Coconut Shy? How Do we Draw the “Political Correctness” Line?

“Nuts About Coconuts?” asks Solicitor in Sutton Coldfield after Bristol Councillor Prosecuted

During a debate about funding for BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) groups in Bristol, a Councillor found herself in hot water when she called a fellow Councillor a “Coconut”.

Black Councillor Shirley Brown became angry when Asian councillor, Ms. Jay Jethwa, argued in favour of cuts in the budget.

In such a context, the word “Coconut” is usually taken to mean someone “who is brown on the outside, but white on the inside”.

Other slang words used in a similar context include “Oreo” – ie “black on the outside but white inside”; or “Banana” in the Chinese community – “yellow on the outside and white on the inside”.

Ms Brown later apologised repeatedly to Ms Jethwa, however the issue was taken to local, regional and then national hearings, before being taken up by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The CPS said the prosecution was “in the public interest… because it alleged an offence where the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on discrimination against the victim’s ethnic origin”.

On Monday Ms Brown was convicted, and was handed a 12-month conditional discharge as well as being ordered to pay costs.

So… without wanting to use phrases like “political correctness gone mad” or coming over all Daily Mail”, does anybody think this was a good use of public funds or really “in the public interest”?

Obviously one cannot put oneself into the shoes of Ms. Jetwa to experience her sense of hurt directly. However, my wife is of British Indian origin and I am a white man from Northern Ireland. We’ve both encountered mild barbs of this nature – “Paddy” or indeed “Coconut” (since my wife “married out”). For me it really falls into the “sticks and stones” category, surely?

BBC Asian Network radio actually have a section – which is very popular for phone-in requests – called “Coconut Classic”. This is where listeners playfully identify themselves as “closet coconuts” when choosing mainly cheesy Eighties “classics”, like True by Spandau Ballet, which are then played on-air. I have never heard anybody call in to complain that they were being oppressed by the concept!

Indeed the Asian community has it’s own “reserved” slang words for members of other communities which are used routinely – like Gora (“white man”, sometimes pejorative, sometimes not); or “Kala” (“black man”, used mainly in a pejorative way in my experience).

So… where do we draw the line? Should Carol Thatcher not have been prosecuted when she used the term “golliwog” on television last year? To me that seems a much more hurtful and insulting phrase.

Are there any “black and white rules” we can take for granted on this Black and White issue? Or is it all shades of humourless, homogenous grey?

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Discover How to Avoid the Cost of a Broken Heart

Unmarried couples should prepare for all eventualities says Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield 

Harvey McKibbin Solicitors says unmarried couples are at risk if they don’t plan or prepare for all eventualities when co-habiting or combining assets.

Following a recent case where a man who had split up with his co-habiting partner 17 years ago, was awarded a half share in the house they once lived in, even though he had never paid the mortgage.

The house was purchased as joint tenants“, or co-owners in lay terms, and remained so after the relationship dissolved.

Harvey McKibbin says, even though it’s hard, couples should plan for a worst case scenario where they split up and must deal with distribution of their assets, as co-habiting couples have fewer rights than those who are married or in a civil partnership.

Seeking the advice of a solicitor before moving in or breaking up can help to make this as painless as possible and could save a lot of time and money as well as heartache if you do split up.

Rights surrounding parental responsibility, wills and pensions also differ compared to couples who are married or in a civil partnership. These issues can be explained in detail by a family solicitor, so you and your family are protected. Owner Harvinder McKibbin says “We’re seeing more and more cohabiting couples to offer advice on how they can avoid the pitfalls and give them peace of mind about what would happen in the worst case scenario.  However, there are many more who don’t realise that they could be storing up a very painful process in the future when they can simply see a professional to get the best advice to avoid this.”

Law Society President Robert Heslett says:

“It is no surprise that couples do not want to consider the ramifications if they break up but it is essential that when committing to set up home together to seek legal advice from a solicitor in order to prepare for any eventuality.

“Cases like the one described are happening all too frequently and we urge co-habiting couples to ensure they have protected their assets or they too may face a similar fate.”

So the best thing to do is to seek some advice from a professional, so you know where you stand and can make informed decisions. Without doing this, couples can suffer enormous extra hardships, emotional and financial, should things not work out in the end.

Harvinder McKibbin agrees, and says “We can make sure you’re fully informed and protected so that if your relationship hits the rocks you only have to cope with a broken heart and not watch the whole financial ship go down too!”

If you haven’t thought about this and are living together then please think about asking for advice. If you’d like to speak to good solicitor who offer guaranteed work then contact Harvey McKibbin on 0121 240 9115 (24/7)  or www.harveymckibbin.co.uk.

 

Journalists can contact Harvey McKibbin from the same details for comment.

 

 

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Warning on new CGT Rates! Don’t be Caught Out, says Solicitor in Sutton Coldfield

Trusts and wills are vulnerable to new CGT rate, warns Harvey McKibbin Solicitors

 

The Capital Gains Tax (CGT) increase announced in this week’s budget will mean trustees and personal representatives administering the estates of the deceased could feel the full brunt of the rise as gains made will be at risk of exposure to the new higher rate, warns Harvey McKibbin Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield.

 

The new rate of 28 percent will charge any gains made while the estate is being administered, and also gains for the duration of a trust.

 

Will trusts, created by parents of young children or vulnerable adults, are particularly exposed to the new regime, says Harvey McKibbin Solicitors.

 

Owner Harvinder McKibbin says:

 

“Many hardworking families will often look to create a protective tax regime for their children in the event that they are orphaned at a young age by leaving assets in trust until the children are old enough to manage the assets without the guiding hand of their parents.

 

“There is a real danger of trust assets being eroded through a combination of income tax at 50 per cent, CGT at 28 per cent and the impact of the changes to the inheritance regime introduced in 2006. 

 

“Personal representatives, trustees and anyone else appointed to set up a trust and settle assets within it should urgently seek advice from their solicitor to ensure that arrangements are structured as tax efficiently as possible for the benefit of these vulnerable beneficiaries in the light of these new developments.”

 

Tread carefully

 

Harvey McKibbin is urging trustees and those charged with the task of administering an estate to tread carefully when reviewing trusts or practices in light of the new CGT rate.

 

Harvinder McKibbin adds:

 

“This reinforces the importance of using a solicitor instead of an unqualified, unregulated will writer for trust or probate matters. In light of this new tax regime and the complications that come with it, do you really want an unqualified, unregulated executor or trustee administering your estate after you pass away, rather than a solicitor who is professional, robustly regulated, qualified and insured?

 

“Even where a solicitor has not been appointed to administer a trust or estate, anyone who has been given that role should go to a solicitor, who is best placed to take all these issues into account.”

 

If you do not have a will and need a solicitor write one, contact Harvey McKibbin on 0121 240 9115 (www.harveymckibbin.co.uk).

 

Journalists can contact us from the same details.

 

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Broken HIPs?

Broken HIPs?

 

Is it “Good Riddance” to Bad Legislation?

 

The new coalition government announced the suspension of Home Information Packs (HIP) from the 21st May onwards, saving any seller who markets their property after this date the estimated extra cost (¬£300-¬£450) for a HIP.

 

The idea behind the move is to encourage more sellers to market their properties with ease.  But could this really help inject life into the already slumping property market and what effect will it have on conveyancing?

 

From June 2007 it was a legal requirement to have a Home Information Pack in order to market a property. Sellers were being billed for yet another expense in the sale process of a property.

 

It was also in that year that a reported 7000 people were trained to assess HIPs (BBC Statistics 2007). These prospective assessors left their existing jobs to train and in what was promised to be a lucrative role as a HIP assessor earning in the region of £25,000 a year. With the compulsory need for the Home Information Packs there grew a demand for HIP publishers who would then in turn compile all this information into presentable packs on behalf of estate agents.

 

There can only be negative effect for these people as a result of this suspension. HIP assessors would need to revaluate their job prospects and publishing companies are likely to lose out on a lot of orders from estate agents.

 

So what is the big fuss about Home Information Packs?

 

A HIP contains key information for example for a freehold property it would contain property information questionnaires, energy performance certificate (Just like buying a fridge), sale statements, evidence of title and standard searches. They could also include recent planning permission or building consents. For a leasehold property a copy of the lease will also be included.

 

Once all this information had been collected it would be compiled together by the estate agents or other publishing source into a hard copy pack. These packs would then be passed onto to any prospective buyer. 

 

The official information in the packs was complied to help aid a quick transaction – avoiding the unnecessary delays a solicitor would face in obtaining the necessary documents and also to give all buyers the opportunity to know exactly what their purchase would entitle from the offset.

 

Well, that’s the “theory” at least¬Ö

 

In practise Estate Agents hated having to charge clients up front. Lawyers complained that since the vast majority of sellers were also buying when they moved, all that a HIP accomplished in practical terms was to “move” the process of paying for searches etc. up the chain one notch. So, sellers provided the information for their buyers and then, when they came to buy themselves, they didn’t have to commission the searches on the property they were buying.

 

It seemed to many like a lot of fuss and hot air over very little in reality.

 

One other practical issue, however, was always whether banks and mortgage companies would accept third party searches and documentation. They would always prefer fresh information from their own solicitors, naturally, and in fact in many cases our firm has had to explain to disgruntled buyers that they would have to pay for new versions of certain documents anyway!

 

So, what is the “prognosis” now the new collation government has suspended these packs?

 

Some estate agents report improvements in the market since the announcement, but in reality the property market is still dragging along slowly – and it will continue, in my opinion, until normal lending conditions resume. One unwelcome side-effect the suspension has had is the doubled pricing of Energy Performance Certificate.

 

Questions remain according to solicitors in Sutton Coldfield¬Ö

 

Will the move really encourage more sellers to market their home? Will it actually help the property market flourish again? Are Nick and “Dave” really one and the same person?

 

We will just have to wait and see¬Ö  

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Gary McKinnon and the “New Politics”

“It took SIX Home Secretaries to examine the issue before, finally, it seems that something resembling justice will be done in the case of Gary McKinnon”, says a Solicitor in Sutton Coldfield.

Five Labour incumbents to the post came and went – David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson – and all of them simply abandoned Gary to reap the legacy of ill-considered the Extradition Act 2003.

It seems little short of a national disgrace that a citizen of the UK can be callously bundled over to a foreign power without even so much as the need to establish before a British Court that there is the slightest actual case to answer! How could the former government ignore and destroy the very fundamentals of our basic right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty?

This blog doesn’t often like to stray into “politics” and is as sceptical as the next person when it comes to believing politicians when they promise to bring us “Change!”

However, if the move today by Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, to put the legal process on hold is an example of the “New Politics” promised by the Cameron Government then Harvey McKibbin Solicitors applauds it LOUDLY!

If you feel in any way strongly that we shouldn’t just hand our citizens over to another power when it shows a whim – particularly when the case concerns a person with Asperger’s Syndrome; particularly when the penalties in that country far, far outweigh any commensurate penalties in the UK for a similar offence – then please visit the Gary McKinnon website at:

and “add your voice to the sound of the crowd” against such breaches of fundamental liberties.

This blog is stepping out of the pulpit now, brothers and sisters… Thanks for reading (and taking action, if you do so)!

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Dogs To Bite New Conservative and Liberal Government?

“How Will The New Government Control Vicious Dogs?” asks Solicitor in Sutton Coldfield

 

Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield say “The press seems to always be reporting vicious dog attacks here in the UK.”

 

Five year old Ellie Lawrenson died after being mauled by Pit Bull Terrier in 2007. She was reported to have serve head and neck injuries. Again in 2009 four year old John Massey suffered fatal injuries to his face, neck and body. In Merseyside alone hospitals treat at least 30 people a week as a result of dog attacks.

 

Inner city gangs and drug dealers are known to use dangerous dogs as offensive weapons and status symbols. Essentially it would be like having a loaded shotgun pointed at your front door.

 

What’s to be done?

 

The Government has already ruled out the plan for compulsory insurance for all dogs after the plan was found to be unfair on the majority of law abiding dog owners. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is often criticised for being too vague. 

 

Well, the Control of Dogs Bill 2009-2010 bill may prove to be better at providing an equitable solution to the problem. The private members bill is currently at the first reading. The bill will enforce dog owners to micro chip their pets; and more importantly give more powers to the courts and authorities to deal with vicious dogs, careless dog owners and stray dogs.

 

With more powers and authority given to the police, courts and local authorities maybe we will begin to hear less about those gut wrenching attacks, although it remains to be seen how the new Government might choose to deal with this…

 

Here’s hoping…

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Is File-Sharing Like Shoplifting?

Is File-Sharing Like shoplifting?

 

Security has always been a problem!

 

Hadrian’s Wall was built in AD 122 by order of Emperor Hadrian to “separate Romans from Barbarians” in the interests of security.

 

In modern times, retail empires like Tesco or Marks and Spencer have security guards and electronic sensors at work to provide the same physical barrier to the unwanted “liberation” of items from their stores.

 

But what happens when the items are stored in the ether of the internet? Can you really prevent the “hordes at their keyboards” from ghosting into the shadowy corners of the virtual realm? Is it really feasible to devise a system that makes sure that “five finger discount” is impossible to apply online?

 

Well the Government certainly thinks they have the answer, and a new piece of legislation aims to separate out the “Barbarian Hordes” who indulge in file-sharing!

 

On the 8th April 2010 the controversial Digital Economy Bill was passed at the third reading in the House of Commons.

 

Its aim is to tackle and thwart copyright infringements and the bill is seen as a tool “with teeth” in the “war against piracy”.

 

For years record labels and film studios have been complaining that they are suffering huge losses due to the rise in illegal file sharing.

 

“After all,” they say, “why pay for something when you can get it free?”

 

Whether you’re looking for your favourite blockbuster movie or your favourite album, you can now use a multitude of so-called “shareware” websites which offer exactly that enticing prospect. With super-fast broadband you can now download films and albums, legally or illegally, in less than the time it would take you to make a cup of tea!

 

So what’s the solution for the copyright holder?

 

The legislation tries to shift the onus onto computer users and businesses to build a “Hadrian’s Wall” around their networks and hard drives to fortify security. Otherwise they risk prosecution and suspension of their internet connection.

 

The impact could be dramatic. Imagine, for instance, how any modern day business would struggle to cope without the internet. If you’ve ever even experienced a power cut when at work you’ll know that without the internet most businesses are simply paralysed.

 

A pertinent question here might be “Is it fair if a company goes to the wall and people are made redundant because somebody in the business has downloaded Now That’s What I Call Music 365?”

 

Under the bill Internet Service Providers have also been tasked to reduce online copyright infringements. Given the popularity of the World Wide Web this is no simple task.

 

For example, a moderately successful musician who earns an annual online income of, say, £14,000 would highly appreciate this bill as piracy could cause him substantial losses. Others would counter that it is a pile-driver to crack a nut…

 

A report by the BBC on the 17th March claimed the growth of illegal file-sharing could cost European countries 1.2 million jobs and ¬£215bn by the year 2015. The UK alone could lose 250,000 jobs by 2015, it is said. With figures like these being bandied about it’s not hard to see why extra measures were drafted up to curb piracy.

 

Although in the final stages of amendments the Digital Economy Bill promises to please copyright holders once gave the Royal Assent.  It gives any copyright holder the ability to fight back against those offenders who illegally download material.

 

Essentially they’re saying that illegal file sharing would be the equivalent to walking into your local Tesco’s, picking up a DVD, walking past the cashier whilst smiling, making no attempt to pay, and exiting the store. But they’re proposing to give out much more stringent penalties than a ticking off or a small fine…

 

All of this begs a few “real world” questions, such as “Is stance this really justified?”

 

And perhaps more importantly “When such huge numbers share files on the internet is criminalisation really a practical solution?”

 

Lastly, given the importance of such a Bill and the potential impact, “Is this really the best, most imaginative, solution we could come up with?

 

It might well be said that the situation is a larger scale version of the pleas from record companies in the 1980s that “Home Taping Is Killing Music!”

 

Plaintively imploring fans not to record from LP records and CDs onto cassette didn’t work then¬Ö

 

We’ll have to wait and see what happens this time around!

 

Interesting times¬Ö

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Entrepreneurs!

As you know we’re a firm of solicitors in Sutton Coldfield, but we also do work for people all over the country.

I’ve just been doing my “civic duty” posting free advice on UK Business Forum for the benefit of business men and women far and wide. I know… shucks… I’m too good!

Anyway, there are several recurring questions there and I guess if they’re recurring then a few of you might have similar queries – so I thought I’d pop a few of the replies on here for your delight…

This was in answer to a query about what to expect as a entrepreneur: 

“[Quoting Mattthewineman 'I perhaps do not class myself as an Entrepreneur but I have just remortgaged my house, taken out a substantial loan, have a wonderful (young) family that I want securiitiy and happiness for and with, but I will be setting up my own business from scratch. My brain is bigger than my b***s and I hope that is the right way around !?! I have had absolutely no assistance from local authourities/central goverment/business link etc in terms of financial backing but that makes me all the more determined to succeed. I am out there, working hard, today.........']

Matthew

It does take balls to do what you’ve done – so hats off to you and to all the entrepreneurs on here. (I believe I am one of you too, for my sins, brothers and sisters!)

It’s kind of more of a compulsion – as you say Matthew, kinda leading from the heart and not always the head. 

I’ve done a number of things that have had great potential and not worked out for one reason or another – and I have to say I’m glad for the experience and I don’t regret a thing. Go with your passion, I say!

One small word of advice that i just read today that certainly chimes with me – from Ricahrd Branson’s book “Business Stripped Bare” – is that entrepreneurs are often seized with the zeal to create and overlook (or aren’t suited to) the rigours of actually managing the idea/start up business.

I’d really second that thought and say that you should try to play to your strengths – and try to delegate your weaker points to the best person you can afford who is good at what they do.

Anyway – good luck to you all!

Incidentally, someone mentioned finance – and if you’re in the Midlands there is a lot of Govt money about. I know a chap if you’d like the details.”

If you’re starting up in business we can help you get it right from Day One – so visit the website at Harvey McKibbin Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield or call us 0121 240 9115 right now…

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Partnership or Ltd Company?

As you know we’re a firm of solicitors in Sutton Coldfield, but we also do work for people all over the country.

I’ve just been doing my “civic duty” posting free advice on UK Business Forum for the benefit of business men and women far and wide. I know… shucks… I’m too good!

Anyway, there are several recurring questions there and I guess if they’re recurring then a few of you might have similar queries – so I thought I’d pop a few of the replies on here for your delight…

This was in answer to a query about whether or not to start a Partnership:

“As a broad “rule of thumb” a Partnership is the “easier” thing to do – and also potentially the cheaper option if you’re worried about your accountant’s fees.

As somebody else has said your accountant (provided you trust them) is probably best placed to give you the advice you need based on intimate knowledge of your business and circumstances.

However, to reiterate another point, if you do decide to go the Partnership route please, please do yourself a favour a get a Partnership Agreement.

You can download templates online if you search Google (although of course they won’t come with expert advice) if cost is an issue.

We’ve seen, time and time again, clients coming to us in great distress when a disagreement has arisen or circumstances have changed in a business and due to there being nothing in writing to govern the outcome the result is a quagmire of bitter (and expensive and draining) recriminations.

Think of it the way you do about car insurance. You ultimately hope it will be a “waste of money” because you hope you never have to claim because you never want to be involved in a crash. However, it there IS an issue then you’re damn glad you have the protection (or truly sorry if you don’t)!”

Naturally, if you need more advice then visit Harvey McKibbin Solicitors in Sutton Coldfield or call 0121 240 9115 now…

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous

Why Should You Use Solicitors In Sutton Coldfield?

Put simply do you want the best service, with a guarantee of satisfaction?

You do?

Well look here and see for yourself why you should choose these solicitors in Sutton Coldfield when you need a good lawyer…

and then call Harvey McKibbin on 0121 240 9115 Now

Posted via email from Harvey’s posterous