I am pleased to announce the publication of a book which pulls together everything I have learned as an in-house lawyer, including essential but difficult-to-find reference material. Please take a look and discover what a corporate client really wants from their in-house team. And it’s not ‘cheap and cheerful’. Thank you.
Noticeably absent from recent government announcements is any proposal to abolish statutory right-to-buy. To the contrary, Angela Rayner has signaled her commitment to keep the policy, Even if some of the crazy discounts are to be scaled back. Currently, around 40% of ex-right-to-buy properties are owned by private landlords, Meaning that councils have to rent back on their own estates just to meet their statutory housing obligations. And all paid from housing benefit. That’s you and me. No wonder first-time buyers and private renters are priced out of the market. But not everyone who has exercised their right-to-buy is a winner.
It is the high-rise leaseholders who have come off worst. They are the ones facing five figure service charge bills when their local council decides to replace windows. When everyone else living in a block gets it for nothing. But something has to give if you want to rebuild social housing stock and solve Britain’s housing crisis.
Starmer’s mistake was not that someone else paid for his wife’s clothes but that he did not follow protocol in declaring it. But wouldn’t you think that he would have known that?
Contrary to what many people think, there is no law which says that someone in public office cannot accept hospitality, in circumstances when it might be considered insulting to refuse. But there has to be transparency.
All public sector organisations have a hospitality book in which you can write in hospitality which is offered to you and you are minded to accept. It might be a pair of cuff-links. It might be an invitation to a ‘black-tie’ dinner. Take a few moments to look your organisation’s hospitality book to see what other people have written into it. You may be surprised,
Haven’t we learned anything from 1920s prohibition? When stupid politicians voted to ban alcohol consumption across the United States, and in so doing, created the model for organised crime, which still exists today, and lives on In the drug cartels of South America. So shouldn’t we be de-criminalising instead of criminalising otherwise lawful social activity? But here we go again, with Starmer’s plan to ban tobacco smoking in pub gardens and parks, where it does not affect anyone except the smoker.
Sunak started all of this nonsense with his talk about raising the smoking age every year, so that generations going forward will never be able to legally smoke. He did it to take away attention from the housing and cost of living crisis which his government had created.So are we going to see police officers frisking down young people, just in case they are hiding cigarettes? That’s going to be great for community relations! Now Starmer has picked up the reins.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a smoker. But I don’t like to see anyone being put out of work just because someone wants to make a political point. Nor do I wish to see the creation of a new criminal underground. Haven’t we got enough criminals already? Or police chasing round after kids and pub- smokers, when they should be catching burglars and shoplifters. If Starmer wants to ban something, he should ban online gambling.That causes much more psychological damage and addiction. As well as family breakups.But no one seems bothered about that. In fact, I’d guess that if you’ve got the wit and the know-how, anyone could start up a gambling platform from their own back bedroom.You wouldn’t need to employ anyone. And you wouldn’t need to rent any premises.You just pay for the software and the marketing.Then sit back and watch the cash roll in. It almost seems too easy.
Erasing 1000 years of history
One of the things I’ve noticed in the past couple of years is the appearance of cans of Carlsberg; Guinness and some other beers and lagers, which have been repackaged in larger pint-sized containers. So when you pour it out, it will reach the top of your glass. Just as if you were buying it draught.
What makes it legal in the UK to sell beer in pint-size cans is the fact that the 568ml equivalent is also displayed on the can. Just as a McDonalds quarter pounder doesn’t define its weight but is a trademark. A McDonalds quarter pounder’s actual legal weight in the UK is a minimum of 113.4 grammes uncooked. But for me, it will always be quarter pounder.
So why is it that when I buy a 454 gramme jar of strawberry jam, I am not allowed to call it a pound of jam? It is never labelled as such, even though for all practical purposes, 454 grammes is a pound of jam The welcome exception is MacKay’s 12-ounce (340 gramme) jars of jam and marmalade, which are labelled in this way. So why can’t other manufacturers label in the same way? Selling items in imperial units is not illegal provided that you label the stuff correctly.
The fact Is, that pint cans have never been part of the British tradition because, before metrication, off-sales of beer were in brown pint or quart bottles. The only notable canned beer which existed before metrication was the Watney’s Party 7 (and the smaller Party 4), which was sold in large cans which you could never open. And when you did manage to pierce the heavy-duty aluminium, the gaseous contents sprayed everywhere. From the 1970s onwards, most canned beers were sold in the horrible 440ml size, which doesn’t appear to convert to anything and which continues to be the standard size for most canned beers sold in the UK. Why 440 ml?
Currently, it is only the British Weights and Measures Association (which appears closely aligned to Brexit and Farage’s Reform Party) which is fighting to preserve use of imperial units and which is fighting a rearguard action against mandated metrication. But you don’t have to be an ardent Brexiteer or Faragist to regret the erasure of 1000 years of history. And there is nothing anti-Europe about wanting to preserve our industrial heritage. And the problem with rearguard actions is that they always fail, unless they buy time for something else to intervene.
Where imperial measurements still reign supreme, are in those parts of the world economy which have been traditionally dominated by the United States. And no mandated-metrication is ever going to change that. Which is why we buy 15-inch pizzas and eat 15-ounce steaks. Why we buy our McDonalds Quarter Pounders. Why we fly at 30,000 feet. Why heavyweight boxers still weigh themselves in pounds. And why you might buy a 56-inch TV for your living room.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 