<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Central Beds v Taylor &#8211; Supreme Court permission refused</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/central-beds-v-taylor-supreme-court-permission-refused/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/central-beds-v-taylor-supreme-court-permission-refused/</link>
	<description>Housing law news and comment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:01:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Dustman</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/central-beds-v-taylor-supreme-court-permission-refused/#comment-3067</link>
		<dc:creator>The Dustman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3628#comment-3067</guid>
		<description>Hold on a minute, I thought it was a new thing this Supreme Court malarkey but it turns out it&#039;s the same old establishment codgers up to their old tricks in their continuing attempt to keep out Johnny Foreigner in the form of the dastardly European Convention and the so called Human Rights Act. Maybe they hadn&#039;t read Paulic v Croatia, oh and Cosic v Croatia, ..um McCann... etc What will they do if the ECtHR allows the application by Mr Kay? Just keep on as usual? However they allowed Mr Doherty through their narrow gateway. They just need to understand that it needs to be a bit wider than that!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hold on a minute, I thought it was a new thing this Supreme Court malarkey but it turns out it&#8217;s the same old establishment codgers up to their old tricks in their continuing attempt to keep out Johnny Foreigner in the form of the dastardly European Convention and the so called Human Rights Act. Maybe they hadn&#8217;t read Paulic v Croatia, oh and Cosic v Croatia, ..um McCann&#8230; etc What will they do if the ECtHR allows the application by Mr Kay? Just keep on as usual? However they allowed Mr Doherty through their narrow gateway. They just need to understand that it needs to be a bit wider than that!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UKSCblog &#124; The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/central-beds-v-taylor-supreme-court-permission-refused/#comment-3066</link>
		<dc:creator>UKSCblog &#124; The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3628#comment-3066</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...] issue arose again in the Central Bedfordshire case.&#160; However, Lords Walker, Mance and Collins refused permission, holding that:&#160; &#8220;the application did not raise an arguable point of law of [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dev.wp-plugins.org/wiki/Kramer"><img src="http://nearlylegal.co.ukblog/wp-content/plugins/kramer.php?kramer=gif-icon" class="technorati-balloon" alt="Kramer auto Pingback" style="border:0;" /></a>[...] issue arose again in the Central Bedfordshire case.&nbsp; However, Lords Walker, Mance and Collins refused permission, holding that:&nbsp; &ldquo;the application did not raise an arguable point of law of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
