Charlotte Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I think it only applies to houses that are on former church land. You can do a chancel repair search and it will come up with practically every house being 'near to' or in a parish. I have to try and convince sellers to pay for this indemnity for their buyers every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 So what is stopping the churches from billing everyone? They seem to be very selective and the process doesn't sound to simple on their part. Maybe one or two houses per area is enough. Still scummy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 So what is stopping the churches from billing everyone? They seem to be very selective and the process doesn't sound to simple on their part. Maybe one or two houses per area is enough. Still scummy though. http://www.chancelrepairsearches.co.uk/ The beginning bit of that site kind of explains it a little. Really there's nothing stopping them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The interesting thing is that a chancel debt renders a house virtually unsellable and in the case of the Wallbanks the church had no interest in either taking the house or a lump sum. I guess screwing the couple over each year was just too irresistible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The interesting thing is that a chancel debt renders a house virtually unsellable and in the case of the Wallbanks the church had no interest in either taking the house or a lump sum. I guess screwing the couple over each year was just too irresistible. Come come now Martin, that's not at all what the church would have wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Come come now Martin, that's not at all what the church would have wanted. What would they have wanted then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 No, Ernie, what it means is that I'm tired of your little digs so don't ask me for anything. I've read it six times. I've read other books more. Why do you find it so hard to accept? Have I read it more times than you? Is that what bothers you? Maybe you find it hard to accept that, having read it so many times, I am not a raving zealot who should be the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or is it that you just like to think you are right all the time? I dont think I am right all the time, I just think you are a bluffer, and i have no idea why you would read it six times completely. I dont believe you, thats how i feel about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 What would they have wanted then? *tries to back away from a fight in the Christ thread realising that my sarcasm might have not come across that way* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I dont think I am right all the time, I just think you are a bluffer, and i have no idea why you would read it six times completely. I dont believe you, thats how i feel about it. Actually Ern, I might have been wrong about reading it six times. Apparently, as a kid, I had an illustrated Bible that I read religiously (pun intended). According to my father (who I spoke to tonight) I used to be able to quote chunks from memory. So, it may be even more than six. Beside, it's God's book. Why wouldn't you read it as many times as possible. Go on, grab a copy now and have a read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 *tries to back away from a fight in the Christ thread realising that my sarcasm might have not come across that way* Ah! I thought there was some cheekiness afoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I dont believe you, thats how i feel about it. Have you heard yourself?! I think you may need to log off and re-assess the old priorities bud, you are posting up on an internet message board, about a film about an unproveable situation, arguing with somone you dont know and are unlikely to meet about how often they have read the bible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Have you heard yourself?! I think you may need to log off and re-assess the old priorities bud, you are posting up on an internet message board, about a film about an unproveable situation, arguing with somone you dont know and are unlikely to meet about how often they have read the bible! Aww Rob, don't be mean. This shits important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Aww Rob, don't be mean. This shits important. Oh most definately, its VERY improtant stuff, theological discussions are simply super, but there is no point in a theological argument, who the hell can ever win?! And arguing over how many times you have read the bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The "church" as its called, is a wide and varied thing. Having so many humans, who are like ourselves, not perfect your always going to find fault with churches, I can find whats IMO is loads of faults with them, but it all boils down to human nature etc corrupting it. One only has to look at "the church" in Luther's time it was a shambles, at the hands of very corrupt church leaders, hence why Luther made his stand. A very good and factual movie (recent as 500 yrs ago with any amount of writers at the time agreed on the subject, which I think confirms accuracy) is simply called "Luther", stars Joseph Fiennes and Sir Peter Ustinov (2004 i think) which really shows "the church" at its worst, in fact even the biggest haters of "the church" will be surprised at how bad it once got at the hands of men who were in it for a job and money. However it would be unfair to tar and feather all with one brush, when I look at the large amounts of charity work some do, I am in admiration. I am as quick to critisize the church as anyone else, not because its the biblical interputation of a chuch but the corrupt and crass mess caused by human greed. Where ever humans are in control, there will always be some sort of dodgy dealings, nobody is perfect, and many church's need to hang their head in shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Have you heard yourself?! I think you may need to log off and re-assess the old priorities bud, you are posting up on an internet message board, about a film about an unproveable situation, arguing with somone you dont know and are unlikely to meet about how often they have read the bible! I smell bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I smell bullshit Im glad you finally realised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Oh most definately, its VERY improtant stuff, theological discussions are simply super, but there is no point in a theological argument, who the hell can ever win?! Great pun there, Sir. And arguing over how many times you have read the bible? Yeah, that's some kinda inferiority complex right there. I mean, why can't I have read it that many times? There's no law against it AFAIK and, y'know, if I wanted to lie about I'd say something even higher or like I read it once a year just to renew my hatred of the Most Evil of Books. I dunno. Maybe he doesn't have a lot else to obsess about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Great pun there, Sir. *takes bow* Yeah, that's some kinda inferiority complex right there. I mean, why can't I have read it that many times? There's no law against it AFAIK and, y'know, if I wanted to lie about I'd say something even higher or like I read it once a year just to renew my hatred of the Most Evil of Books. I dunno. Maybe he doesn't have a lot else to obsess about. I dont believe you Martin, i think you are wrong. I think that really you read it 5 times, not 6, please confirm this is correct or i shall be forced to declare a state of war between us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I dont believe you Martin, i think you are wrong. I think that really you read it 5 times, not 6, please confirm this is correct or i shall be forced to declare a state of war between us Then let Barnsley be our battleground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Barnsley? I take your Barnsley and raise you a Wakefield! Prepare to be smited until thou art smoten to death! You shall pay for your henius crime of exaggeration in the eyes of the Lord! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt k Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I thought Jim Caviezel was suprisingly good as the lead......especially as Angel Eyes was such a big pile of cack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Great pun there, Sir. Yeah, that's some kinda inferiority complex right there. I mean, why can't I have read it that many times? There's no law against it AFAIK and, y'know, if I wanted to lie about I'd say something even higher or like I read it once a year just to renew my hatred of the Most Evil of Books. I dunno. Maybe he doesn't have a lot else to obsess about. Maybe your a bluffer? I am not obsessed about anything, i just dont get a chance to post on anything else as the hunting pack is on my back. Most of the posts here are insults in my direction, not debate, just harassment. I try to debate, you then speak on my behalf and tell me who I am and what i think? takes me back to Soop Dogs democracy comments. Stereotyping me is patronising and insulting, which you have no right to do. Its clear this thread is going nowhere, its the same old same old "if you dont think like us etc" mindset, which is not unique to this thread, its just the forum style, formed by too many people with too much time not getting out enough lol. I am follwing Soop dog out of this, as its a total waste of time, and the standard of contribution has hit an all time low. My time is better spent else where. Bits of it were fun and intersting, but its just a dead horse now. Good bye! hope everyone has found some parts of the thread interesting regardless of who posted it. I have no regrets on this one, other than it showed the hunting pack at its lowest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Maybe your a bluffer? I am not obsessed about anything, i just dont get a chance to post on anything else as the hunting pack is on my back. Most of the posts here are insults in my direction, not debate, just harassment. I try to debate, you then speak on my behalf and tell me who I am and what i think? takes me back to Soop Dogs democracy comments. Stereotyping me is patronising and insulting, which you have no right to do. Its clear this thread is going nowhere, its the same old same old "if you dont think like us etc" mindset, which is not unique to this thread, its just the forum style, formed by too many people with too much time not getting out enough lol. I am follwing Soop dog out of this, as its a total waste of time, and the standard of contribution has hit an all time low. My time is better spent else where. Bits of it were fun and intersting, but its just a dead horse now. Good bye! hope everyone has found some parts of the thread interesting regardless of who posted it. I have no regrets on this one, other than it showed the hunting pack at its lowest. You know I really don't get to use the word sanctimonious very often so what a joy it was to read such a sanctimonious post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 You know I really don't get to use the word sanctimonious very often so what a joy it was to read such a sanctimonious post. Kettle pot and black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Kettle pot and black Give, and it shall be given to you. For whatever measure you deal out to others, it will be dealt to you in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.