it is still the landlords responsibility to ensure thay all of this is done before he is able to rent that property to a tenant.

If you bought a house and then discovered that the boiler immediately packed in, it is now your responsibility to either fix it or not bother (or use insurance or available funding to do so). You don't have to but it is still your responsibility. If you then decide you want to rent out that house you take on a duty to ensure that the boiler is fixed and running otherwise you don't get to rent out your house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute and utter bawllocks and it’s clear you haven’t read or have missed what I did write.

To put this in its plainest form it is not as simple as make owners pay. If you can’t see that then as I said; I give up.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)


Not really. You just maintain that there should be no responsibility on the owners/landlords to ensure that their buildings are safe to live in. Many other people have already dosagreed with you and clearly don't get this attitude.

Your justification for this is that it will be expensive and it might not have been the owners fault initially. This ignores how such things already work in this country. If a landlord wants to rent out his property then it is the landlords responsibility to ensure it meets safety standards (even if it used to and those standards get updated). If the issue can be proven to be the fault of someone else then the landlord can try to get that party to foot the bill and go through the legal system if necessary. In some cases they may have building insurance that can foot the cost.

It may be that the government should or even will make a fund available to help cover these costs (I wouldnt be opposed to this) but it is still the landlords responsibility to ensure thay all of this is done before he is able to rent that property to a tenant.

If you bought a house and then discovered that the boiler immediately packed in, it is now your responsibility to either fix it or not bother (or use insurance or available funding to do so). You don't have to but it is still your responsibility. If you then decide you want to rent out that house you take on a duty to ensure that the boiler is fixed and running otherwise you don't get to rent out your house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute and utter bawllocks and it’s clear you haven’t read or have missed what I did write.

To put this in its plainest form it is not as simple as make owners pay. If you can’t see that then as I said; I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is literally as simple as the landlord has responsibility to ensure the property he rents out is safe for the tenant. Otherwise he cannot rent it out.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wee Nicola having a dig at Hancock in her daily conference/rally delete as app
She did say(calm doon ginger) we may have to impose restrictions on gatherings similar to Engerland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She is impressive in the way she is dealing with this; decisive, consistent and noflucking bumbling, evasion or bluster.

comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw... (U1850)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Magnum. (U22391)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 4 seconds ago
I see theres still 2500 fans attending the St Leger festival at Doncaster today

obviously the virus is checking its calendar n making sure it's Monday before it starts spreading again
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And laughing aside that’s why the “ rules” are largely treated with contempt
I believe the loophole is you have an opticians stand at the course
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A site for sore eyes.

Guess who i bumped into at the opticians yesterday?

Everybody.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xmas crackers opened early
Ffs Bob monk house lives
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse classic

When I was young I said I wanted to be a comedian...and the all laughed...

Well I made it...they're not laughing now

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)


Not really. You just maintain that there should be no responsibility on the owners/landlords to ensure that their buildings are safe to live in. Many other people have already dosagreed with you and clearly don't get this attitude.

Your justification for this is that it will be expensive and it might not have been the owners fault initially. This ignores how such things already work in this country. If a landlord wants to rent out his property then it is the landlords responsibility to ensure it meets safety standards (even if it used to and those standards get updated). If the issue can be proven to be the fault of someone else then the landlord can try to get that party to foot the bill and go through the legal system if necessary. In some cases they may have building insurance that can foot the cost.

It may be that the government should or even will make a fund available to help cover these costs (I wouldnt be opposed to this) but it is still the landlords responsibility to ensure thay all of this is done before he is able to rent that property to a tenant.

If you bought a house and then discovered that the boiler immediately packed in, it is now your responsibility to either fix it or not bother (or use insurance or available funding to do so). You don't have to but it is still your responsibility. If you then decide you want to rent out that house you take on a duty to ensure that the boiler is fixed and running otherwise you don't get to rent out your house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute and utter bawllocks and it’s clear you haven’t read or have missed what I did write.

To put this in its plainest form it is not as simple as make owners pay. If you can’t see that then as I said; I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is literally as simple as the landlord has responsibility to ensure the property he rents out is safe for the tenant. Otherwise he cannot rent it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

I now give up trying to explain this to you.

Strange how others see it yet you appear to be the only one who doesn’t.

comment by Tully1 (U20686)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Zachsda( There’s a bus Neil, quick throw them under it ) (U1850)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wee Nicola having a dig at Hancock in her daily conference/rally delete as app
She did say(calm doon ginger) we may have to impose restrictions on gatherings similar to Engerland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She is impressive in the way she is dealing with this; decisive, consistent and noflucking bumbling, evasion or bluster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Behave you.

She’s made exactly the same mistakes as anyone else and she has in fact had a proportionately worse outcome in a number of instances.

She chooses her daily update to instruct and uses it as a political platform and ignores the request to give her politics to the other parties in Holyrood where she can be challenged.

She also is spearheading a silence campaign to frustrate a public inquiry and she and her ministers are accused quite rightly of misleading the inquiry.

But you keep on believing everything you want while she runs your life and existence. Maybe some aren’t capable and need that mind.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)


Not really. You just maintain that there should be no responsibility on the owners/landlords to ensure that their buildings are safe to live in. Many other people have already dosagreed with you and clearly don't get this attitude.

Your justification for this is that it will be expensive and it might not have been the owners fault initially. This ignores how such things already work in this country. If a landlord wants to rent out his property then it is the landlords responsibility to ensure it meets safety standards (even if it used to and those standards get updated). If the issue can be proven to be the fault of someone else then the landlord can try to get that party to foot the bill and go through the legal system if necessary. In some cases they may have building insurance that can foot the cost.

It may be that the government should or even will make a fund available to help cover these costs (I wouldnt be opposed to this) but it is still the landlords responsibility to ensure thay all of this is done before he is able to rent that property to a tenant.

If you bought a house and then discovered that the boiler immediately packed in, it is now your responsibility to either fix it or not bother (or use insurance or available funding to do so). You don't have to but it is still your responsibility. If you then decide you want to rent out that house you take on a duty to ensure that the boiler is fixed and running otherwise you don't get to rent out your house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute and utter bawllocks and it’s clear you haven’t read or have missed what I did write.

To put this in its plainest form it is not as simple as make owners pay. If you can’t see that then as I said; I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is literally as simple as the landlord has responsibility to ensure the property he rents out is safe for the tenant. Otherwise he cannot rent it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

I now give up trying to explain this to you.

Strange how others see it yet you appear to be the only one who doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm the only one if you ignore the other people in the thread.

If you can't afford to run a business safely then don't. It's quite simple.

She also is spearheading a silence campaign to frustrate a public inquiry and she and her ministers are accused quite rightly of misleading the inquiry.
———————————————————————-
Of course she is. Like all govs there are skeletons.

Great snigger material but hardly substantial in comparison to the economy, Covid, Indy etc?

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)


Not really. You just maintain that there should be no responsibility on the owners/landlords to ensure that their buildings are safe to live in. Many other people have already dosagreed with you and clearly don't get this attitude.

Your justification for this is that it will be expensive and it might not have been the owners fault initially. This ignores how such things already work in this country. If a landlord wants to rent out his property then it is the landlords responsibility to ensure it meets safety standards (even if it used to and those standards get updated). If the issue can be proven to be the fault of someone else then the landlord can try to get that party to foot the bill and go through the legal system if necessary. In some cases they may have building insurance that can foot the cost.

It may be that the government should or even will make a fund available to help cover these costs (I wouldnt be opposed to this) but it is still the landlords responsibility to ensure thay all of this is done before he is able to rent that property to a tenant.

If you bought a house and then discovered that the boiler immediately packed in, it is now your responsibility to either fix it or not bother (or use insurance or available funding to do so). You don't have to but it is still your responsibility. If you then decide you want to rent out that house you take on a duty to ensure that the boiler is fixed and running otherwise you don't get to rent out your house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute and utter bawllocks and it’s clear you haven’t read or have missed what I did write.

To put this in its plainest form it is not as simple as make owners pay. If you can’t see that then as I said; I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is literally as simple as the landlord has responsibility to ensure the property he rents out is safe for the tenant. Otherwise he cannot rent it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

I now give up trying to explain this to you.

Strange how others see it yet you appear to be the only one who doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm the only one if you ignore the other people in the thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh you mean the ones who saw the argument and stopped arguing you mean?

You keep yourself nice and cosy with the notion that it’s big bad Tories helping out their entitled and landed landlord chums.

Helps with the Inability to think things through and rationalise as to how completely unjust, uncontrollable and extremely costly exercise being lumped on families, tenants, occupiers, landlords and owners alike I suppose. Because that makes sense to you right?

Fwxakes. Why am I bothering?

comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you can't afford to run a business safely then don't. It's quite simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What business would this be exactly?

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
She also is spearheading a silence campaign to frustrate a public inquiry and she and her ministers are accused quite rightly of misleading the inquiry.
———————————————————————-
Of course she is. Like all govs there are skeletons.

Great snigger material but hardly substantial in comparison to the economy, Covid, Indy etc?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No of course not. Just a very small part of the bigger picture where people are more than happy to believe everything she does or says is beyond reproach or criticism.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you can't afford to run a business safely then don't. It's quite simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What business would this be exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The business of renting out property, obviously.

comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 10 minutes ago
If you can't afford to run a business safely then don't. It's quite simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What business would this be exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The business of renting out property, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I quite agree with you.

Not sure what that has to do with responsibility, ownership and paying out for something that in the vast majority of cases won’t need doing mind.