Jump to content

Judane


icepick239
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe not the right thread to be posting this on but....... I see T&N Joinery is appling for planning permission to change use of Retail outlet at Gremista ! Judanes ???

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno , is it a "retail " outlet , I thought that was the whole problem for the Millers and Hodge , as far as I'm aware it is still a commercial premises though I stand to be corrected on this .Anyone know for sure ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SDT has nothing to do with the Charitable Trust and never did.

 

I hate to pick holes in your excellent post but for the record but this is how the SDT came into being.

 

The SCT used to make loans to local businesses. Understandibly these were limited due to the need for caution in getting a return. The SIC Reserve Fund then began to give grants to the SCT to guarantee the capital of riskier loans. This was known as the High Risk/Unsecured Loan Scheme (HRULS). In time the SDT was formed and the SCT mandated all the HRULS loans to it. The SCT then had no further interest in these loans. I forget when the SCT was formed but the first Judane loan may even have originally been through the HRULS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would presume that the alleged "difficulty" in enforcing the post 04/05 accumulated interest/penalty charges of the debt stems from the alleged proposed insurance claim/legal action against Planning by Judane.

 

For the insurance claim/legal action to be successful in the first place it would be necessary to prove, or at least have Planning admit, that as a result of wrong advice give, the main asset of the Judane business was prevented from being used to its full and legal potential, and/or was prevented from being sold at its full market value. Therefor it would follow that Judane would argue that it was not their fault interest/penalty payments were accrued between the time the bogus advice was received and the findings of the Planning Enquiry were put in to effect, it was the fault of planning, who by placing illegal restrictions upon said asset and preventing it being used or liquidated at to full value, created the situation.

 

It would then follow that interest/penalty payments accured post findings of the Planning Enquiry being put in to effect, would also be argued against on the grounds that they could not make repayments towards the debt, as to do so would in effect acknowledge their liability for the entire sum as stated at the time of any payments made, when in fact they were already disputing their liability for the interest/penalty payments already added during the period when the bogus Planning advice was in effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this has been one of the most contentious Topics ever...

As a relative newcomer to Shetlink you may have missed much of the constructive debate on issues such as Viking Energy, Mareel, Drugs in Shetland and the like in which many people have put forward a wide range of well reasoned views. In my opinion, this thread has been characterised by ill feeling and one sided supposition rather than contention.

Sorry, but but I think you are being a bit unfair.

Many of the 'Posters' have done extremely well to keep this Topic at the public forefront by discussing, assuming, argueing. critiqueing and generally able to offer their many intelligent views on what may have occurred with a subject that had been locked down and kept quiet about for years.

No official information has ever been made public (until very recently) and I believe that both the SIC and the Miller's have suffered greatly from that fact. :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not a surprise surely.

 

What would be a surprise is if the building isn't sold if a decent offer is made this time, it's common sense you make sure you have the change of use done before you actually buy it. I imagine there would be some considerable pressure put on the Millers to accept an offer if it was forthcoming from T&N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I was a bit rash in my last post (praising council for making a tough decision and getting on with thing) as I had forgotten the timing of the events which recently came to light regarding Chris Hodges payments.

 

Something someone else asked here, which is very well emphasised by the SN article linked above, is the question of where the hell does the 2.3 Million claim the Millers have/had come from?

 

Sure, they got bad advice that effectively resulted in the sale to Chris Hodge (for £600000) not going through, but they still had the building and were getting paid rent.

 

£230000 would seem like a high but understandable "damages" claim, but 2.3 million?

 

If it is accurate and the council have avoided such a claim at a cost of only (in relative terms, of course) £400k, then great.

 

But I'd like to see the breakdown before I'm convinced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this has been one of the most contentious Topics ever...

As a relative newcomer to Shetlink you may have missed much of the constructive debate on issues such as Viking Energy, Mareel, Drugs in Shetland and the like in which many people have put forward a wide range of well reasoned views. In my opinion, this thread has been characterised by ill feeling and one sided supposition rather than contention.

Sorry, but but I think you are being a bit unfair.

Many of the 'Posters' have done extremely well to keep this Topic at the public forefront by discussing, assuming, argueing. critiqueing and generally able to offer their many intelligent views on what may have occurred with a subject that had been locked down and kept quiet about for years.

No official information has ever been made public (until very recently) and I believe that both the SIC and the Miller's have suffered greatly from that fact. :mrgreen:

 

I agree that there have been many well constructed and insightful posts throughout this thread that have made for very interesting and informative reading

 

However, there’s a difference between keeping a "topic at the public forefront" through reasoned debate and bumping a topic to the top of the forum through reiterating accusatory assumption, laudatory self quoting, questioning the motives of those who express a contrasting opinion, unprovoked personal attacks and re-replying to posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not a surprise surely.

 

What would be a surprise is if the building isn't sold if a decent offer is made this time, it's common sense you make sure you have the change of use done before you actually buy it. I imagine there would be some considerable pressure put on the Millers to accept an offer if it was forthcoming from T&N.

 

It just funny that this is going on, now that the council has writing of the debt

And it has a nasty smell as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the timing a tad odd that after several of us have posted on here, what we assumed (because we could only assume as it hadn't been stated within the public domain officially) that some of our assumptions have turned out to be correct.

 

However, perhaps it should be borne in mind that since Caroline Miller has spoken out, the SIC have now given further facts. That said, as the agreement is yet to be finalised, I do find it a tad strange if all parties concerned are relying on a confidentiality clause unless, of course, that is contained within a separate agreement. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to ascertain what information would be deemed to be non-confidential should an application be made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but but I think you are being a bit unfair.

Many of the 'Posters' have done extremely well to keep this Topic at the public forefront by discussing, assuming, argueing. critiqueing and generally able to offer their many intelligent views on what may have occurred with a subject that had been locked down and kept quiet about for years.

No official information has ever been made public (until very recently) and I believe that both the SIC and the Miller's have suffered greatly from that fact.

However, there’s a difference between keeping a topic at the public forefront through reasoned debate and bumping a topic to the top of the forum through reiterating accusatory assumption, laudatory self quoting, questioning the motives of those who express a contrasting opinion, unprovoked personal attacks and re-replying to posts

Amazing!

I never realised that one could write and submit posts that may have had so many different thrusts?

One learns all the time. :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...