Stack Exchange
log in

Steve Melnikoff

 Discussion on question by gerrit: Is …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 12, 2024 09:43
Related to the 1999 campaign: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
 

 Discussion on answer by RMDman: Giant…

Imported from a comment discussion on diy.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 5, 2024 12:46
@JimmyJames OP didn't add the "drywall" tag; Machavity did. I've left a comment under the question, querying this, and asking OP to confirm either way.
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 5, 2024 05:31
" You will need to have the wall opened...framing...": given the age and location of the house, the wall is likely to be brick or similar on the inside, brick on the outside, ideally with insulation in-between - assuming it's not just solid brick. Apart from that, what you say holds: seal the outside, wait for the wall to dry out (which could take months), then redecorate.
 

 Discussion on question by Victor: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
Steve Melnikoff
Feb 2, 2024 19:07
What about direct bank transfers? They're common for purchases large and small in the UK.
 

 Discussion on question by Peter: Coul…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 26, 2024 13:23
I understand your point, but the second paragraph isn't correct. In most parliamentary systems, parliament chooses the PM (the exact mechanisms differ, but the effect is much the same). The difference between, say, the UK and Germany is how members of those parliaments are elected.
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 26, 2024 13:23
See Duverger's law, which suggests that FPTP tends to lead to 2-party systems, whereas PR tends to lead to more parties. The US - with 2 parties - and the UK - with 2 main parties - both use FPTP.
 

 Discussion on question by Louis: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Steve Melnikoff
Sep 18, 2023 12:30
An engineer refusing to sign off on a document...a manager ordering him to think again and telling him to use "more political" answers...manager indicating to the customer that everything was fine...this is how the Challenger disaster happened. This particular case may not be life-or-death, but the pattern strikes me as very similar.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ted Wrigley: …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Sep 4, 2023 09:14
"International norms treat embassies as sovereign territory of the nation that established the embassy." I might be nitpicking, but that's not what the Vienna Convention says. Article 22, section 1: "The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." It's still the territory of the host country - but they can't enter it without the ambassador's permission.
 

 Discussion on question by Lorenzo Don…

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 27, 2023 16:32
Re reliability: you can't say anything about reliability from a single launch; and given how Starship development is being conducted, it may be risky to draw many conclusions even after a few launches while SpaceX continues to make changes to every prototype. Falcon 9 provides a useful roadmap, as there were a number of design changes even after the rocket was in regular use. But most importantly: F9 launched many, many satellite and cargo payloads - successfully - before it carried people. If Starship follows the same path, that's the point when we can talk about reliability.
 

 Discussion on answer by Steve Melniko…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers We should continue this in chat.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers I don't know for certain, but the only place where obligations are recorded is in the tenancy agreement, so what else could it refer to?
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers you're right! libguides.bournemouth.ac.uk/c.php?g=471702&p=3226266
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers It specifically says so in the explanatory notes quoted above. Also ss5A refers to ss5, which talks about certain obligations on the tenant before the tenancy starts (specifically, obligations which would have the effect of ending the tenancy). A tenancy agreement would provide evidence of those obligations existing.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers Interesting questions! Again, if I had to guess, I'd say that if even a regular tenant does have an "interest", either it has no monetary value, or if it does, no landlord would want to pay for it. Recall that all this subsection does is allow the landlord to include a clause in the lease, requiring the landlord to have first refusal if the tenant wants to sell their share. The landlord isn't obliged to include such a clause (it probably wouldn't make much sense for an AST, for the above reasons); and if he does include it, he can turn down the tenant's offer anyway.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 20:35
@Seekinganswers If I had to guess, I'd say that subsection 5A wouldn't normally apply to a normal tenancy, as there isn't any "interest" (i.e. share in the property) for the tenant to sell and for the landlord to buy. Shared ownership schemes are different, in that the tenant owns part of the property.
 

 Discussion between Steve Melnikoff an…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 19:25
If you look for [model shared ownership tenancies](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/capital-funding-guide/1-help-to-buy-shared-ownership#section-11), there is a clause in the document specifically relating to the right of pre-emption.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I took the view that a clause in the agreement was sufficient to meet the requirement of it being agreed before the tenancy is entered into. I'd argue that the presence of such a clause in a real agreement demonstrates this.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 19:21
@Seekinganswers In the case of shared ownership (which sub-s 5A was added to serve), there's a good reason to exclude any discussion of replacement tenancies: shared ownership tenancies are typically for 99 years or more, so the tenancy is never replaced.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 15:00
(3) "replacement tenancy arises by operation of s5 or by explicit grant by LL of new fixed term": a replacement tenancy occurs only if agreed by all parties, other a statutory periodic tenancy occurs (unless the tenant leaves before the fixed term ends).
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:59
(1) "It could be reflected in a verbal contract": how would you prove that in a dispute? (2) "...NTQ, conditional offer to surrender at a future date, etc": all of which would be void under sub-s5.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:50
I think you should ask what this means in a separate question. :-)
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:49
@Seekinganswers I don't know for certain, but the only place where obligations are recorded is in the tenancy agreement, so what else could it refer to?
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:49
@Seekinganswers you're right! libguides.bournemouth.ac.uk/c.php?g=471702&p=3226266
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:49
@Seekinganswers It specifically says so in the explanatory notes quoted above. Also ss5A refers to ss5, which talks about certain obligations on the tenant before the tenancy starts (specifically, obligations which would have the effect of ending the tenancy). A tenancy agreement would provide evidence of those obligations existing.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:49
@Seekinganswers Interesting questions! Again, if I had to guess, I'd say that if even a regular tenant does have an "interest", either it has no monetary value, or if it does, no landlord would want to pay for it. Recall that all this subsection does is allow the landlord to include a clause in the lease, requiring the landlord to have first refusal if the tenant wants to sell their share. The landlord isn't obliged to include such a clause (it probably wouldn't make much sense for an AST, for the above reasons); and if he does include it, he can turn down the tenant's offer anyway.
Steve Melnikoff
Mar 31, 2023 14:49
@Seekinganswers If I had to guess, I'd say that subsection 5A wouldn't normally apply to a normal tenancy, as there isn't any "interest" (i.e. share in the property) for the tenant to sell and for the landlord to buy. Shared ownership schemes are different, in that the tenant owns part of the property.
 

 Discussion on answer by CDJB: Who Wou…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 16, 2023 09:44
@WS2: the Act is pretty stark. Section 3(1): "If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown." It's automatic. In that respect, it's the same as when one monarch dies; their successor becomes monarch immediately, without anyone having to do anything. Hopefully everyone agrees who the new Monarch/Regent is; if not, then clearly we have a problem...
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 16, 2023 09:44
@WS2 The current Regency Act gives no discretion to Parliament or anyone else over who becomes Regent. However, there have been a number of Regency Acts in the past, in order to update the rules according to circumstances, and so another Act could be passed by Parliament in the future.
 

 Discussion on answer by wrod: Why do …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 18, 2022 11:54
@wrod: What is now the Republic of Ireland split off in 1922, leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My point is that "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" have always referred to different things.
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 18, 2022 11:54
@wrod Wikipedia tells me that Richard II was written around 1595. Shakespeare lived in the Kingdom of England, which included Wales, but excluded Scotland and Ireland. England (including Wales) and Scotland combined in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, which in turn combined with Ireland in 1801 to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 18, 2022 11:54
@wrod: "UK" and "England" never refer to the same thing. If people are using "England" to mean "UK", then frankly they're just wrong. :-) (Using "Great Britain" to mean "UK" is also wrong, but very common, especially in the US, so I guess we'll have to let that slide.)
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 18, 2022 11:54
The discussion about use of the word "country" is (IMHO) a red herring here. The issue is the analogy: "Russia" and "Russian Federation" refer to the same thing; "UK" and "England" do not.
 

 Discussion on answer by gerrit: Why d…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Steve Melnikoff
Nov 9, 2022 21:06
Good point...although for this particular sign the text is almost superfluous, as this is the only sign in the system that consists of an inverted red triangle containing text. Indeed, in the UK (if not elsewhere), the sign can be omitted, and a white inverted triangle painted on the road instead.
 

 Agora

General discussion for politics.stackexchange.com
1
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 15, 2022 22:58
@JJJ It's lovely to be asked, but I don't think I can commit the time right now. Feel free to ask me again when the kids are older. :-)
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: "Sett…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 6, 2022 19:56
@JosephP. <-- tagging you, in case you're not automatically tagged.
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 6, 2022 19:53
If the landlord has done everything that they are required to do, the court must order the eviction.
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 6, 2022 19:53
Regarding "frivolous/groundless disputes": the only defence to an eviction based on a section 21 is to show that the landlord has failed to do all the things required for the notice to be valid (which includes protecting the deposit, sending the tenant a copy of the valid gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate, etc, etc).
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 6, 2022 19:51
Now, tenants tend to treat a section 21 notice as if it marked the end of their tenancy, and so move out at the end of the notice period. But they don't have to, and they are doing nothing wrong if they choose to stay - even if it does cause the landlord headaches.
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 6, 2022 19:50
I have to disagree with your assessment of Bob's actions. Bob is entitled to stay in the property - and is required to continue to pay rent - unless and until a court ends his tenancy. He is not required to give any reasons for doing so, because is merely exercising his rights under an assured shorthold tenancy.
 

 Discussion on answer by Rick: Do othe…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Jun 3, 2022 11:50
It might be worth adding that "Article 10" and "ECHR" both refer to the European Convention on Human Rights.
 

 Discussion on answer by Rick: How man…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 15:13
@JosephP. The first line of Rick's answer already states that: legislation.gov.uk is an official store of UK legislation. It's a database rather than a list, but it records all legislation - from all legislative sources - that is in force somewhere in the UK. Legislation wholly repealed before 1991 is not listed there. It also records all changes to legislation since that date.
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 15:09
@Rick Entirely sensible. :-)
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@JosephP. As an aside, there is the concept of a "spent" act (or part of an act), which is typically one which makes a one-time authorisation of an action - like marriages in the past; and more typically these days, authorisation for government spending. Once these authorisations pass into law and the authorised action has been implemented, the act has served its purpose. Such acts are repealed from time to time as a tidying-up measure. I'm not aware that personal acts are included - but they could be. My point is: for the purposes of this question, we can probably ignore personal acts. :-)
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@ohwilleke Fair enough. It sounds like records of personal acts were patchy at best - and they appear to be essentially obsolete now anyway. Private acts (which apply to companies, though in limited circumstances) and local acts (which apply to local government) do still exist, and are published alongside all other Acts of Parliament.
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@JosephP. What ohwilleke was referring to are called personal acts in the UK - and there haven't been any new ones since 1987. Records of them were apparently always patchy. I suspect that they are not especially relevant to your question.
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@Rick: note that Acts that were wholly repealed before 1991 don't appear on the site, so there's no way of telling how many of those there were.
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@ohwilleke: (2) All money-related Acts are published immediately, just like any other Act. However, it's not unusual for "spent" Acts to be repealed by a later Act. Nonetheless, they remain on the website, marked as repealed. Having said that, there are budget resolutions which have temporary effect, agreed by the Commons as part of the budget process (and they appear on the Parliament website). However, the contents of those resolutions must still end up in an Act, so they end up getting published as legislation eventually.
Steve Melnikoff
Apr 21, 2022 11:23
@ohwilleke: I'm wondering if your comment is based on US practice, as AFAICT it doesn't sound applicable to the UK. To use your examples: (1) decisions like that affecting individuals don't nowadays require legislation, so won't appear on legislation.gov.uk. That wasn't always true in the past, and personal acts existed for that purpose - but apparently none have been passed since 1987.
 

 Discussion on answer by Weather Vane:…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 4, 2022 15:49
@DanielHatton: EU directives are not directly applicable in member states; these UK statutory instruments exist to implement them in the UK (and hence in some places, they repeat parts of the contents of directives verbatim). Only EU regulations are directly applicable. In addition, all EU regulations (and UK regulations which implement EU directives) remain in force after Brexit, unless and until amended or revoked by UK legislation.
Steve Melnikoff
Jan 4, 2022 15:49
@DanielHatton - Note that the Regulations you mention were revoked by the Measuring Instruments Regulations 2016. That text doesn't appear to be present in the new Regulations. The closest I can find, in s 52, is "(10) The markings [...] may be followed by any other mark indicating a special risk or use.", which may or may not be relevant.