In Kind Direct’s Annual Impact Review 2004 reports a 50% increase in in-kind giving over the previous year: as a result, new products worth £9 million were diverted from landfill last year and distributed instead to hundreds of UK charities working at home and abroad.According to In Kind Direct’s review, top in-kind donors in 2004 were Corporate Express, Early Learning Centre, Hasbro, Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble, Reebok, Sara Lee Intimates, The Body Shop, The Disney Store and Unilever. Substantial new donors included Crabtree & Evelyn, Mothercare, Robert Bosch, Saucony and The Consortium.Despite the significant increase in goods donated, the charity believes many more companies could and should choose the in-kind option when disposing of surplus. Advertisement Tagged with: Research / statistics Trading In-kind giving “increased 50%” in 2004 28 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Howard Lake | 18 July 2005 | News Chief executive Robin Boles explained: “our view is that it is the only socially and environmentally responsible choice, a practical solution to community need.” In Kind Direct channels companies’ surplus products to good causes all over the UK through a single point of contact, freeing up warehouse space, saving on management and disposal costs and reducing environmental damage.Plans for 2005 including publishing In Kind Direct’s catalogue online for the first time. About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
RSF_en Listed as a “foreign agent”, Russia’s most popular independent website risks disappearing Related documents rsf_zaderzhanie_ivana_golunova_06-2019.pdfPDF – 101.35 KB News May 5, 2021 Find out more Meduza, which is convinced of Golunov’s innocence, reports that he recently received threats in connection with a major story he was in the process of investigating.Chechen journalist Zhalaudi Geriyev recently completed a three-year jail sentence on a trumped-up drug charge, while similar charges were brought against another journalist, Nikolai Yarst, in Sochi, shortly before the 2014 Winter Olympics. But none of Golunov’s colleagues recall any previous case of a trumped-up drug charge being brought against a Moscow journalist.Russia is ranked 149th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index. Follow the news on Russia Help by sharing this information RussiaEurope – Central Asia Condemning abuses Council of EuropeCorruptionJudicial harassment News News News RussiaEurope – Central Asia Condemning abuses Council of EuropeCorruptionJudicial harassment to go further Читать на русском / Read in RussianReporters Without Borders (RSF) is extremely concerned about the suspicious behaviour of the police who arrested well-known investigative reporter Ivan Golunov on a drug trafficking charge in central Moscow yesterday, which suggests that the case against him has been fabricated. For more than 12 hours after his arrest, the police refused to notify his lawyer or any of colleagues. His lawyer, Dmitry Dzhulai, reports that when he finally went to the police station after being notified, he saw that Golunov bore the marks of physical blows but the police refused to take him to see a doctor for a medical report on his condition.The police claim that when they arrested Golunov, they found a bag containing drugs in his backpack and later found more drugs at his home. But they refused to take samples from Golunov’s fingernails and backpack to establish whether he had touched the alleged drugs.“The extremely strange behaviour of the police suggests that Ivan Golunov has been arrested on a trumped-up charge,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “Why would they otherwise deny him access to his lawyer and refuse to carry out decisive tests?”Bihr added: “If fabricated evidence really has been used to arrest a journalist who is so well-known throughout Russia, this would mark a significant escalation in the harassment of the country’s independent media.”One of the best known journalists at the leading independent news website Meduza, Golunov has been responsible for a great deal of sensitive reporting, including stories on luxury real estate assets owned by the family of Moscow’s deputy mayor and the alleged involvement of officials and organized crime in schemes to take control of the funeral service business. Russian media boss drops the pretence and defends Belarus crackdown Organisation June 7, 2019 – Updated on June 8, 2019 Russia: Well-known Moscow reporter arrested on dubious drug charge Receive email alerts May 21, 2021 Find out more Ivan Golunov / Facebook June 2, 2021 Find out more Two Russian journalists persecuted for investigating police corruption
Journalists repeatedly attacked in Macedonian political crisis Help by sharing this information Follow the news on North Macedonia North MacedoniaEurope – Central Asia Reporters Without Borders is appalled to learn that Tomislav Kezarovski, a journalist based in the central town Skopje , was arrested by special forces on 28 May and is now serving a 30-day prison sentence on a spurious charge of revealing a protected witness’s identity in 2008.Nowadays a journalist for the Nova Makedonija newspaper, Kezarovski named the witness in a 2008 article for the Reporter 92 newspaper about a murder in Orese, a village near Veles. The witness confessed in court in February of this year that he gave false evidence against the accused killers. He also testified that he did not have protected witness status until 2010.“We call for Kezarovski’s immediate and unconditional release because he has been jailed on spurious grounds,” Reporters Without Borders said. “His arrest and conviction clearly had another purpose, which the authorities urgently need to clarify.“Experience has shown that journalists are often arrested in an abusive manner in Macedonia in order to force them to provide information on unrelated matters and to reveal their sources. We remind the Macedonian government and judicial authorities that article 16 of the constitution guarantees the protection of sources. “Detaining a journalist for exercising this legitimate right is not only illegal but also totally incompatible with the European standards that the government claims to respect. We urge the courts to quickly overturn this conviction. Kezarovski should be with his family, not in prison.”“The way the authorities treated Kezarovski could not have been more disproportionate. He committed no crime. Summoning him to a court hearing would have been more than sufficient. Having him arrested by special forces and paraded in public in handcuffs is just the latest example of the government’s harassment of journalists. It is an outrageous case of intimidation, one that is indicative of the appalling environment for journalists and their extremely difficult relations with the authorities. “We are very worried by the constant decline in freedom of information in Macedonia, which is now ranked 116th out of 179 countries in our 2013 press freedom index. Imprisoning a journalist for investigative reporting that was clearly in the public interest will not improve this situation.“If the Macedonian government really wants to join the European Union, significant concrete actions are urgently needed to ensure that the bases of investigative journalism are finally respected. In its public consultation on media pluralism, scheduled to end on 14 June, the European Union has stressed the importance it attaches to media freedom, now one of the main criteria for evaluating candidates for EU membership.”Reporters Without Borders added: “We urge the EU delegation in Skopje to draw the Macedonian government’s attention to these requirements and to publicly call for Kezarovski’s immediate release.” April 22, 2015 Find out more Organisation to go further Sinister threat to Macedonian journalist and his family March 8, 2017 Find out more News May 29, 2015 Find out more News Outspoken columnist threatened, his car torched News North MacedoniaEurope – Central Asia RSF_en June 1, 2013 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Call for imprisoned journalist’s immediate and unconditional release News Receive email alerts
Receive email alerts to go further June 2, 2021 Find out more News News Organisation News China’s Cyber Censorship Figures Help by sharing this information June 25, 2009 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Tibetan in prison for more than a year for sending texts and emails Democracies need “reciprocity mechanism” to combat propaganda by authoritarian regimes Reporters Without Borders today condemned a three-year prison sentence against mountain guide Gonpo Tserang for sending texts and emails abroad. The messages related to March 2008 demonstrations against the Chinese authorities.He was found guilty of “incitement to separatism” in the autonomous Tibetan prefecture of Degen, in Yunnan, southern China on 26 April 2008. “This sentence is unacceptable because it punishes an ordinary citizen who circulated information about the situation in Tibet that the foreign media were banned from covering,” the worldwide press freedom organisation said.“The offending messages had nothing to do with incitement to separatism and Tserang did not send them with that intention. We call for the suspension of his sentence and for his release,” the organisation said.According to information gleaned from Tibetan organisations, Tserang, 33, was arrested on 23 March 2008 and is currently imprisoned in Yunnan’s Xianggelila jail. The authorities alleged that from 16-18 March 2008, Tsergan used the Internet and his mobile phone to send provocative messages twisting the real facts and social order in the Tibetan province after the ‘incident’ of 14 March 2008”.In the Degen prefecture’s verdict, it was stressed that “Tserang used the Internet to deliberately fabricate rumours twisting the facts and inciting separatism”. The Internet user was sentenced under Article 103 (2) of the Chinese criminal code under which “if a counter-revolutionary crime is behind a savage criticism of the state and if the circumstances are particularly flagrant, the death sentence is possible”.Since March 2008, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a significant increase in trials of Tibetans accused of sending information abroad, mainly to Tibetan communities in exile. To the organisation’s knowledge, seven people have been sentenced between October and November by the intermediary court in the Tibetan capital Lhassa to sentences of up to life imprisonment. According to a study by Chinese dissident organisation Gongmeng, published in June 2009 and written by four Chinese researchers, accusations of “separatism” are a means of “concealing management errors by local leaders”. During the riots in March 2008, foreign journalists were unable to cover the events and official Chinese media completely ignored them. A Tibetan monk was also arrested on 11 March 2009 and accused of “separatism” after giving the Tibetan community in exile information about demonstrations and arrests in the province. Tibetan web-journalist Namkha Sonam Drakpa had to leave Tibet on 5 May for possessing and distributing photos of the Dalai Lama. For fear of being discovered by the province’s Chinese authorities, he fled to India and now works for a Chinese online publication based in the United States. News Follow the news on China ChinaAsia – Pacific March 12, 2021 Find out more ChinaAsia – Pacific April 27, 2021 Find out more China: Political commentator sentenced to eight months in prison RSF_en
[Offences Under The POCSO Act] Sessions Court Can’t Entertain Anticipatory Bail Pleas; Only Special POCSO Courts Are Empowered To Do So: Madras HC [Read Order]
News Updates[Offences Under The POCSO Act] Sessions Court Can’t Entertain Anticipatory Bail Pleas; Only Special POCSO Courts Are Empowered To Do So: Madras HC [Read Order] Sparsh Upadhyay5 Oct 2020 6:23 AMShare This – xThe Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Wednesday (30th September) ruled that the Special courts, as designated under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] alone are empowered to entertain pre-arrest bail petitions in respect of offences under the POCSO Act.The Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and V. Bharathidasan further held that the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Wednesday (30th September) ruled that the Special courts, as designated under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] alone are empowered to entertain pre-arrest bail petitions in respect of offences under the POCSO Act.The Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and V. Bharathidasan further held that the Sessions Court cannot entertain such applications.It may be noted that a matter was placed before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) to decide a reference sought by the learned District Judge, Karur, under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Court in entertaining the anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.], for the offences committed under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act].BackgroundNotably, a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 5(i) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Act, 2006, was filed before the Special Court, designated under the POCSO Act at Karur, and the same was returned by the Special Court stating that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail.Thereafter, the application was filed before the Sessions Court, that application was resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable before the Sessions Court, only the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the same.In the above circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge referred the anticipatory bail application, to the High Court under Section 395 of Cr.P.C., to decide the question- whether the District and Sessions Court has jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail applications for the offences committed under the POCSO Act?It may further be noted that in G.O.Ms.No.1087, Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 04.12.2013, the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, designated the Fast Track Mahila Courts as Special Courts under the POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judges presiding over the Fast Track Mahila Courts are functioning as Special Courts under the POCSO Act.The First Question before the CourtAs we know, Section 438 of Cr.P.C., deals with grant of bail to the person apprehending arrest and the High Court and Sessions Courts are empowered to grant such pre-arrest bail.Now, a doubt arose, after the constitution of Special Courts, whether the Special Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Courts are excluded from dealing with such petitions?Co-relation of Section 28, 31 and 33 of the POCSO Act and the CrPCA cursory reading of Section 28(1) of the POCSO Act would go to show that, a Court of Session, which is already in existence in each district, can be designated as a Special Court to try the offences under the POCSO Act.Also, an Additional Sessions Judge exercising jurisdiction in the Court of Session, could preside over the Special Court.Further, under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act, a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a police report of such facts.Under Section 33(9) of the POCSO Act, a Special Court shall have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall try such offence as if it were a Court of Session, and as far as may be, in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, for trial before a Court of Session.In such circumstances, the Special Court has to be treated as Court of original jurisdiction and it has all the powers of Court of the original criminal jurisdiction, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, except those are specifically excluded under the relevant Act.Also, Section 31 of the POCSO Act, makes it very clear that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the provisions as to bail and bonds shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions, and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.Section 31 of the POCSO Act, expressly makes the provisions as to bail and bonds applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court.Court’s AnalysisThe Court was of the opinion that the entire Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C., which deals with bail and bonds, are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court, there cannot be any doubt that Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which deals with Anticipatory Bail, is also applicable to a Special Court.However, the Court noted, Section 31 of the POCSO Act opens with, “Save as otherwise provided in this Act”. A careful reading of the POCSO Act would go to show that, there is no provision under the POCSO Act specifically excluding Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before the Special Court.Hence, the Court remarked that Section 31 of the POCSO Act is clear and unambiguous that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., are very much applicable to the Special Court.In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court opined,”It is clear that the Special Court designated under the POCSO Act is empowered to deal with the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and the Sessions Court is excluded from entertaining the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C” (emphasis supplied)Court’s Final Answer to the First Question before it”The Special Court designated under Section 28 of the POCSO Act alone is empowered to exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in view of Section 31 of the POCSO Act, and the Sessions Court cannot entertain any application seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under the POCSO Act”, the Court concluded.The Second Question before the CourtWhether the Special Court is empowered to deal with the anticipatory bail application relating to the offences under the POCSO Act, even before the registration of a First Information Report, or lodging a complaint before the Court concerned, on an the apprehension of the arrest?Court’s AnalysisThe Court clarified that the Special Court is exclusively empowered to deal with the offences under the POCSO Act and thereby, the normal Criminal Courts constituted under Section 6 of Cr.P.C., are excluded from dealing with the offences under the POCSO Act.Further, the Court opined,”When the Special Court is exercising the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the offences under the POCSO Act, the same Court also has the power to deal with the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., even before registering the First Information Report.” (emphasis supplied)The Court was of the considered view that even before registering an FIR, the Special Court alone has the power to deal with the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in relation to the offence under the POCSO Act.Court’s Final Answer to the Second Question before it”Even in cases where pre-arrest bail is sought before registering the First Information Report, only the Special Court designated under the POCSO Act can entertain the application and the regular Sessions Court cannot exercise its power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C”, the Court concluded.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Story
Related posts:No related photos. Hear my voiceOn 1 Oct 2003 in Personnel Today Staff councils will soon have more power to access employer’s information,giving them a greater voice. But companies should be adapting working practicesnow before changes to legislation come into force in 2005. Taj Rehal reportsUpcoming legislation that will require employers to consult employees on arange of business issues has not even entered its final form but is causing UKbusiness leaders considerable alarm. Set to come into force on 23 March 2005,the regulations will require only 10 per cent of a company’s employees torequest rights to information and consultation in order for that company tohave to provide it. This is not just among those whose organisations lack an existingconsultative body or staff council, and that may therefore have to create oneto comply with the new regime. Given the much wider spectrum of issues on whichemployers will have to involve employees, the regulations will also affectorganisations that already run a staff council, as their relationship withthose councils will have to change. The consultation period on the new draft regulations, released in July, willend on 7 November. The DTI will consider this feedback before publishing thefinal regulations next year. As a result of these issues, many fear that the legislation will create anew form of power-sharing with employee audiences, giving rise to anotherpowerful stakeholder audience that will further dilute management’s “rightto manage”. How could this occur? What gives rise to this stakeholder power? Under the new regime, employerswill need to involve staff representatives on key business issues. Theregulations confirm that management must provide a staff council withinformation on: – the recent and probable development of the undertaking’s activities andeconomic situation – the situation, structure and probable development of employment within theundertaking and any anticipatory measures envisaged, in particular where thereis a threat to employment within the undertaking – decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or incontractual relations, including collective redundancies and business transfersas defined in the relevant legislation. Management will be under a duty to give information to the staff council”at such time, in such fashion and with such content as is appropriate toenable, in particular, the [staff council] to conduct an adequate study and,where necessary, prepare for consultation”. There is little doubt, therefore, that the forthcoming regime will create anew voice for the workforce. It is significant, too, that employers will needto “consult with a view to reaching agreement” on decisions changingworking conditions or contractual terms – suggesting that the representativebodies will be able to negotiate on the issues it considers (even if theregulations do not say this explicitly) and that employers must show that theyare approaching such discussions with open minds. So, although there is no executive power, as such, conferred on the newrepresentative bodies, they will have an important influence that employerswill be unable to ignore. What are the likely practical implications of this stakeholder influence? With your staff council in place, what will be the practical effects of thisemployee empowerment and, on the basis of these draft regulations, arebusinesses justified in fearing the creation of another stakeholder influence?Let’s look in turn at each of the information areas described above. Business activities and economic situation In essence, the obligation to provide information on these areas refers toinformation showing the current and predicted trading position for thebusiness. Any information given must be with such content as to enable thestaff council to conduct an adequate study, and, if they so choose, to appoint anexternal third-party expert to assist them. In practical terms, management will need to provide: the orderbook, salesledger, tender information, sales/performance forecasts, debtors, actual andanticipated costs, and, potentially, profit assessments. The most thorough way of providing this information may be to allow thestaff council direct access to management accounts. However, even with theconfidentiality obligations the regulations impose, such a step is veryunlikely to be acceptable to management. Alternatively, some form of financial summary may be appropriate. Yet,should the information provided not be considered adequate, the staff councilis likely to seek outside expert assistance to interpret the evidence.Alternatively, they could go to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) seekinga declaration that this information be provided. Employment prospects and anticipatory measures The second area the regulations focus on is the duty on management to informand consult regarding employment prospects and any anticipatory envisagedmeasures, particularly where there is a threat to employment. Naturally, this will cover redundancy, yet it will also extend to all otherareas that have an impact on employment; for example: restructuring, expansionplans, takeovers, mergers and outsourcing. Consider, for example, a situation where the board is considering a proposalto outsource its payroll function. In normal circumstances, the board wouldcontact third-party providers, invite tenders and/or hold beauty parades. Itwould then, on the basis of that information, come to a decision to outsourcethe department and appoint third-party providers. Under the new regime, however, once outsourcing is mooted as a possibility(making it a ‘probable development of employment’), management will then haveto provide information on the proposal to the staff council. The staff council would expect to: – be informed as to the reasons why this decision is being proposed – have access to management accounts to understand the cost reasons andimplications of such a decision – be entitled to consider the information and make representations to theboard. The board would then have to consider these representations and give aconsidered response to the staff council, causing potentially costly delays inthe process. It is important to remember that, once management has considered anyreasonable response from the staff council, they can still reach their ownconclusion. The board would be able to implement the decision and then continuewith the normal consultation that would follow, either through redundancyand/or through TUPE consultation as the outsourcing takes place. Changes to work organisation or contractual relations Here, consider two scenarios. Scenario one: amalgamating two departments. Customers have demanded that more staff are available to answer theirqueries. In response, management is considering amalgamating two differentcustomer service departments. There are to be no redundancies. The usual position would have been that the board, having reached itsdecision, would either implement this directly or work with the HR departmentto do so. Most employers would ensure that there were senior members ofmanagement available to discuss the changes with the staff affected, to ensurethe smooth transition to the new working arrangements. However, the regulations will require the involvement of the staff councilbefore the actual decision is made. Inevitably, the staff council will seek theviews of the affected employees before the changes take place. Management willthen be under an obligation to try an reach agreement on the change. Both the employees’ willingness to accept change and management’s acceptanceto adapt will, as ever, determine whether it is successful. It is clear to seethat the regulations give a more powerful voice to the employees to raise anyconcerns that they may have before a management decision is ultimately made. Scenario two: the annual pay review. Changes in employees’ pay willcreate changes in contractual relations. Therefore, before the employerannounces an annual pay award, it will be required to provide information tothe staff council and consult with them with a view to reaching agreement. For those employers that do not have a collective bargaining regime inplace, this will be a significant potential change. Staff councils should beable to consider management information and come to a collective opinion on theproposed pay award. They will also, no doubt, wish to seek the views of theemployees affected by any such pay award. Obviously, although there is no express collective bargaining powerintroduced for staff councils, they will have a significant influence and,therefore, effect over potential pay awards, although the final decision on anypay award will ultimately rest with the employer. Conclusion The introduction of the regulations will undoubtedly see an increase, inpractical terms, in the role a workforce plays in influencing an organisation’smanagement. However, in business terms, there are hurdles to be overcome first.The Government has announced that it will produce guidance giving practicalexamples of how it envisages the regulations will take effect. However, theseregulations emphasise the view, shared by many, that businesses should takecontrol over the process. Rather than wait until the regulations are imposed onemployers in March 2005, employers should be grappling now with how theypractically want to introduce or adapt existing structures to deal with thisnew stakeholder influence. Taj Rehal is based in the London office of Beachcroft Wansbroughs Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
Home » News » Housing Market » Landlords turning to HMOs and commercial as extra buy to let taxes loom previous nextHousing MarketLandlords turning to HMOs and commercial as extra buy to let taxes loomHarsh tax hikes due over next three years persuading more landlords to consider buy-to-let alternativesNigel Lewis17th January 201701,286 Views Buy-to-let landlords are moving into HMOs and commercial property in a bid to mitigate or avoid the punitive extra buy to let taxes being introduced this April, it has been claimed.Allsop, which is the largest property auction house the UK, told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that it has seen three times the number of buy-to-let landlords entering the commercial property since the new taxes were announced last year by the then chancellor George Osborne.“We’re getting a lot of investors into our market because of the [tax] changes to buy-to-let. Once they have bought one, they can’t believe the simplicity and want to do it again,” George Walker, commercial auction partner at Allsop (pictured, left), told the paper.Landlords are also converting existing single-occupancy buy-to-let properties into HMOs in a bid to increase their income and offset the likely extra taxes, according to bridging loan specialist lender Roma Finance. The company says it funded more conversions cases of this type during 2016 than in any other year.“One landlord we worked with calculated that in one of their properties they could rent out five rooms, vastly increasing income and yield, for just a £30,000 conversion cost,” says Scott Marshall, MD of Roma Finance (picture, right)“The increased rental income would cover the cost of the loan over twelve months. In this case it made a lot of sense to carry out the conversion.”The problem besetting landlords as the tax hike increases loom does have a silver lining though. Rightmove’s commercial director Miles Shipside said the drop in demand for properties among landlords means 2017 is a ‘window of opportunity for first time buyers’. Alsopp b2l roma finance buy to let taxes January 17, 2017Nigel LewisWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Hong Kong remains most expensive city to rent with London in 4th place30th April 2021
Patience Agbabi, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature who studied at Oxford, said: “They’ve made the mistake of assuming the post is comparable to a full-time teaching position. It’s exactly the kind of role that should be open to ALL poets.” According to the University’s website, the EJRA is intended “primarily to enable refreshment, inter-generational fairness and improvements in diversity.” Nominations for candidacy closed on Thursday afternoon, with the final list of confirmed candidates including Alice Oswald and Andrew Macmillan. Several poets have spoken out against new rules on age introduced for this year’s Oxford Professor of Poetry candidates. Poets cannot stand if they are over 69 years old, which has ruled out poet Michael Horovitz from running for the position. Horovitz, who stood for election in 2010 and had been intending to run again, first raised the issue of the new age limit on Twitter. Candidate’s statements will be published on 23rd May, and voting will be open from this date until 20th June. The results of the election will be declared at a meeting of Convocation on 21st June. However, some of those opposed to the move have suggested the Professorship should not Poets raise concerns over new Professor of Poetry age limit be treated in the same category as full-time teaching work. The Professorship is one of the most prestigious positions for poets, and has previously been held by poets such as Seamus Heaney and Matthew Arnold. The main role of the Professor is to give a termly public lecture. A new professor is selected every four years. The University announced it was opening nominations for the position last month. “To rule out the potential contributions of numerous older poets who may want to apply in years to come, at a point in life when they will be likely to have achieved a considerable knowledge of poetic arts and crafts, seems not just unfair, but wilfully to defy administrative logic. The age limit was imposed to bring the position into line with other University academic positions’ retirement policies. Under Council Regulations 3, an academic and academic-related employee should be retired by the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA), meaning that under normal circumstances all staff should retire by the 30th September preceding their 69th birthday. In a letter to the Guardian, Horovitz called on the University to change the policy. He said: “Applying conventional retirement rules to a four- to five-year job feels like a retrograde step on the part of Oxford. such discrimination is particularly inimical to the roles poetry and poets play in society. The position has previously been held by poets in their seventies. Christopher Ricks, who was Professor of Poetry between 2004 and 2009, was 70 when he was elected, while Geoffrey Hicks took on the position aged 78. “I beseech my Oxford alma mater to rethink this blind, blanket application of routinely youthist policy, which will limit the dissemination of thought and learning from the very people who have devoted long careers to poetry, for what appears to be no good reason whatever.” Several other poets soon came to his support, pointing out that it can take longer for some poets to get their careers off the ground. Sasha Dugdale commented: “This is discrimination – age caps for this type of honorary position work against women and BAME candidates who have to work much harder for longer to establish themselves as serious contenders.”
Health trends in the UK have seen a rapidly increasing demand from retailers for more informed front-of-pack labelling, such as declarations of reduced salt and fat, ’free from’ and organic.BAKELS has responded to this trend by introducing a range of clean-label products, which includes powdered bread, roll and bun improvers (including a Soil Association certified organic version), sunflower shortening and a ready-to-use bun glaze. These products also use non-hydrogenated fats.
Wednesday, 7 March 2018Meeting at technical and Coordinators’ level Monday, 5 March 2018Meeting at technical level Implementation Other separation issues Governance Implementation Other separation issues Technical clarification to the Joint Report on the financial settlement and citizens’ rights Ireland / Northern Ireland Tuesday, 6 March 2018Meeting at technical level Implementation Other separation issues Technical clarification to the Joint Report on the financial settlement Additional meetings at Coordinators’ level may be scheduled.