Aggy

Wow.

In the 18-24 age bracket, support at 37 percent… and on that sliding scale until you get to over 80 per cent support in the over 65 age bracket. Pretty clear that in a couple of decades the majority will be against it. https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/ The idea of a president boris or sunak is certainly a more compelling pro-monarchy argument than tradition!

Official bank holiday since 2006 apparently.

St Andrews day and St Patrick’s day are already bank holidays in Scotland and n Ireland.

I mean there are actual philosophers and scholars who can’t agree on a definition of atheism so probably not one to get too worked up about on here! The initial point LYB was trying to make though seems to be correct - the ruling has created no legal precedent to get rid of faith schools or stop faith schools from forcing children to pray in assembly. It has merely established that if a school wants to be ‘secular’ and ban all forms of religion and praying, it can.

Yes

Haven’t really seen much about it but all seems a bit nanny state. Given the number of smokers has almost halved in the past decade and, I imagine, is as low as it ever has been in the younger generations, probably see it as something that won’t get much opposition. Which makes you wonder whether alcohol is a few decades behind. It already results in more cost to the NHS and society than smoking, and is becoming less and less popular with younger generations….

Like the peaceful Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar in recent years? You and Broadstairs were agitated before you knew the “facts” simply because you saw the suspect didn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes. You stopped caring when you realised the “facts” were that he wasn’t a Muslim terrorist but some Australian bloke with a European surname and mental health issues. I am sure people will “draw their own conclusions” as to why…

Certainly can’t be any worse and you’d hope there’d be fewer ‘controversies’ at least. I’m not convinced there’ll be as much change as we would like, partly because there isn’t the money to do it but partly because I’m not entirely convinced by the current Labour Party leadership either.

Understood. The developers building park homes to ‘get round the law changes banning ground rents’ are developers who were unaffected by the ground rent law changes and who were building park homes before those changes anyway. Makes sense.

Yes. Nobody has said they don’t exist. The “not really” was in response to your claim that developers are using park homes to get round the ground rent law changes. You still haven’t shown one example of that. You do though continue to post posts like this.

As for park homes more generally, I’ve already posted my thoughts on them. Are they exploitative? Possibly yes to an extent but for the reason that they need to have some form of income generation to be developed. They are predominantly retirement schemes (both links you posted above operate sites for over 50/55s). One of the main other retirement scheme models sees people buy a long lease for a premium, and then have to sell it back to the developer when they move out (or their estate sells it if they die) for 90 per cent of what they bought it for. Most retirement development schemes need some form of income generation to be viable/to attract investors to fund - if they had to sell up front with no future income generation, the developments wouldn’t get off the ground. So if park homes were unable to charge the fees they do, I suspect there would become even fewer of them The flip side with park homes is that you get to live in something that cost you a lot less upfront than a “traditional” house, which is useful when you’re a retiree downsizing and unable to get a mortgage. As I mentioned though, the reality is that for this reason (and the fact you can’t get a mortgage on one) park homes aren’t close to becoming a solution for the housing shortage. They are though a potential option for building much needed retirement living stock, which in turn would free up residential accommodation.

I suspect you’re back in wind up merchant mode to try and avoid saying you were wrong, as I think you’re probably intelligent enough not to be as confused as your posts suggest. If I owned an off-licence and the government banned pubs and bars in order to stop people consuming alcohol on site, would you suggest my continued use of my shop as an off-licence was trying to get round the law change banning alcohol consumption on-site? Park home developers are unaffected by the ground rent law changes, so don’t need to “get round” the change in ground rent law. Developers of traditional homes are affected by the ground rent changes but are not building park homes to get round the ground rent changes. So one group isn’t and the other doesn’t need to. Park homes also continue to be a tiny percentage of the market and almost exclusively aimed at over 55s- no developers are using them as an alternative to traditional housing because they can no longer charge ground rents. So, I’ll ask again, which developers are developing park homes to get round the ground rent law change as you stated?

That’s just a list of park home operators. Which ones were not operating park homes before the ground rent rules changed?

So… which developers are doing this to get round the changes to the ground rent law? Edit: and I don’t see any excessive pedantry. You claimed developers were getting round changes to ground rent laws by building park homes. Your “evidence” is park home operators who operated park homes before the law changes continuing to operate park homes after. Your claim is simply wrong.