In the news

Agreed that the companies that profited should pay for it. Many have, particularly the bigger home builders as their reputation gives them a lot to lose.

For many, though, there isn't a good way to hold the company accountable.

In my case, the company who built our block of flats was wound up as soon as Grenfell happened, and one of the directors who had become the building freeholder attempted to sell the freehold. The same directors have since created new companies to build new buildings, and now seem to just create and then end new companies for each housing development.

I personally am in a building that is covered by a government fund. However, I personally am out of pocket for about 60 grand despite this. It has been hugely expensive and there's a lot that isn't covered by the fund but needs to be done. I try not to think about it too much, as it makes me feel very angry.

Coming in very late to the energy discussion…

Germany phasing out nuclear when it did was completely political. You could have had a much more significant climate and public health impact by phasing out lignite-fuelled power generation (the mining itself is horrendous) and then working to phase out nuclear thereafter, but that would have lost Merkel the vote in the lignite-mining regions. It was a knee jerk response to Fukushima in a country that faces no earthquakes or tsunamis - the risks of another 10-15 years of operation were minimal.

(Sorry Oliver, I respect you a lot but when half of the Germans I know tell me that microwaves make water change its molecular structure I tend to think that Germany has a nuke phobia that goes beyond actual facts.)

As for Nord Stream 2 - that pipeline was a mistake, but it was agreed when Yanukovich was running Ukraine. If you believed Ukraine was going to remain a corrupt Russian client state taking its own cut on transit then having a route around it seemed more sensible then it does now.

half of the Germans I know tell me that microwaves make water change its molecular structure

or moving air gives you a cold.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/05/ministers-introduce-plans-to-remove-all-hereditary-peers-from-lords

Schoolchildren living in London's ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) were nearly four times as likely to switch to walking and cycling after its introduction compared with those outside the zone, new research suggests.

The study, published on Wednesday, followed the travel habits of almost 2,000 children over two years in London and Luton.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw8envvv0do

Job jobbed.

Yeah, forced to walk and cycle like communism!

Do you write for the Telegraph? ;)

This is awful

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vx0kq2xr2o

An ex of mine used to run a women's refuge in Nairobi. As with any refuge, the stories were horrific, but Kenya seems to have a worse experience than most countries I'm aware of. Rapes taking place in the streets was not uncommon, she'd witnessed it happening and been unable to stop it.

the company who built our block of flats was wound up as soon as Grenfell happened, and one of the directors who had become the building freeholder attempted to sell the freehold. The same directors have since created new companies to build new buildings, and now seem to just create and then end new companies for each housing development.

This is standard practice. A special purpose vehicle (SPV) isolates each development away from the holding company so the holding company has reduced exposure and liability.

Is there any benefit to this (other than for the holding company)?

On the face of it, no.

The holding company can separate any rotten limbs (distinct legal entities) while being the major (sole) share holder and skimming the profits while they are there.

I think the SPV can potentially offer different tax opportunities for each legal entity depending on the type of development.

Take a major UK house builder, a household name; go to companies house and search - you will go down a rabbit Hole of companies within companies.

Investors too.

I would say that it's not just being doggy and fucking residents. Imagine what happens if you had say 5 blocks to build at £2om each. You can't secure the contractors to complete all in one go and you're financing them one by one for whatever reasons. If problems arise in the construction of one of them you want to limit the losses to that one block rather than risk all of them. Especially if say the total value of all the land could be at the level of the losses involved you could potentially loose everything.

I imagine very big developers borrow at fairly low rates. But smaller ones often pay quite a lot and have much smaller margins than most imagine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywjjv4xz5o

not sure if i'm reading this correctly or not?
the judge seems to be excusing the behaviour of someone driving 40mph over the speed limit because he was going to pick his mum up from the airport?

1 Attachment

The whole piece is a hot mess

District Judge Peter Magill imposed a fine of £650 as well as the penalty points.

Then

District Judge Magill said in "normal circumstances" he would give Moron a £65 fine and three penalty points, but added: "That can’t happen here."

And DJ's get given the complicated cases! Any half awake bench of magistrates would know at that speed its 6 penalty points rather than the five given. And as for three points and £65, that's just absolute nonsense.

Moron

Lol. His actual name

So the summary is - these corporate structures are not only to screw over future home owners , but also to screw over creditors too, should the need arise.

Seems probable.

Limiting liability is almost the main reason companies exist. See Companies Act 2006 s3.

Adam Smith hated the concept of limited liability and thought it would eventually destabilise capitalism. Karl Marx was in favour - for the same reason.

Is there an echo in here?

Who said that?

It is so much more than that, one site can be many companies. All the sameish directors.

Brilliant way to launder money, as has been proven...by Russians at least.

When they said Oasis was reforming, they didn't mean changing.

1 Attachment