Or even 3 weeks ago when it actually happened. Nothing like timely reporting eh?

You're not sorry at all! If you want to see bad ad management try Answers dot com.

I have no problem with ads on websites which tend to translate on both desktop and mobile devices. They're just 'on page' and they do provide revenue for the site owners. The biggest issue I have are the ones that have somehow permeated into apps, and will pop up full screen, often with no obvious way of getting rid of them, and then lead you to spurious web sites. These aren't viruses either — they are 'legitimate'. I don't think the mobile operators will be able to block those as they are powered in-app. I think BankFodder is so quick to call for donations to this site, lambasting the "1 million visitors [n]ever stop to say thanks or to make a donation" (s)he is missing the whole point. Still, I suppose when this site is now apparently so desperate for cash that it has to call for donations with every story, suggesting that the whole site could close at any moment, it's not surprising.

The survey does not appear to be aimed at the general public. Wording includes "client" and "your practice". I therefore do not feel that The Law Society wants to hear from me.

Oh, hoorah for ****wit landladies!

If you get a rescue dog via the RSPCA, then part of their screening process also requires that you show them your current tenancy agreement, which would clearly state that you can keep a dog. Obviously this doesn't help the relationship with your landlady, but as Planner says, the contract works both ways. Maybe explain that you're at home and you wouldn't be leaving the dog alone for long periods of time (never a good course of action if it can be avoided for most dogs, anyway, and the RSPCA will check this also in their suitability questionnaire) Hope it works out.

When we started renting our current property, we asked permission to keep a pet, and were granted it, on the proviso that we commercially clean the property upon leaving, and no doubt pay for any damage to the property itself (it was unfurnished so most damage would have been to our own goods) An agitated cat (particularly if it's an indoor one) can do a number of things, actually. Male cats may spray urine, both sexes may defecate if they are ill and can't get outside or use their tray. Hence the clause on professional cleaning/fumigation at end of term. Having said that, there's no reason why you as the landlord can't either turn a blind eye, change the clause, or evict them. You've a right to do any of those - it's your property. Eviction would seem a bit harsh if there's no evidence of the cat causing a problem, but that's up to you, as it does break a clause in the initial contract, and it's not unreasonable for a landlord not to want animals in their property.

Ah! The "typical bailiff" rears his head. Most people say that "most of" their own kind are fine, upstanding members of society. I've dealt with far too many bailiffs, both due to a few incidents of my own misfortune, and also on behalf of others. Unfortunately, your assertion that "most bailiffs are not thugs" is just not true. It seems that one of the main functions of a bailiff are to instil fear into the heart of the (alleged) debtor. I'm sure there are some reputable bailiffs around, but I've not met them yet. In fact, I don't really care if you take exception to comments made about your "profession" (if you can even laughably call it "professional") — too many times THUGS are sent out on near-illegal missions based on erroneous information. The fault lies just as squarely with the clients who hire these "legal thieves", but unfortunately the problem is far too prevalent for many people not to simply loathe the entire "profession". Were it just a few bad eggs in the batch, that would be unfortunate but understandable. Unfortunately, it will take a very long time to convince me otherwise. Perhaps the law does need to be changed, but it seems to me the law can do precious little anyway.