Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Mps Subject To Sharia Law

Recommended Posts

Put this one at the door of Osborne, MPs having to move whilst their offices are renovated.

They're moving into a building where the lease term stipulates that the building is covered by sharia law.

How the eff is this even legal? Now an alcohol ban okay, I know shops whose lease terms prevent them from selling super strength lager & cider for example, but an office building in the UK actually under the rule of a religious law in the lease and this is not only legal but the Chancellor set it up.

He should be strung up for treason.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/639378/British-MPs-Sharia-law-alcohol-ban-Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put this one at the door of Osborne, MPs having to move whilst their offices are renovated.

They're moving into a building where the lease term stipulates that the building is covered by sharia law.

How the eff is this even legal? Now an alcohol ban okay, I know shops whose lease terms prevent them from selling super strength lager & cider for example, but an office building in the UK actually under the rule of a religious law in the lease and this is not only legal but the Chancellor set it up.

He should be strung up for treason.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/639378/British-MPs-Sharia-law-alcohol-ban-Islam

I'm glad I’m not the only one who feels that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know from inside experience that parliament practically runs on alcohol and the subsidised bars. They MPs will not like their alcohol fuelled excesses curtailed. Can't see this going ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the building, 91 metres down the road, was transferred from the British Government to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks under an Islamic bond scheme, called Sukuk, in 2014 in George Osborne's bid to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance.The lease terms stipulate the building is governed under Islamic law - which includes the banning of alcohol on the activities.

If someone had told me this I'd have found it hard to believe, as it's so ridiculous.

All this globalist/NWO stuff starts to get easier and easier to believe doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone had told me this I'd have found it hard to believe, as it's so ridiculous.

All this globalist/NWO stuff starts to get easier and easier to believe doesn't it.

I would feel similar if a lease of a Chinese owned London office building was subject to Chinese law. It smacks of a desire to destroy nation states and everything being for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's the only office that MPS could be moved to?

Crazy - it's amazing that their Oath of Office sworn when becoming MPs allows them to be subject to a different law when doing their work as British MPs creating British law.

The alcohol ban is a bit of a diversion as that law covers far more than alcohol. What's the position of female MPs - are they getting fitted out for burkas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would feel similar if a lease of a Chinese owned London office building was subject to Chinese law. It smacks of a desire to destroy nation states and everything being for sale.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger scandal is the many billions they're going to spend updating Parliament. If the referendum showed anything it was the need to get government out of the Westminster bubble. Move them all to Manchester Town Hall. Permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or another example of British economic weakness? Instead of being in a strong position and being able to dictate terms, we're in a weak position and having others dictate terms to us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to Bitch Britain, newly liberated it will negotiate new trade deals with India, China, Muslim world, South America. Remember the "kids will do anything for a dairylea" [or whatever it was exactly] advert? Well Bitch Britain will do anything for a country prepared to lend it money or fund infrastructure projects.

Remember guys that means no beef pies, no slagging off cheap chinese crap, no booze and no telling the Argies that the Falklands are British ;)

Many a true word is said in jest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the outrage as it is due to sharia law - but objectively, what is the difference to this and restrictive covenants on say a freehold shop

There may well be a restrictive covenant on the property you live in

A good few years back I bought a commercial property that had a restrictive covenant on the deeds saying it could never be an off-licence or be a pub - this was put in with good reason as it was part of a local chain that was selling up and didn't want a rival

All a restrictive covenant does is reduce the market/price for said property - if osborne or whoever procured this property did so in full knowledge then more fool them - it may appear like sharia acquiescence by the government, but it's basically a restrictive covenant that whoever has taken over the lease has agreed to abide by (or they would be in breach of their lease)

Contracts have to compatible with english law - the phrase 'terms of the lease are under sharia law' is all very inflammatory sounding, but do you seriously think if someone was caught stealing a bar of chocolate from the canteen, they'd have their hand cut off in parliament square

or an MP having a quickie with his secretary and she'd be stoned to death for adultery (or whatever nonsense the koran prescribes)

or two gay MPs to be thrown off the top floor

of more concern in the article is the government trying to lure middle eastern money to britain, but as we all know governments of all persuasions have been doing that for years.

Mischief making from the express. Nothing to see here move along

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big security risk there. Admittance of anyone in a burqa without searching/seeing their face. It's a known fact that men in n Afghanistan have been dressing in burqas to hide their identity. A case of "does my bomb look big in this?" Guy Fawkes, eat your heart out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the outrage as it is due to sharia law - but objectively, what is the difference to this and restrictive covenants on say a freehold shop

There may well be a restrictive covenant on the property you live in

A good few years back I bought a commercial property that had a restrictive covenant on the deeds saying it could never be an off-licence or be a pub - this was put in with good reason as it was part of a local chain that was selling up and didn't want a rival

All a restrictive covenant does is reduce the market/price for said property - if osborne or whoever procured this property did so in full knowledge then more fool them - it may appear like sharia acquiescence by the government, but it's basically a restrictive covenant that whoever has taken over the lease has agreed to abide by (or they would be in breach of their lease)

Contracts have to compatible with english law - the phrase 'terms of the lease are under sharia law' is all very inflammatory sounding, but do you seriously think if someone was caught stealing a bar of chocolate from the canteen, they'd have their hand cut off in parliament square

or an MP having a quickie with his secretary and she'd be stoned to death for adultery (or whatever nonsense the koran prescribes)

or two gay MPs to be thrown off the top floor

of more concern in the article is the government trying to lure middle eastern money to britain, but as we all know governments of all persuasions have been doing that for years.

Mischief making from the express. Nothing to see here move along

Fair enough. But it's the thin end of a very thick wedge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put this one at the door of Osborne, MPs having to move whilst their offices are renovated.

They're moving into a building where the lease term stipulates that the building is covered by sharia law.

How the eff is this even legal?

Because, in this respect at least, people are still free to do what they wish with their property. Add clauses to leases, covenants to property etc. Private contracts freely entered into. It's what freedom is all about.

It's why we have Leicester Square ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulk_v_Moxhay )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put this one at the door of Osborne, MPs having to move whilst their offices are renovated.

They're moving into a building where the lease term stipulates that the building is covered by sharia law.

How the eff is this even legal? Now an alcohol ban okay, I know shops whose lease terms prevent them from selling super strength lager & cider for example, but an office building in the UK actually under the rule of a religious law in the lease and this is not only legal but the Chancellor set it up.

He should be strung up for treason.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/639378/British-MPs-Sharia-law-alcohol-ban-Islam

There's a long history of religious restrictive covenants on land and building use in the UK. For example, one of the reasons there are so few places to buy booze in Lythan St Annes is because the Quakers who once owned a lot of land in that area placed no alcohol terms in the sales and leases. This is a pretty funny one though and I do wonder if it will make some of our elected representatives think again about some of the multicultural stuff they've pushed down our throats safe in the knowledge that, until now, they themselves would mostly be insulated from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope our MP's enjoy their enrolment into the temperance movement.

As Forest Gump said in the movie "Stupid is, stupid does"

And Ed Millipede will be able to rest safe in the knowledge that he won't be forced to eat another bacon butty for the next 5 years at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a contractual agreement and therefore applies only to those who have signed it.

Sharia law would not apply to anybody else who enters that building and hasn't signed the contract or agreed to its terms and conditions.

Furthermore contract clauses that break UK law are null and void, therefore most of sharia law would never apply anyway.

So that article is nothing but nonsensical propaganda designed to stoke up hate against Muslims, 'divide and conquer', same as ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a contractual agreement and therefore applies only to those who have signed it.

Sharia law would not apply to anybody else who enters that building and hasn't signed the contract or agreed to its terms and conditions.

Furthermore contract clauses that break UK law are null and void, therefore most of sharia law would never apply anyway.

So that article is nothing but nonsensical propaganda designed to stoke up hate against Muslims, 'divide and conquer', same as ever.

But the buiding owners would be within their legal rights to eject, or refuse entry, to anyone behaving in an manner they do not approve of. It is private property.

There is a former temperance hall in my town with a restrictive covenant forbidding the sale of alcohol on the premises, which has proved problematical for sucessive occupants (including an arts workshop and theatre).

I think covenants can sometimes be overturned by a court but I do not what the criteria for that are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think covenants can sometimes be overturned by a court but I do not what the criteria for that are.

They can indeed

For instance, if the covenant beneficiaries are no longer around to either enforce it or benefit from it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a long history of religious restrictive covenants on land and building use in the UK. For example, one of the reasons there are so few places to buy booze in Lythan St Annes is because the Quakers who once owned a lot of land in that area placed no alcohol terms in the sales and leases. This is a pretty funny one though and I do wonder if it will make some of our elected representatives think again about some of the multicultural stuff they've pushed down our throats safe in the knowledge that, until now, they themselves would mostly be insulated from it.

Yes, I was going to mention the Bournville village trust as a similar situation, but it may be under a trust, as opposed to restrictive covenant

But yes, the effect is the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can indeed

For instance, if the covenant beneficiaries are no longer around to either enforce it or benefit from it

Benefits are usually heritable and if a beneficiary dies intestate the state inherits rights.

So can you cite any actual examples of benificial rights under a covenant being extinguished?

I can see that a coventant could be rendered null and void if fulfilling obligations under the covenant would constitute a criminal act.

Edit:

Seems restrictive covenants can only be extinguished in extraordinary circumstances.

http://blog.landregistry.gov.uk/release-restrictive-covenants/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.