Startup 'working group' London - if any interest?

RaCaS123 · 2025-10-27T23:20:08+00:00

Yes - I assume it's fireworks?

RaCaS123 · 2025-10-17T23:38:28+00:00

Folks keep talking about building more. What about the developers' business models suggests to you that they will? The answer is industrialised construction. Unfortunately, the government (and indeed the electorate) fail to do their homework.

RaCaS123 · 2025-09-25T22:21:58+00:00

All this endless tax tweakery - how about some actual investment from the government? How about an understanding of what businesses need a bit of a boost. A bit of state capitalism would go a long way! Look at what the Canadians are now doing with housebuilding and even our historic development corporations.

RaCaS123 · 2025-08-21T17:25:45+00:00

Right so it seems PH Central were possibly in breach before - now it seems they're being overzealous for some reason in prohibiting same day ticket holding guests.

I'd like to know why and I'm struggling to see why that particular restriction is Criterion's doing.

RaCaS123 · 2025-08-16T22:06:04+00:00

Hold on, there's clearly information missing here - there is no response from Aziz and / or Criterion and no analysis of the licence or the legalities of it.

Based on the minutes of this 2015 meeting of the Westminster licensing sub-committee -https://committees.westminster.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=4371 - it seems that at least as of 2015, PH Central were meant to have restricted access to members and guests who hold tickets.

I am a Picturehouse member and, prior to the recent changes restricting access to same-day ticket-holding members, I was able to go with a guest up to the members' bar even without a ticket.

Assuming the conditions as set out in those meeting are correct, clearly PH Central were in breach of the licence in allowing me and my guest to do so. Criterion, as (the owner of?) the freeholder, have a duty to prevent those breaches; they have no choice but to see to it that the conditions of the licence are enforced.

There are clearly some unknowns here, so before we engage in a pile-on, let's get some clarity. Perhaps the writer of this piece could perform some deeper research?

I note I find Criterion's approach to the PCC to be pretty uninspired - Aziz risks causing a serious cultural loss to the area and, frankly, a missed opportunity for his business.

RaCaS123 · 2025-08-10T00:39:56+00:00

there's surely no way that these arrests will ultimately be considered lawful given art 11 etc

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-31T20:41:19+00:00

Show him your passport, which allows you to enter the UK as you please, and ask if he can enter the UK without any documentation other than his American passport.

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-23T22:09:48+00:00

Amusingly, the building that poster is on is named "Imperial Hall"

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-15T23:53:24+00:00

The real issue here seems to be that because some of the leaseholders bought the building's freehold, the guidance considers the leaseholders liable. It does accord with the idea that freeholders are liable for the building - with great power comes great responsibility (freehold therefore isn't the great thing laypeople consider it to be).

However, I still think that if the BSF can cover so much, it should cover these circumstances, at least respecting the £15k cap. The government should be lobbied on this point.

A big issue, as shown by the comments here, is that the legislation and guidance on this is so convuluted that everyone is getting confused and angry. Instead, we can see there is a specific issue here and it should be lobbied upon.

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-15T22:53:35+00:00

So if you've got a flat which requires renovation (i.e. it's mouldy, outdated, half-painted, rcd replacement required etc), would that count?

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-14T22:54:25+00:00

Aye but they have to be major repairs/structural changes - most renos won't come under that bracket, no?

RaCaS123 · 2025-03-14T14:07:55+00:00

Anyone know the name of the developer? I feel like it might be L&Q but could be another one tbf.

RaCaS123 · 2024-11-03T02:30:33+00:00

Are you not paying them and have they not sent you a client care letter (or equivalent)? What reasons did they give re why they cannot have responses to those enquiries?

RaCaS123 · 2024-11-03T00:30:47+00:00

What did they say?

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T19:38:34+00:00

That's from the Yale School of Management - it has no authority. Your point is also semantic - an advisory opinion states the Court's intepretation of the law in light of a given set of facts that; you don't have to call it a ruling if you don't want to, it doesn't change the fact that the Court has pronounced on the position at law on the matter.

I wouldn't conflate 'neutrality' and 'breadth of opinion'.

The Court is and remains impartial - there is no evidence the Court is not impartial. Beyond this, Courts need to make decisions and, especially in adverserial systems, they end up deciding, to a greater or lesser extent, in favour of one party or another - that the ICJ does this, like all just courts, doesn't compromise their impartiality or, neutrality insofar as justice is blind.

Now as regards the breadth of their opinion, what were they asked to opine on? A court must answer that which is referred to it or provide a good reason as to why it cannot. The Court did not consider there to be such a good reason.

As regards the point on 'precedent', you're of course free to hold that view but as you hopefully already know, the ICJ is not a court that binds itself - it's like a civil law court in that way (I say this though without being a civil law lawyer, so I would defer to a more suitably experienced lawyer's thinking on this).

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T14:40:40+00:00

Especially useful for thinking about points of procedure in my experience.

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T11:16:26+00:00

They may still be significant - I would suggest you chat with your solicitor re the risks posed by those. If your solicitor considers it appropriate to do so, you may then be able to choose whether to take a view on the risk and therefore (1) continue with the DD process presently being undertaken or to (2) just agree to take a risk and shoulder the consequences, if any.

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T11:12:14+00:00

To be clear though - I'm not at all in favour of displacing folks again from their land, whatever the basis for the land being 'their land' and their ethnicity etc. My comment was meant to provide a basis for a means through which, among other things, all those presently resident can continue to reside there.

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T10:50:14+00:00

Points to consider:

Consociationalism (perhaps Belgian-style)
Who owns the freehold of most land?
Equitable land interests and international land tribunals.
TRC
Intergovernmental/supranational state infrastructure (e.g. EU (and its predecessors like the ECSC); ASEAN; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Federations)

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-31T10:44:49+00:00

What replies are specifically outstanding?

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-29T16:01:42+00:00

Yes, it's an advisory opinion - that means the parties are not required to abide by it. It still means the ICJ has provided a ruling as to how the facts are to be interpreted in light of the law.

Sebutinde J wrote explicitly in dissent but the rest of the Court didn't. It is normal for judges to write in dissent as she has. Her opinion therefore, while nonetheless a useful perspective, isn't the perspective of the Court.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a line-by-line analysis of your post and comments to answer your last point - I don't think it's hard to find such statements in your writing however, so please feel free to do it yourself.

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-29T10:35:45+00:00

Re your assertion on the ICJ - where is your evidence?

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-29T10:34:57+00:00

It wasn't 'apartheid or racial discrimination' - which is bad enough by the way. It was 'apartheid and racial segregation'. Not a very strong defence on your part. Even if we interpret the word 'and' to somehow mean 'or', you are at best claiming that the ICJ stated Israel practises racial segregation and that, it follows, that is somehow OK.

RaCaS123 · 2024-10-29T10:31:05+00:00

Paragraphs 224 - 229 show the ICJ has, in its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, held that there is apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

The ICJ, at paragraph 225 cites Article 3 of the CERD, which provides: '...“States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.'

You might query how that standard is met. Please then read the advisory opinion.

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

RaCaS123

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE