• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Cruel landlord evicts young couple & their children

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Protagoras View Post

    The Head of State has decided to allocate no duties to certain individuals, who therefore are entitled to no funding from the Sovereign Grant.

    The Sovereign Grant business accounts are audited by the National Audit Office and laid before Parliament. The National Audit Office may also undertake value for money reviews to scrutinise its use of public funds.



    Why should anyone, simply by privilege of birth, have a role created for him or her?

    Maybe such individuals could benefit from government initiatives to get older workers back into the workplace. Train as a bus driver, perhaps?

    I rest my case.
    Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by vetran View Post

      You know H&M live abroad and its sat empty?
      You know H&M spent £2.4million repairing it a couple of years ago?
      …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by WTFH View Post

        You know H&M spent £2.4million repairing it a couple of years ago?
        and no..
        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/w...e-cottage.html


        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #14
          That's the article where it talks about them paying $3.2million.
          What are you saying no to?

          Here's another article from the Boris Bailout Corporation:
          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54062799
          …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by WTFH View Post

            That's the article where it talks about them paying $3.2million.
            What are you saying no to?

            Here's another article from the Boris Bailout Corporation:
            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54062799
            I don't think its the same as them paying for the renovations. They decided to make a contribution to end their "obligations".

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by WTFH View Post

              That's the article where it talks about them paying $3.2million.
              What are you saying no to?

              Here's another article from the Boris Bailout Corporation:
              https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54062799
              It must be confusing its literally at the top!

              They repaid the taxpayer because they no longer wanted to do Royal Duties they had agreed to do.

              Harry and Meghan Repay $3.2 Million for Home Renovations


              The couple had pledged to refund taxpayers for work on Frogmore Cottage after giving up royal duties in January.
              Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

              Comment


                #17
                Once upon a time, it was quite common for workers to have tied cottages. Examples include railway workers and police.

                In more modern times PM, Chancellor, university bosses, and ministers of religion come to mind as still enjoying this privilege. A common feature, however, is that such people recognise that their tenure is limited and make private provision for future accommodation.

                Contingent monarch resources have ample opportunity to purchase outright accommodation, should they so wish.
                In the case of one mentioned above, it may have been more prudent to buy a house than to accept funding for home improvements and agreeing to refund this on quitting.

                This really is a simple matter of folks failing to plan and take responsibility for their future, while clearly being in a position to do so.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by woohoo View Post

                  I don't think its the same as them paying for the renovations. They decided to make a contribution to end their "obligations".
                  My initial post says that they spent the money on renovations, which Vet says they didn't spend, by linking to an article that says they have repayed the money they spent.
                  Either they spent £2.4m or they didn't. I was stating that they did spend the money, and have since paid it back. I didn't start off by claiming they paid builders with their own money.
                  …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by WTFH View Post

                    My initial post says that they spent the money on renovations, which Vet says they didn't spend, by linking to an article that says they have repayed the money they spent.
                    Either they spent £2.4m or they didn't. I was stating that they did spend the money, and have since paid it back. I didn't start off by claiming they paid builders with their own money.
                    Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by WTFH View Post

                      My initial post says that they spent the money on renovations, which Vet says they didn't spend, by linking to an article that says they have repayed the money they spent.
                      Either they spent £2.4m or they didn't. I was stating that they did spend the money, and have since paid it back. I didn't start off by claiming they paid builders with their own money.
                      oh dear.

                      Renovations were paid for by the public on the understanding M&H would continue public duties, they chose not to, so they didn't get free renovations and had to reimburse the taxpayer.


                      repay
                      /rɪˈpeɪ,riːˈpeɪ/
                      Learn to pronounce
                      verb
                      past tense: repaid; past participle: repaid
                      1. pay back (a loan).
                        "the loans were to be repaid over a 20-year period"
                        Similar:
                        reimburse
                        refund
                        pay back
                        recompense
                        compensate
                        remunerate
                        square accounts with
                        settle up with
                        indemnify
                        pay off
                        recoup
                        return
                        give back
                        • pay back money borrowed from (someone).
                          "most of his fortune had been spent repaying creditors"
                        • do or give something as recompense for (a favour or kindness received).
                          "the manager has given me another chance and I'm desperate to repay that faith"
                          Similar:
                          reciprocate
                          return
                          requite
                          recompense
                          reward
                          return the favour
                      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X