threegee

Dunno. Haven't had time to research the three main parties, and couldn't find out who the Lib Dems bank with either!

This is amusing: Top five personal loan hotspots by postcode BA1 9: Outskirts of BathEC1V 2: Shoreditch area of LondonNE66 4: Alnwick area of NorthumberlandPE7 0: Outskirts of PeterboroughTD12 4: Coldstream in the Scottish BordersNot Bedlington then! Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27054416

http://www.price-drop.tv/ http://www.bid.tv/

The rats are deserting the ship now: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27137762 A classic we'll be taking our overdraft elsewhere! Probably just as well the Labour Party is in debt, as would you trust your funds to a bank totally controlled by trade unions?

Umm... the obvious question: How do you pronounce "Mrorrc"?

When I moved away I missed: looking out of the window thinking I really must cut the grass when it is dry enough!

Leave a space before the bracket (actually that type is called parenthesis) and it won't happen.

The link you provide is a solicitor offering genuine mitigation strategies, not a service to evade commercial rates. They repeatedly stress that the circumstances should be genuine (i.e. not manufactured to avoid). They also warn about illegal services: "Beware of scam tenancies offered on the web..". But you are entirely missing the point here, because as fourgee says you are looking at things one-sidedly. And, I most certainly don't think you, or indeed anyone else, is stupid! I do however think that you are misrepresenting the reality. Other people reading this may take away a slanted view of landlords, and just why properties are standing empty. There are plenty of people who will buy into such myths, because it suits their agenda, and deflects the blame from their own anti-business mindset. I don't think that this is what you intend, and I don't think you yourself are in any way anti-business. I get to see things from both sides, and, together with a lifetimes experience in retailing, often get provided with a peek into the commercial market in the North East from more than one of the well known names. Believe me the situation is little to do with greedy and stupid landlords asking unrealistic rents, and a lot more to do with a general lack of enterprise. There are failures on both sides; failures in local government; failures in national policy; and a lamentably low level of small enterprise, brought about by a century of carefully taught state dependency. It's not that there aren't just as many enterprising people here as elsewhere in the UK, it's just that the vast majority of them have - very understandably - given up on the North East. Just when there are a few glimmers of redemption (not the least from the Labour Party, the very architects of state dependency) there's a grave danger that we'll talk ourself back into our hole! That's why I'm challenging your view of unreasonable landlords. Back on subject I'd say that business rates are just a small part of running a business, and even the rents are (or should be) dwarfed by employment costs. Did your associate produce a fully-worked business plan? If so (s)he'd have benefited by providing a copy to the prospective landlord(s). If nothing else (s)he might have got some useful feedback. Of course such a plan would have had to factor in the proprietors income expectations too. In real-world situations businesses never go to plan, but that doesn't mean that plans are a waste of time or unnecessary. They provide a much-needed benchmark. Some landlords - approached with the right mindset - can see, or be made to see, themselves as partners in the business, as they are effectively providing a very necessary part of the capital. They have an interest in the success of the business, and in bad times can often make necessary concessions if kept in-the-loop. What I detect here are hard-nosed take-it-or-leave-it attitudes, and I believe that one such response invites another. There's never finality in business, and being snubbed (or believing you've been) is no reason not to try again and again at later dates with modified propositions. And, it's often better to ask what the other parties aims and expectations are than ask the price. Going into a negotiation with a target price in mind is pointless unless you know exactly what you are going to receive for the money.

The current winner is fairly predictable, but there's still time to influence the result. Don't cheat by peeking before you vote! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10772109/The-top-50-BBC-Two-shows-of-all-time.html

I'm sure they actually meant to write vantage point, but you really can't expect a firm of highly paid architects to use propa English - like! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vantage+point Massing and orientation is hoo them lot speak like. I mean if they said they thowt it was aboot the reet size an' pontin the reet way ordinary folks might not think they wa woorth the muney. And... to answer your AM I BEING TOO SCEPTICAL HERE question: Yes, you probably are. We have to grab at what is possible. It's a bit more new life in the old place. And, it's life that has to actually pass through/live in the town centre, and not jump into their cars and head directly for the A1 to get to/from work - plus do all their shopping at the Metro Centre. On the inconvenience: if you read the planning document you will find so many restrictions on what the builder has to/can't do it's a wonder any developer would even bother! You can't have it both ways: call the place "a ghost town" then object to any activity!

Ironic that the Co-op is foundering on the very thing it was set up to circumvent - self interest! Just like the Police Federation, the people at the helm won't accept change because it will impact on their own cushy existence. I didn't catch that Lord Myners has just joined the ever-increasing list of walk outs, but you don't really need to waste time seeking out his stated reasons. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/17/co-op-group-loses-billions-failings-in-management The Co-op can't survive in its present form, and no one seems interested in reconstituting it as a viable business. Flog off the bits, and when the dust has settled re-brand them - all that can be salvaged is some shaky jobs here and there! All the aspirations of the public-spirited Bedlingtonians in those sepia photos have now completely turned to dust.

..takes revenge on all motor cars! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27058362 Sometimes we all feel like that!

Sorry, but that bit is nonsense! There are several reasons why a landlord wants to see a property occupied, and they are in no way insulated from market forces. But the quality of a tenant has to be taken into consideration too. Potential tenants who do all their homework have a much better chance of securing a better property; but few do, and you can't blame landlords for becoming jaded through hopeless propositions. Now Clive might not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, and he may not be the best business person in town, but he's not stupid. And, my point is going back at the right time - having done all the homework - will surely produce a deal. The property standing empty is costing him far more than the rates. I'm not aware of anyone in Bedlington who uses the occupancy rules simply to avoid business rates. It's generally asking for hassle, but if you spot any be sure to name and shame here. The sort of thing you mention is criminal, because the occupancy then attracts rates immediately, and if there is intention not to pay then that's fraud. Anyone who even offered such a "service" would be open to criminal charges, and any participating landlord would be complicit.

You need to select what site area you are searching on with the grey button before hitting the green search magnifier, else it will return too many results. One of the 2010 links I can spot: http://www.bedlingto...y-adjourned-r58

Ah, but think of all the parking fines, and the warden jobs so created! 39 more two-car families - goodness, why did that car showroom close?!

I do hope Cleggie caught this C5 program: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/469953/Gypsies-on-Benefits-and-Proud-Romanian-gypsy-aims-to-earn-40-000-on-UK-handouts Totally unrepresentative of all the hard-working Romanians and Bulgarians flocking to the UK as we speak, to mop up all those jobs no one here really wants - of course! Or maybe that's only the case in the fantasy world Mr Clegg lives in?

Everything is negotiable! Keep going back to them regularly and offering what you reckon is a fair rent. Hopefully you'll catch them at a time when the Council Tax / Insurance / Repair bill land, and they'll then see the merits of someone else having to pay them. Saying that it's THE prime position in the town won't help your case either. There are lots of good positions in the town and it really depends what for. If it's not let then clearly it isn't THE prime position in the town for anything, at the rent they are asking!

The Old Vicarage is actually Grade II listed. To quote from the English Heritage guy who surveyed it: "If I have to see yet another Grade II listed building I will scream." He meant, of course, that they were going through a phase when everything that was old enough was being listed without any consideration of merit. Not that there's anything wrong with the Old Vicarage; it's a fine building that was built without much consideration of the cost - because the church at that time was flush with funds from the sale of the Glebe Lands. It will certainly be standing long after the New Vicarage is bulldozed. But it's not representative of the town in the past, and indeed not even that old. Nor is it in any way unique in itself. That's recognised in the Grade II; preservation on the cheap, as no public money is available. There's no doubt that Grade II listings need to be reviewed. Either they should be marked as worthy of public money, or be released from most of the restrictions. Like the Old Vicarage most will survive anyway, because they still serve a purpose into the 21st century and beyond. The entire conservation area is a bit of a joke anyway, because just about everything that was worth conserving was vandalised by none other than the very people who should have at least preserved some of the better examples. Some of these had been flagged up in surveys paid for with public money before the vandalisation, yet these were ignored when politically convenient. Bedlington is still a working town, and a working town that has had the raw-end of many political stitch ups. It isn't a twee village in the stockbroker belt with sky high property values, and almost all of the historical treasures have gone for good. It now needs to be able to regenerate with as few shackles as possible. Getting rid of the odd derelict and decrepit building that has long had its day should be just a start. We've got an enviable central position and should be screaming out for this to recognised in regional government decisions, not squabbling over the odd pile of nondescript stones.

The "silly woman with the big lips" is in deep do-do economically and has failed to deliver on any promises. Cameron is trailing in the polls with an election looming. A mutually convenient increase in tension coming up? Better still a teensy "invasion" that everyone can save face retreating from without too many casualties. Cynical? Me?! Now where did I put that Union Jack? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26999735

Yup, the latest bout of alarmism from the IPCC surely illustrates that their case is crumbling. Even a courageous one of their number defecting (and putting his job at risk) on the grounds that the alarmism isn't at all warranted. There's no doubt a section of society that actually wills MMGW to be true. It suits their sense of "justice" and how things should be. It's religion for the irreligious. It ticks all the boxes in a belief-set that sees the present course of society and human development as misdirected. It's the same bunch of people who have got overworked about other issues in the past - nuclear disarmament - hole in the ozone layer - nuclear power - "globalisation" etc. They are essentially Stalinist in their misplaced concerns; anyone who disagrees must be a "class-enemy" and eliminated (sacked). Anything which points to the fact that they may be wrong must be suppressed. Quite a few of them in the Beeb I think. The present bunch buy heavily into Gaia theory - up to a point - but when its author says nuclear power is the only sane way to go they don't want to listen any further. That's because there's an irreconcilable conflict with another irrational thread. A lot of these extremely vocal and irrational people are in the green movement. Which is a shame, because it detracts from some of the more useful messages from that direction. Every religion has its admirable good intentions, together with followers who do great harm under the moral cloak so provided.

Curiouser and curiouser! Rather a lot of red faces if this report is true! http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mh370-hijacked-afghanistan-russian-intelligence-3407468

Well, I'm going to disagree here. It has been pretty much a waste of space for many years now, indeed unsafe! We can't preserve absolutely everything, and some things have to go to make way for the new. And.. it wasn't actually a church hall for a lot of the time I was around there. That's a use it assumed because there was little else to do with it. Let's preserve the things that are worth preserving, and don't let the bad decisions of the past - I'm referring to the council driven carnage of the place in the '60's - make us overreact when things have seen out their utility. Many things have gone which should have been preserved, but this certainly isn't one of them! So... nice to have known you Infants School / latter day Church Hall, but Bedlington needs a touch of "The Doctor". It needs to regenerate if it is to survive as other than a dormitory for other places. Places that have had a fairer deal! Presently, we need to grab whatever reasonable quality development we can attract. Excessive clinging to the past is a sure sign of decline. We owe it to the future, our children, and indeed our forefathers, to move on! I do hope I haven't stifled the debate here; are there actually any rational reasons why the development shouldn't go ahead?

The server for this website was recently patched... and all related company ones. Rotating passwords is always a good idea, but few people ever bother. You should focus on the sites where you use https: (the lock thing on your browser), and where cash is involved. The sheer scale of this is actually a bit reassuring, because criminals have so many potential targets the chances of an individual being victimised are small. And, if you are a Mac user, you've had no https: security for ages anyway (see my bit in the Computing forum), and only thought you had. It always pays to be paranoid though. So if you even have to think is this really necessary - just do it anyway!

http://www.bedlington.co.uk/community/classifieds/item/102-samsung-galaxy-star-gt-s5280-smartphone/ -- I can do torms!

Well... would you believe it, the ONS has underestimated the number of immigrants over 2001-11 from "new EU countries" by a mere 350,000? How was this possible? Seems they only bothered to count the ones coming in to Gatwick or Heathrow and couldn't be arsed to find out how many they were waving through other airports. If they can't even COUNT the legal immigrants who present themselves under their very noses accurately how can they even start to estimate the illegals?! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26972597 Yes, Mr Clegg, you fool no one! The 27% of the audience who bought your crap should be told the facts, and not the pack of lies you peddle! You cherry pick from the official statistics, and even they are often based on partial, incomplete, and politically slanted information. Meanwhile Italy is inundated with boat people and simply can't cope. 4000 have been rescued over just the past few days. They will be given papers and released because there's nothing else the Italian state can do. Germany won't help a bit - not even money to protect borders - because they are well shielded and rely on cheap labour for their industry. Eu - big on Europe and very small on Union! Time to get out, and kill the nonsense and political junketing off for good! Eight billion pounds a year we can spend on fixing our own problems, and get rid of the economic drag that only benefits Germany. Job at risk? Yes, only those at the trough though!