₦airaland Forum

I was just told about a woman who had acid thrown at her from a passing vehicle so best be mindful when walking about as well, people.

Zahra29:
I remember circa last year when some on this thread were bashing illegal immigrants; making distinctions between their legal status and those crossing by boat; claiming that illegal immigrants were the problem and not legal migrants who had paid into the system; and by the way why couldn't they just stay in France? I remember I even played devil's advocate saying that many want to come to the UK as they have family here and also the English language factor.

Fast forward and now apparently nobody is an illegal immigrant; all immigrants are the same regardless of whether they arrive via Heathrow or via Dover dinghy; £8m a day on hotels is not an issue whatsoever.

Hilarious stuff.

First, it's interesting that when you're saying something very different from what you said before, it's because you were 'playing devil's advocate' but for others it's because they're being hypocritical?

Second and more importantly, it may be hilarious to you but it's perfectly logical how recent events have changed people's views. No one here is feeling the fear they're feeling because they've not contributed much to the society or because of their immigration status.

When people internalize that for the rioters and those enabling them with subtle encouragement and justification, the only thing that matters is that you have dark skin and you're therefore automatically an undesirable, is it surprising that they change their views as well?

Zahra29:
Not according to the Illegal Migration Act which the UK government passed into law in 2023. According to the law:

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.

The act aims to:

put a stop to illegal migration into the UK by removing the incentive to make dangerous small boat crossings
.....


Just stating facts.

You might want to check with Labour HQ if they have any plans to rescind this law and endorse boat crossings as a legal and acceptable route of migration to the UK

Fun fact: Up until last year, Albanians made up a significant proportion of people crossing by boat - until the UK government made a deal with the Albanian govt to stop its citizens.
Albania is considered a safe country, not at war and is even a candidate country to join the European Union, so it is a bit naive to think that only genuine wartorn refugees and asylum seekers are crossing over from Europe to get to the UK. E.g. Some are fleeing deportation from Germany and France, similar to some UK migrants that are crossing to Ireland to apply for asylum there.

Your facts are out of date.

On the 23rd of July, the Home Secretary issued new regulations varying the enforcement of the Act. There's a complex situation around how the Act creates a duty but not an immediate enforcent requirement and the dates the restrictions take effect but the summary is that no, people are not automatically "illegal" because they arrived on a small boat.

When they're processed,if their claims are denied then they'll be subject to removal and become illegal if they try to evade that. Simple.

Even before, I doubt such a claim would be correct. Virtually every legal organization (Law Society, Bar Council etc) made it clear parts of the law contradicted the UK's international law obligations (which supercede national laws) and potentially violated the HRA as well. There's a reason no planes actually took off despite all the huffing and puffing by Sun-ella.

https://righttoremain.org.uk/illegal-migration-act-ban-on-processing-asylum-claims-lifted/ has an explainer.

You can read the actual regulation here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/815/made

Interestingly, the contradictions in the law itself is why people were actually stuck in the hotels costing the government as much as they are

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/braverman-law-cost-migrants-removed-2898645

Braverman knew this. The fact that the law and the Rwanda plan was never going to fly literally or figuratively was obvious but she was more focused on becoming an anti-immigration champion. The 8 million per day is her and her ilk's fault, not the asylum seekers'.

ReesheesuKnack:
Sorry. There are no illegal immigrants. When Sir Keir Starmer talks about Smashing the gangs, he actually meant the gangs of Border force personnel who stamp the entry visas for folks coming off the boats.

Exactly the kind of empty response I expected so don't worry, you don't have to be sorry - I'll clarify for you.

Smashing the human trafficking gangs exploiting asylum seekers is a different thing from processing asylum claims, unless you're saying the government means the asylum seekers are the gangs.

kwakudtraveller:
There’s no justification for what is happening; boats or no boats. Black Brits are also being attacked, so there’s no need to try to make sense of the situation. I’m a tax-paying immigrant with no access to public funds, but word on the street is that we are enjoying free housing and cars, yet part of the taxes I pay goes into benefits payments for the same people who’ll see me on the street and attack me because I’m black.

Exactly. That whole write-up is just weird.

On one hand, 'what's going on is so bad' but on the other hand 'actually you know brits are not being trained to be nurses and there's a 2- child benefit cap and people are being taxed'.

How are those things featuring in a conversation about the deadly attacks on people who aren't white without any regard to their immigration status? The other day everyone agreed that the riots in Leeds were not justifiable under any guise but today we're being treated to a buffet of 'underlying causes'.

Re underlying causes for privation in the country - about £4 billion was wasted on unusable PPE at the height of the pandemic. That's more than these asylum accomodations cost in a whole year and the jara would probably suffice to subsidise gas for the elderly to a large extent - why aren't the rioters at the gates of Baronness Mone and her ilk who profiteered from that?

The vast majority of the funds spent on those hotels go to shady middle-men who are profiting off the state (likely due to 'fast track' (aka corruption but I guess in the UK it's called lobbying) arrangements as with PPE - why aren't the protesters at their gates?)
The salesmen making millions from asylum hotels - The Times - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/the-salesmen-making-millions-from-asylum-hotels-k776jfd66

The videos, photos, social media posts etc are crystal clear - common denominator so far of all the violence is that it's targeted at foreigners and muslims. That makes it crystal clear that the drivers of the violence are racism and bigotry.

This sort of mealy-mouthed ''but, but, but immigrants' talk is what got the country here in the first place - people with vested interests (usually to deflect from their own failures) finding tenuous ways to tie every societal ill to immigrants such that the animals attacking people in the streets buy into it wholesale and lay all their woes at the feet of everyone who doesn't look like them. Some believe asylum seekers are given iphones when they step off the boats, and cars not long after someone really said this on LBC radio.

The fact is that there are a lot of reasons why Britain is facing the issues it's facing and there's responsibility in many quarters but these riots are solely the responsibility of those on the streets looting and burning and attacking innocents. It's certainly not the fault of students and workers and other classes of immigrants who paid the prescribed fees to study or get to work and are continuing to pay all the prescribed fees associated with their route of choice, and it's definitely not the fault of asylum seekers, although I want to wait and hear ReesheesuKnack's explanation of how these people are illegal first and then we'll check and confirm whether being attacked in their accomodations is the prescribed sentence for their 'crimes'.

ReesheesuKnack:
Very interesting debate going on here. So refreshing to read the views.

I still think the UK needs to be tough, very very tough on the issue of illegal migration and the issues of small boats crossings. The PM promised to ‘smash the gangs’ I hope he will smash the gangs much sooner rather than latter.

As a (legal) migrant myself, I find it outrageous and to be honest, appalling that any country in the world should follow the UK model.

a. You allow illegal migrants to get to your shores in small boats (the argument that some are genuine asylum seekers is for another day).

Who; specifically, are these illegal migrants and under what law are they illegal?

Zahra29:
The usual suspects are all acting and speaking as expected depending on which side they support.

With the 2011 and BLM protests/riots (and going back further to the Brixton riots and the like), left and "far left" supporters excused the protests and violence, instead pointing the focus on the endemic societal and institutional issues and injustice that led to the outpouring of anger. Meanwhile right and "far right" actors and media were hopping mad, especially as the protesters/rioters/looters were mostly black or of ethnic origin.

Flip over to the 2024 riots and the right and "far right" are sympathetic to the underlying grievances of the protesters/rioters/looters while others are aghast.

Same script, different actors.

Oh for sure - that's correct but it's whataboutism and not relevant to my point in this specific context.

I'm not saying Farage and co are right or wrong for not speaking about it. Na dem get their mouth, and I know they'll act according to their goal of reversing immigration. I have no qualms with them excercising their right to pursue that democratically.

The fact is that their actions and utterances are posing a direct threat to me and people like me solely on the basis of how we look, and I'm pointing that out to people here because some had previously sympathized with them on the basis of alignment with some other goals of theirs.
To paraphrase missjekyll, I'm reminding the turkeys what Thanksgiving looks like.

That's why I phrased it as food for thought. For one, the distinction that people like to draw between legal and 'illegal' (not really, per the letter of the law) immigrants is clearly nonexistent in the eyes of the far right (I define this by willingness to utilise or encourage violence). Random people have been attacked and have had their businesses looted and property destroyed without any attempt to verify their immigration status.

The person who murdered those children is not even muslim, yet, the thugs on the streets have been targeting mosques.

Whether it's due to underlying grievances or not is an academic question from my perspective as someone worrying about my wife heading to work and back tomorrow, solely because I know that as a visibly African woman, she could be the target of violence without any attempt by the thugs to verify her immigration status (legal), role (highly qualified skilled worker), religion (Christian), contributions to the country (very high), 'benefits' taken (zero) and all the other things that they're saying are the cause of their rioting.

Hope you understand now.

And so the random attacks, burning and looting continues, and nary a word of condemnation from the usual suspects who typically have much to say about public disorder. Instead, it's subtle justification and encouragement.

Again, should be food for thought for everyone.

Making me personally revisit many of my stances on issues.

Viruses:
Even if they are former men, it's not a fair match.

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

You’re just parroting moral panic headlines and probably Instagram videos as well.

Do a little research and stop spreading fake news against someone unfairly.

Ticha:
We did as explained in my response above. We eliminated it because we decided earning more was no longer our focus - hence why we seriously considered Canada instead.

It's a pretty privileged position to be in and I am glad we were in a position to be able to take the decision.

My advice is go! NZ/Aus was or gathering phase and boy did we work our arses off! We both essentially had 2 full time jobs for 7 years!

Thanks as always, Madam Ticha.

Ticha:
We went to NZ on a whim so there were no objectives to achieve per se. A transfer opportunity came up and we jumped at it. It also gave us an opportunity to live in Australia as well. I think if we had to fund our whole move them, we wouldn't have done it. Covid lock downs meant we were there long enough to qualify for citizenship so got it as well as set ourselves up financially well for the rest of our lives hopefully. We also thoroughly visited and explored many countries in the Pacific - as you know waka aboutery is my favourite past time!

To be fair, I'm totally disenchanted with NZ and have been for about 3 years. It may well be a me issue 😅😅 although quite a few of our friends that are doing well there are also planning a move out.

In terms of financial growth, we exceeded our expectations and plans hence being able to choose our next location based on largely emotions and family ties. It comes to a time in life where earning more takes a back seat and I think we're there now.

We had a choice of US, Canada and UK/Ireland. We very very strongly considered Canada (Vanc and Toronto) and spent 2 months there in 2022, viewing houses and talking to employers and extended family but it did not make any financial sense at all and would set us back several years. At worst, we want to remain where we are financially.

Next bigger consideration was Dublin. Dublin would have been a fully funded move but in the end, being able to see family on a whim won out!

So we're back home and have promised our eldest - he particularly asked - that he won't have to change schools again and will finish in one school (he's going into his 4th school in 3 countries so I don't blame him!).

So we're here for the next 8 years till the younger ones finish secondary school and we get to spend lots and lots of time with our aging parents (all in their 70s)

After that, who knows?!

In the meantime, we've bought a project of a house and that should keep us busy as well as exploring Europe.

How about the US? Sounds like you eliminated it from consideration early on.

Any particular reasons why other than wanting to be closer to family?

It's very high-paying in my field and we're considering it in the medium-term, so trying to gather perspectives.

Thanks.

Rate cut 0.25% after a 5-4 vote. I was expecting the BoE to hold the line like the US Fed did yesterday but it seems the BoE is more confident.

There have already been some lender rate reductions yesterday/today - hopefully there'll be more (and more substantial ones) in the coming days.

Another reel of Trump and Republican flunkies attacking Kamala Harris based on...you guessed right...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujGBdGO1Hys

This is a woman who has been a VP, a Senator, an Attorney General of the most populous state, and a prosecutor before that, being labeled unqualified by followers of a serial conman, bankrupt, and convicted criminal.

If your instinct is to rationalize that it isn't about race, first I'd ask you if this doesn't give you deja vu of when Obama was running. What's the connection? Second - just imagine it was a black businessman who has Trump's record, from personal life to business fraud and Jan 6 among all the other issues - wouldn't he already have been dismissed as a liar, thug, cheat, etc. etc. all the stereotypes? Would he still be getting platformed the way Trump is?

Fraih:
Hello fam. Pls what do you think of opting out of pension plans in the workplace here?

Terrible, terrible idea. Don't fall into the short-termist trap - it's basically robbing your future self.
I've seen people promoting this on IG. It's either they don't fully understand it or they do but don't care because they'll get lots of likes and shares from people attracted to the idea of getting a small pay bump.

These should help explain why:

https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2021/04/martin-lewis--an-important-warning-to-every-employee-in-the-uk/

https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/pensions-retirement/managing-a-pension/can-i-opt-out-of-my-workplace-pension

missjekyll:
I think it further showcases the difference between US and UK politics.
When a UK politician said this in 2016 she suffered swift consequences.

In 2024 US, this is apparently a wildly held view by conservatives

What are you referring to here? Nothing's linked

Don the con has been looking awfully harrassed (or harrised?) these past few days.

Just read he's running away from a debate after declaring 'any time, any place' just the other day.

Solumtoya:
And for number 2, it depends on the deposit, interest rate and the tenure! For the tenure (or tenor), it depends mostly on your age. You can assume a retirement age of about 70 years or less. This means that if you're 40, your max tenure is 30 years.

The easiest way to get exact figures is to use a free Mortgage calculator like https://www.mortgagecalculator.uk/

As seen below, a 300k property for 30 year mortgage at 5.29% is about £1500. £300 goes to repayment of the house and the rest is interest

Thanks, @Solumtoya. Can’t believe I forgot about tenure in own response. Sorry @kwakuthetraveller - the figures I gave were for 25 years.

Here's what JD Vance, Trump's new veep pick, had to say about Trump over the past several years, all while being an active Republican - calling him reprehensible and comparing him to Hitler, and there's a lot more: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/kfile-jd-vance-comments-trump/index.html

Very interesting.

Ticha:
I will not return to doing stand-alone Airbnbs. The income is too volatile for my liking. As part of the house I live in, I will consider and prefer short term lets as long I do not depend on the income to pay my bills.

A few things to consider for long term lets in an annexe -

With an annex, the council will band it as a separate property for council tax purposes from the main house especially if it has cooking facilities. Some will band it if it has a separate loo/bathroom. Once it’s banded, it can be a massive pain to get them to remove the banding. They’re broke and are not smiling!

Studios tend to have a high turnover rate for long term lettings. The rent is not too different from a 1 bed which has more space and same bills or from a room in a shared house which is cheaper as bills are shared and potentially all inclusive. People will often use them as stepping stones. If you’re near a university/hospital, it maybe worth liaising directly with the accommodation offices as a stop gap accommodation provider. My advice will be to make it at least a one bed annex.

Your mortgage provider might not be too happy about it because you’re changing their security from what was agreed. Obviously, you’re ‘supposed’ to notify them of any material changes to the house. They can stop you from doing the extension or ask you to change the kind of mortgage you have if you say I want to extend to rent out so thread carefully.

Consider your tenant profile. Single occupant? What if the single occupant has someone visiting daily? Happy to take a couple? What if they have a baby?

Minimum ASTs are 6 month long. What happens if you get a not so good tenant? You’ll be stuck with them in your adjacent space for a min of 6 months (will change if the rental reform plans go ahead).

Then there is tax. Rent a room only applies to lodgers or short term lets that share your space with you. Anything else will count as income for tax purposes. Due to S24, you cannot offset your mortgage interest, so all rent counts as income minus expenses. If the studio is all inclusive, then you will need to ensure that your calculation of the share of expenses is proportionate. Depending on your current incomes, the rental income might put you and madam straight into a higher tax bracket.

The cost of the conversion will not be classed as an expense for tax purposes – it will be a capital expenditure against future CGT. If the council re-bands you, when you sell, you will also be liable for CGT for the value of the annex as it would not be classed as your primary residence (just the annex value portion). So, you will pay tax on that portion of the uplift when you sell which is currently set at 28% for each of you so the longer you will there, the more tax you will pay as the house appreciates in value.

It doesn’t mean it’s not worth it. Just some things to consider as you plan especially around taxes and how that will impact you both as you earn more.

Thanks so much!

it's not to rely on for bills or anything but just to get some additional funds to overpay as and when, so I think short-lets will be the best, and it'll probably be easier to do some minor work in the annex to make it work for short-lets without needing to do the major works (and resulting planning issues) that we'd need for long term lets.

Thanks again. Much much appreciated.

Ticha:
1. Check the rules in your area. Parts of Wales (Cardiff especially and the Valleys), Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh), Cornwall, Devon and London have a ban on short term lets in varying degrees. You will even need planning permission in certain areas which takes months and some serious dosh spent to get. Neighbours will rat you out so ensure you have your Ts crossed!
2. It can be a rented property but make sure you have clearance from the landlord and in writing where possible. A normal BTL mortgage expressly forbids using the property as a short let or as a residential property. Some landlords don’t care and some do – so be upfront with the landlord so they can decide for themselves if they’re happy for you to run a short let
3. It can be your own property but a. if you have bought with a residential mortgage, you will be breaching the terms (na who know go open ya yansh). If you have bought with a specialist short term let mortgage, then you will be breaching the terms by living there as well. Some lenders (Halifax for example) offer a residential mortgage where you can also use the house for short lets for short periods of time thus allowing people to rent out their homes when they go on holiday etc rather than as a proper business.
4. Interest rates for short term let mortgages are way higher than regular BTL or residential interest rates. Deposits are also higher -most lenders want between 35-50% deposit. Most lenders class it as commercial lending so the mortgage term is usually also short (between 10 to 15 years max)
5. To be profitable, you may have to be in locations that may not really be family friendly – city centres, near airports or event centres, touristy areas. These areas will also have competition, so you then have to spend money to up your game. Luxury does not usually equal profit
6. If you live in the house and run STL from it, you will benefit from the government rent a room tax free scheme.
7. People are less likely to misbehave and be shady if you live there and just rent out rooms but then you’re sharing bathrooms, toilets, kitchens and shared spaces with strangers daily – think of family safety.

Pitfalls
1. You need to either have a good cleaning crew or be open to spending a good chunk of your time on cleaning otherwise the reviews will kill your business pretty quickly
2. Location, location, location is key – which again ties into the above
3. Most residential flats expressly prohibit short term lets and where they allow it, other flats will also be STLs so there will be competition.
4. On average, you need to be booked for at least 20 days every month to break even. Expenses to think about off the bat - all the house bills are paid by you, updating furniture and fittings as the wear and tear is a lot higher, higher cleaning expenditure, fees to booking platforms (Airbnb takes an average of 18% of all bookings, booking.com takes 15%, VRBO takes 15%), linen and laundry costs (at every booking), providing and replacing toiletries and tea stuff then rent or mortgage.
5. You are not guaranteed a booking. People will cancel last minute. You will have to reduce prices to keep it competitive. There will be down periods – usually December to March that your expenses will keep running when your bookings are down.
6. The booking portals can shut you down at any time and sometimes for frivolous reasons. Airbnb is very good at this. They can also withhold payments to you and refund customers without your approval and there’ll be nothing you can do about it.
7. Neighbours will intensely dislike you – guests are not usually very considerate. They will park anyhow, party, thrash the property, make noise and you will be called out to break up issues.
8. It can easily become a full time job without the commensurate full time pay unless you outsource it and then that eats into your profits.
9. Reviews even when malicious can make or break you.

We turned our family home into an Airbnb when we first left the UK. We restricted bookings to a minimum of 3 nights. It was a larger home (5 bedroom) and could sleep 12 people, so we got large bookings and were able to charge accordingly (£300 a night and fixed so if it was 1 person or 12 people, you paid the same price. Otherwise, people book for 2/3 and sneak the reast in)

2 bookings was break even for us. So we aimed for a min of 3 bookings a month. Even though we didn’t target tourists (it was near a military base, close to a motorway, a speedway and a nuclear power plant), Nov to March was absolutely brutal! So, we targeted contractors and track racers, those would wake, head off to work, come back, drink, sleep and repeat and they were filthy! OMG! The cleaner always had to take rubbish to the tip -which cost money as well.
Christmas and NY were always booked so we often upped the charge for that time to cover us till March. There is a large number of retirees (67% of the population of the town) so their families would book and stay at ours when they came to see, visit or bury their family member.

There’s was always something to be repaired after every booking. People would put the heating on in the summer and just leave it on all day. Our cleaner lived 2 doors away and would hand over keys so they knew she was nearby, people still tried to have parties, sneak people in, hide broken stuff.

Guests will message at all hours of the day for basic things even when we had a comprehensive house manual detailing every single thing. I can’t find the thermostat for the heating – it’s on the wall by the controls. The lights won’t dim – use the dimmer nau! I’ve forgotten the pin to get in (it’s always the last 4 digits of the booking person’s phone number and they can change the guest one to any 4-digit number), I’ve locked myself out (just use the 4-digit pin that you set! It’s a digital lock o! I can unlock remotely but still!), your spoons are not shiny enough, could you please buy round pasta bowls? Can you get me cots? My baby will only sleep in a cot (we don’t provide cots and it’s detailed in our listing and the booking rules), your bedsheets are not Egyptian cotton, I only sleep on cotton sheets – ogbeni carry your favourite sheets follow body o
You will have your customer service face and voice on 24/7. Knowing what I know now, I’ll take Mon- Fri lodgers over short term let guests if I am not doing it full time.

PS - You can check prices and availability in your given area by checking calendars of hosts on Airbnb or VRBO by month (booked dates will be greyed out), open dates will show prices. Play round with weeks (7 days discounts), months (long term booking discount), check how lax their rules are - strictly no refunds or usually means bookings are generally slow. It is more difficult to do that on booking.com so to check viability for booking.com, use the search function and check which cheap hotel chains are in the area - Travel lodge etc as those will be your direct competition

Madam Ticha, thanks for this evergreen insights.

Please, based on your experience doing airbnb and also longer term rentals of part of a home, which would you say you had a better experience with and which would you do now? Also, any issues you'd be more wary of - especially the long term rentals since you've covered airbnb pitfalls here.

Looking at converting a garage/extension into a separate self-contained studio flat so trying to figure out which route may be best.

Thanks!

kwakudtraveller:
I have a couple of questions. Please help a brother 🙏🏿

1. If I'm buying a house in an onward chain, and all contracts are signed. My question is: When do mortgage payments start? Is it right away, or when I move in? This is especially confusing especially if the current owners haven't found a new home yet.In this case, who pays the mortgage if they're still living there after the sale closes?

2. For those who recently bought a home within the £300k mark, what is your monthly mortgage payment? I understand interest rates vary by lender, but I'm curious about actual figures people are paying, not estimates on Zoopla (which I've heard can be inaccurate).

Cannot answer 1 but for 2, it's not the property size that matters primarily - it's the loan size, so based on your deposit. Anyway, for a loan of 289, it's ¬1660 at 4.87% (5 year fix), so for a property of 300 with 10% deposit and so a 270k loan, it should be around 1550.

missjekyll:
Look at the molue that jammed Elon yesterday. Lol

Love this from VK.

Very accurate summary of the depravity that Trump represents.

Was very interesting to see EM's (non) response as well - sidestepping the points and making vague, irrelevant claims about fake news - as usual from MAGAs, as if Trump's actions haven't been very well documented beyond any doubt.

And I loved the very specific follow-ups from VK who, interestingly, used to be a republican himself.

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/elon-musk-vinod-khosla-twitter-exchange-donald-trump-joe-biden-democratic-nominee-us-president-2569942-2024-07-22

Zahra29:
1. The fact that the King was denied his wish to change his title and was offered the concession pledge instead (30 years after the wish was initially made known) shows that it is very very unlikely that the titles will be changed at all. The RF has its own interests to look after as well, if it modernises or changes too much then it builds the Republican argument that the whole institution might as well be scrapped. What makes the RF unique are the sacrosanct traditions and pomp and ceremony which have stood for centuries, some of which are beyond the power of even the Monarch to change.

2. Exactly - the fact that Rishi could publicly perform his religion as part of his office is further proof that UK is already extremely inclusive of other faiths and cultures. I don't see why the RF has to change its fundamental traditions just to virtue signal the same point.

3. Reform also polled relatively high among blacks you know...so if they're attracting the younger populace as well as a group that is /has been on the receiving end of racism....I think the argument for/against them is perhaps more complex and nuanced than just race issues.

A couple of things;

You don't know that the pledge was an offering to him or if he moderated his views over the intervening period. What we know for a fact is that he changed the wording of that pledge literally upon taking the throne. He couldn't have done anything before. Indicates that it was a priority for him. Also, the extent to which the royal traditions are beyond the power of the king to change are speculatitve (unless you have a statute you can cite) so this is a moot point. We'll see how things play out.

Again, I'm not saying the UK should change. I'm saying it has changed and is changing in one direction. It's not an opinion - it's a fact.

About Reform, now I'll speculate a little bit and tell you that you'll find that polls and indeed votes when people know that Reform doesn't actually have a chance of winning won't be indicative of actual voting patterns among the group the party has made it its priortity to demonize and threaten. Everyone was angry at the Tories and many were/are angry at Labour and so many votes and polls reflected that. In an election where they have an actual chance, the same will likely happen as did in France when the possibility of a Le Pen presidency became very real and people understood what that could mean for their immediate futures, they found the energy to unite and vote tactically to prevent it.

Ultimately at this point I'll just say let's see how things play out.

Zahra29:
1. The modified pledge, which is a very reasonable promise for ANY country to make in the 21st century, is very different to altering the fundamental titles of the RF. The King is Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church and shall remain so.

2. The UK is already extremely inclusive,it does not mean that the title of the King/Monarch has to change from the central tenets, faith and traditions that it and the country was founded on. Embracing other cultures and religions does not mean you have to lose sight of, or water down, your own.

3. There was a poll before the election that showed that Reform was polling high among the younger age groups. I posted a comment here about it, same trend playing out with the far right in Europe. So it's got nothing to do with the younger generation being enlightened as they already live in an inclusive, multicultural society. It has more to do with the hope that they feel that these new parties offers them over the status quo, such as home ownership.

1. The point is not about whether it's reasonable for the UK to make. The point was that taken into consideration alongside the King's previous wish to change his title to reflect multiple faiths, the current unprecedented change which he later made reflects a definitive shift away from tradition. It also doesn't matter how adamant you are when you declare that it shall remain so. The king himself said he wanted to change it. He didn't get his way fully but he started the monarchy down the path already. That's what matters.

2. I agree with you. I actually like British culture a lot. Doesn't change the facts though. I'm not talking about what should be. I'm assessing what is and what is likely to be in the future based on cultural and demographic trends. Did you think you'd see a UK prime minister doing a Hindu ritual before entering no. 10? Or the way religious politics affected the recent elections?

3. You're right - it's not just one thing. That doesn't change the overarching stats that younger people generally tend more 'progressive', and there's that other point about how there'll be an increasing diversity among those younger voters, especially as the old, consertative core dies - literally.

Zahra29:
Erm no, King Charles is Defender of the Faith just like his mother was and monarchs before him. His other official title is Supreme governor of the Church of England.
The Royal Family does not dispense with centuries old tradition on a whim. Charles had indicated that he might want to be styled King of the Faiths but that was quickly shot down.

Whim or not, the fact of the matter is that King Charles recited a brand new pledge that spoke of him working “to seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely.” None of his previous ancestors had ever said that.

So although the "defender of faith" thing was shot down as you put it in 1994, the king has clearly followed through to an extent on his principle and made a substantial step toward the monarchy being less exclusively Christian in outlook...for better or worse.

Also, budaatum, you make a very valid point about the inclusiveness in younger people. It's also not a coincidence that Labour is advocating for the vote to be given to 16-year Olds. Apart from their mindsets being more inclusive, that demographic will be increasingly diverse as the years go on. I think people will be very surprised come 2029 but let's wait and see.

Zahra29:
Yet despite her Indian heritage, they still endorsed Vance and his wife to become the Second Family out of numerous other candidates.

Nikki Haley came second in the republican hustings, beating the likes of DeSantis, and still carries a lot of sway in the Rep party - despite the fact she is Indian : born to Indian immigrants.

I'm definitely not saying they are spotless, but many people of BME origin who vote for Reform or Trump don't necessarily do so because they think they are bessies with black people, but because their policies align most closely with the priorities and values they consider most important to them, their children,community and the country they call home. Just like Evangelicals who vote for Trump despite his questionable personal moral record, but they reason that his policies are more in line with their Christian principles than the Democrats, so they hold their noses if need be and support him.

And the other parties are not squeaky clean on racial issues themselves when you look beneath the pleasant veneer. Labour under Starmer has been accused of prioritising antisemitism over antiblack racism,also evidenced by the party's treatment of Diane Abbot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims

https://theconversation.com/racism-and-the-labour-party-investigation-after-investigation-feeds-an-endless-factional-loop-205954

Tories have had a worse reputation for racism than Labour, yet they've appointed more senior cabinet members of ethnic origin, including in all the 4 Great Offices of State, than the Labour party.

The Democrats have been accused of sidelining Harris in favour of white men who are far less qualified, aka Gavin Newsom. You'd also be surprised the number of women who don't support Harris simply because she's a woman herself. (Reverse sexism?)

There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes in politics, it's not just black and white issues. Sometimes people put the persona, headlines and emotions aside and vote on raw policies.

I don't disagree with any of this.

I understand fully that people vote based on different factors and I'm not campaigning or arguing anyone should vote one way or another.

The point was to highlight, as I said, what the core of the MAGA movement thinks about non-white people, and I can confidently say "the core" because these people in that video are all ones that Trump himself had platformed on multiple occasions and continues to associate with. Labour has its issues, yes, but it's incomparable.

No other party has the same level of acceptability of open racism and antagonism of non-white people as in MAGA and Reform, and there have been multiple incidents that showcased that. If any person Labour affiliate said the things Nick F said (as an example), they'd be roundly denounced immediately, but with Trump you'll hear nothing, or at worst some 'both sides' umms and ahhs. This part is my opinion and I'm fine with anyone not agreeing.

Ultimately, I shared because I found it interesting and genuinely very amusing. I actually laughed out loud thinking about the cognitive dissonance many MAGAs must be facing now.

Saw this very interesting video about the MAGA base's reaction to Trump's VP pick having an Indian wife -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1hJAy8h2BU

Should be especially interesting for those of you who support Reform/Trump, and a reminder about what the core of those movements really represent and think of you.

missjekyll:
Thats a bit rich coming from a Tory supporter,dont you think? You continued to support them even as they failed and failed for 14 years. Now they have been booted out, you are still raining on the parade after 2 weeks .
Luckily,You will be here to see and to enjoy all of it too.

Agreed.

And crucially as well - the plans display coherence in the government's strategy, unlike the previous few Tory governments that have bumbled from disastrous plan to disastrous plan, from Boris' "oven ready Brexit deal" to Truss's budget to Sunak's compulsory national service.

I personally like everything there although there's something I was hoping for as it relates to my field that was underwhelming but even if one does not agree with everything, it's a marked improvement already. Plus they have the numbers to push anything through so we can reasonably expect most of these will go through.

Also the point about how they might still fail is irrelevant. Every government may still fail. Same as every new leadership in any organisation. As you said, it's rich when such sour grapes comments come from Tory supporters or even the ones that said they'd vote Reform and their hallucinatory manifesto.

KOVIC19COVID20:
Oh woww your trust is booking your lessons for you? That’s so sweet of them.

Actually, you could ask your trust to get you a driver or two to be driving you to work, pending when your trust-sponsored driving test booking happens.

It worked for me during my time.

😄

I don't know why people are taking that account seriously. It's clear from many miles away that the person is just trolling.

Hwy9:
No offense but are you sure what you got is actually a court summons and not a letter containing a threat of a summons?

In any case, a call would likely either sort things out or make the issue a lot clearer at least.*******************************************************

The letter stated that I should appear in court in August, a payment plan has been communicated which further states that a liability order will be applied for by the council. Or I should pay all the outstanding amount due to avoid a liability order.

I have called them, requested for a call, raised inquiry form for a call but no response. Just a mail this afternoon.

Also worth noting is that, the last letter from the council showed that they omitted one of my payments in their analysis.

Something is very wrong. Can you go to their office or keep trying via phone? If you try earlier in the morning it may be easier to get a hold of someone.

Hwy9:
Hello fam,

My Council is after me!

The Annual bill for 24/25 financial year sent to me showed that my tax should be paid in the span of 10 months (ending January 2025).

However, I had started making payments in April after splitting into 12 equal months.

The Authority had sent a reminder earlier which I missed. Unfortunately, they have sent a summon for me to appear in court.

This is surprising because I haven't missed any of my monthly payments and I have always spread my payments across 12 months in the past.

Can anyone advise on the way forward.

Have you called them? From what I know it's likely there's an error somewhere. It's highly unusual for them to send a court summons after what seems to be a short interval even if you didn't pay at all, not to speak of now that you've been paying.

No offense but are you sure what you got is actually a court summons and not a letter containing a threat of a summons?

In any case, a call would likely either sort things out or make the issue a lot clearer at least.

toughest007:
Capitalizing on petty talks concocted out of emotional dislike of Trump is skewing your perception to what really constitutes pro-violence and advocacy of same. You guys just latch on to what the main stream media promotes and totally refuse to build an objective opinion.

Imagine posting a link for me and others to read twisted words from anti-Trump quarters. A lazy man's approach to objectivity!

Trump is exactly what the US needs right now.

Pro-violence my black hairy a**

Okay, boss. You are right.