3 ms·

I think it's a cheap shot to call out "the Catholic church" in the subhead like that, implying they have any involvement in the scam simply because they are the

• raattgift 7y ago
  If the leaseholder covenants to the freeholder that it will have certain types of sub-tenancies only (e.g. two year terms, assured tenancies, and so forth -- these are common terms in leases) than the leaseholder is in breach, and the freeholder can (if it chooses to) enforce. The whole cost of enforcement is almost always borne by a leaseholder in breach, and the threat of forfeit is an exceptionally strong one. When a freeholder becomes aware that a leaseholder -- especially one on a very short-term lease of five years -- is engaged in behaviour that is almost certainly a breach of leasing conditions, and does nothing to enforce, it is perfectly reasonable to call both the leaseholder and the freeholder out. Especially where the freeholder obtained concessions from the local government. This applies to any freeholder. The idea that this particular freeholder is somehow trapped into the freehold (or can do little or nothing about a bad leaseholder or its sub-lessees, guests, customers, or whatever) is pretty ludicrous, even for an organization which has proven untruthful on other scandalous matters. And this is a scandalous matter, and seems like it might become an actual scandal. Local elections in London are scheduled for Thursday 7 May 2020.