u/Maejohl

DATE: 26 MAY
CITY: LONDON
VENUE: HEAVEN
PRICE: £43.40 x 2 (two tickets available)

Listed for tonight on AXS because I cannot get away from work - I've been stiched up 😞 😞 😞

That's because those parents are dumb fucks, probably religious nuts and likely voted MAGA. Courts had no choice.

He was arrested for assault, it seems. Not his words. He's a hate preacher, either way

Whilst areas like Bromley and Bexley might go reform, the majority of London is left-leaning. Expect LibDem and Green wins with labout losses. Not large reform gains

Incorrect if you are discussing the law as it stands in England and Wales:

If there is a clause in your tenancy agreement that says you must give the landlord access on having been given notice. Also s11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a right of access to landlords on not less than 24 hours' written notice:

"In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair."

Of course a tenant can write back to the landlord and say "X date and time is not suitable because of Y reason. Does Z date and time work instead?" As long as the tenant's suggested new date is also itself reasonable (ie not more than a few days after the landlord's proposed date) then the landlord ought to agree a new date.

If a tenant fails to give a landlord access where a clause in their tenancy agreement requires them to give access (eg for estate agent viewings in the last month of the tenancy) the tenant will be in breach of contract. The landlord can then obtain an injunction from the County Court requiring the tenant to give access. A failure to comply with that injunction is a contempt of court punishable by imprisonment, a fine or seizure of assets. Repeated breaches by the tenant can also be grounds for the landlord seeking possession.

Really? FOX lost their shit for weeks because Obama war a tan coloured suit to a fucking rando press conference. The false equivalence from your side just shows how much of a bunch of absolute cahnts you all are.

'lol'

Nah - Israel has a few more thousand skulls under its heel by comparison

Loved the Epstein files, horrors of the anti-abortionists/anti-women's rights nightmares in the USA references: "Stripped of rights - And diabolical crimes - You know all about it". The calming, relaxed, but firm rhythm of the whole piece adds to the security it is so obviously trying to impart.

You might not like it but it is not BAD ;) Objectively it's a literal work of art.

In the UK it also depends on how long ago the transfer was done. If it was done years ago before there were any issues, that works.

Not sure how he would do that. I'm not a US lawyer, but in the UK if you transfer your assets to someone else for nil value or less than their market value then a court can claw that asset back on any insolvency. I am guessing that they can do that in the US, too. (And a quick Google suggests the USA has simlar laws).

Not a hope - you also overtook at a pedestrian crossing - two fouls

Because the bible would also have you believe that people spoke with burning bushes who spoke back. Or that others managed to part the Red Sea. Or that the world was created in 7 days. etc etc It's not the most certain of historical documents.

The other important point: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LET THE BAILIFF IN. THEY CANNOT FORCE ENTRY.

Most companies have boards with investors who are not executive directors. Those investors can in fact wield all the power through contractual arrangements. A company's frontsheet rarely tells the whole story. Just be careful about posting too many certainties that you suddenly expose yourself to a defamation suit. (NB I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise. Just saying there's usually more to a story than the public filings of a company.)

I joined the alpha a year or so ago with my guild. We all paid the circa $100USD. None of us regret it. It's the first game in a while that came closer to the old school MMOs we grew up with. Probably spent a good 300+ hours in there. Happy with the return on my investment. Sad that the game ended this way.

Spot on again :)

Don't change your locks without first making sure your tenancy agreement does not have a clause that prevents this.

Fully agree/.

We need to be careful. It is not always what the contract says but what the facts are. If the OP was granted a tenancy of a flat, then it does not matter whether they are an assured shorthold tenant or a common law tenant - it's the fact they are a "tenant" that gives them the right to keep the whole world out (but they do have to give access to the landlord on 24 hours' notice, but the landlord cannot force their way in or rock up at a time the tenant has said (if they are being reasnoable about it) is not suitable).

If though they have a room in a hall of residence, then yes - the position might be totally different in law. As you say, it's hard to know from what we've been told.

This is correct - but the seniority of the judge is not directly relevant - because they are both judges of the County Court and so their decisions are not binding on any one and can only be "persuasive".

However: Some of the main housing law commentators are indicating that the Circuit Judge in Sovereing Housing v Hall got it wrong and the District Judge (in Southern Housing v Emmanuel) got it right. Not least because the Circuirt Judge was not refered to any of the case law about forced entry into the home, which the District Judge's very detailed judgment deals with. The Nearly Legal website covers both judgments and their view is that the most recent one by the District Judge at Bromley is the correct one. All the commentators are hoping that Southern Housing takes up the District Judge's offer of a right to appeal straight to the Court of Appeal (which is rarely granted) because of the differences in approach:

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2025/11/the-king-of-england-and-all-his-force-dares-not-cross-the-threshold/

I fully agree. Just be careful about changing your locks - some tenancy agreements have clauses that do not allow you to do this.

Just to tighten the reference to Southern Housing and Emmanuel summary up a bit.

Southern Housing v James Emmanuel was a judgment handed down at Bromley County Court on 27 October 2025 (not 2005) and was not deciding the issue of access being given at certain times of day .

It was a decision (as you completely correctly go on to say) that said landlords were not entitled to ask the court for an order allowing them to force entry. Here's a link to an article on that case by Nearly Legal - a truly excellent housing advice websit run by a very well respected housing lawyer:

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2025/11/the-king-of-england-and-all-his-force-dares-not-cross-the-threshold/

But the court was not in that case deciding about what times of day the law requires access be given - it was only a (very important) decision that said courts have no power to allow landlords to force entry to enforce their contractual rights of access.

Here's my view as a housing lawyer.

1. No, a landlord cannot give notice for an ongoing right to enter. s11 requires not less than 24 hours' notice of each visit. Of course though, if the landlord (eg) needs to do repairs and those repairs will need a builder in there 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday for the next two weeks, then one notice is enough.
2. No, a landlord cannot just let themselves into the property - they must knock and be allowed in. If the tenant happens to be out, then that becomes a much more grey area and might depend on what the tenancy agreement says. But if the tenant is in and doesn't want the landlord to come in and makes this clear before the landlord enters, it would be potentially be illegal for the landlord to enter (see s6 Criminal Law Act 1977). Also, if the tenant isn't in AND has told (I'd suggest written) to the landlord that they are not allowed into the flat without the tenant present, then the landlord might be trespassing if they let themselves in. It's a grey area point that will depend on how often the landlord has been trying to gain access and the tenant has been obstructive in letting them in. But life is life - it is not unreasonable for a tenant to say "X date isn't suitable as I cannot be home for Y reason. What about A, B or C dates and times - do they work?"
3. Saying that "I am coming at some point between 9am and 5pm" is also a grey area. Many people have jobs/other calls on their time that mean they cannot hang around home all day. The landlord has to be reasonable (in the sense that if the landlord wanted to argue the tenant had breached their contract by not being home between 9am and 5pm I don't think that landlord would get much sympathy from the judge. But it is not clear.