John Wright

Or anyone else to redevelop. Which is why they’re going for planning. To maximise the value of their property to them.

Doubtful. But they could if it’s designated for commercial use, and they think there is still a commercial use possible.

But that’s not what it’s about, is it? They have an interest because they own other pubs. They don’t want another owner making it viable and potentially damaging their existing ongoing business. Only a person who doesn’t want to run it as a pub is going to buy. Anyone else can set up a pub, anywhere nearby, subject to planning and licensing, both of which would be necessary for the LA, given it has no licence and needs extensive remodelling because it doesn’t meet present day fire, health and hygiene standards.

It’s nothing to do with planning

No, not relevant. There isn’t a covenant yet, anyway

Really? Wow! Less than 0.001% of civil court proceedings issued in the IoM get there.

No, but easier than here. The original buyer can’t get them removed. Subsequent buyers possibly, under competition law. Expensive, long process.

Only if you have an interest, and the planning committee and inspector and minister followed incorrect procedure or applied wrong principles. I don’t think anyone objected to the change of use application or was given party status? So apart from the brewery there is no one to apply for review.

What would planning have to do with a contractually binding agreement between seller and buyer ( the covenant )? And if you’d agreed to it do you think a court would set it aside. You don’t have to buy it. You can buy anywhere else without a licence, and apply.. It’s not got a licence now. It wouldn’t get a new one with the current layout, in my opinion. It’s no longer licensed. So why so bothered about the covenant?

Not in so far as where she was born or her nationality. Not in so far as your claim that the “family arrived 16 years ago”. So nothing in your claim is true

Just not true. Her father arrived then. He’d also been before. Mother, who died before she went off rails, had been in U.K. for several years before, as had various other relatives, including mothers mother.. She was born in U.K. in Bethnal Green. She has British nationality and passport. If she has any other nationality her british nationality would have been stripped. The politicians and media would be highlighting. Seems she had a poor childhood, farmed out to grandmother, aunts, then father when her mother had cancer. If she’s British she’s the responsibility of the U.K. she has an absolute right to return, and, if she has done wrong, to face the consequences. I find the “she joined ISIS” stance odd. Is there an actual, formal, organisation, with a constitution, application form, membership fee and card?

It’s the rule of Law that differentiates civilisation and democracy from terrorism and the totalitarianist populism of left and right.

Home Secretary and Culture Secretary ( ex AG ) both said she was born in Bethnal Green on WATO and Today. W2, if you claim she has dual nationality, you produce your evidence. No one has claimed she has or had any other nationality than British...apart from your ludicrous Dutch claim. Can you evidence her marriage? How valid is a ceremony between a Brit and Dutch national made in the Caliphate?

She doesn’t have another nationality to claim. Marriage does not entitle you to the nationality of your spouse as of right. She isn’t Dutch, has never been Dutch, and any application is bound to fail. For good or ill she’s British born and bred, with no other nationality. Neither I, nor anyone else, actually knows what she’s done to assist ISIS, other than travel to the caliphate as an underage minor, marry, have kids. Clearly the U.K. should take her back, investigate what she did, and, if appropriate, prosecute. Got to say that I’m not a fan of proscribed entities, travel bans, etc. They aren’t real crimes. We aren’t actually in a declared war situation. Succour to the enemy is a very loose concept. It’s use is political rather than an absolute crime.

Of course Derek will confirm, and this is only slightly tongue in cheek, that 99.5% police procedure manuals and rules in IoM are cut and paste from English sources. The rationale is that they are tried and tested, and to depart would end up with accusatory fingers if something went wrong. Its a why reinvent the wheel philosophy. Problems arise when one size doesn’t fit all, and in particular not the IoM, that IoM differences are not taken into account in the transposition, or when the English equivalents are glaringly and obviously wrong. Transposition, plagiaristic, or with consent ( many of the documents in policing of health care are open source ) is a useful tool. But it does demand a level of awareness of the rationale behind the source material.