Slings and Silver Arrows: Thoughts on F1 in 2014
In F1 not much is new. In a sport that prides itself on never standing still that may seem a dubious claim. But such is the expanse of its past that usually some parallel can be found therein whatever happens now. Some things are new however. And it doesn't seem exaggeration to say that more so than at any other time in the sport's long history, F1 in 2014 hit the reset button.
We've had engine regulation changes before. We've also had chassis changes. But rarely have they arrived together. They certainly haven't to this seismic extent. Never before has there been such a leap between F1 seasons; such a leap into the unknown.
In effect all teams had a new and highly complex technology thrown at them - a 1.6 litre turbo internal combustion unit plus greatly increased energy recovery, combined with a 100kg fuel limit, as well as a limit to the flow - and were told curtly to get on with it. Moreover, as Adrian Newey pointed out to Gary Anderson, a new hybrid car on the road will have five years' testing and development behind it, and the F1 equivalent of now is 20 times more complicated than even the most complicated road hybrid. Those in this game had but 12 days of track testing to get it right.
F1 teams have had plenty to be getting on with in 2014
Credit: J.H. Sohn / CC
And there was plenty of doom mongering in advance about what could be expected in F1 2014-style. The cars would be hideously slow (perhaps lap times would slip over those of GP2); the races would be conspicuous fuel economy cruises; someone even - and with a straight face - in the early part of the round one weekend in Melbourne asked Race Director Charlie Whiting what would happen if no one finished...
We should have known better - compared with such expectations things instead in the opening four rounds have gone rather swimmingly.
There were but five mechanical stoppages from 22 starters in either of the first two races; three in Bahrain's round three; come the latest round in China the figure was down to two. Numbers pretty comparable with 12 months ago in other words. As for the speed, the car's lap times are undeniably slower, but not by much, and in the afore-mentioned Chinese race Lewis completed the full distance of 56 laps taking only 26 seconds longer than the Shanghai winner did 12 months previously, while this campaign's one dry qualifying session so far (in Bahrain) resulted in a pole time less than a second off the 2013 equivalent. And given the considerable development potential that remains in there - always the case with a new spec, indeed Fernando Alonso reckons there are three or four seconds to be had within this season alone - times at or better than before can be expected before too long. Remember too that at least some of the lap time drop-off can be attributed to reduced wing sizes, the passing of the exhaust blown diffusers and less grippy tyres.
Races also were not the feared economy runs, indeed some Mercedes runners are thought to have not been using the whole 100kg allowance.
So...what we have is a sport already doing roughly the same speeds as before the changes, and doing it using around 40% less fuel as well as in so doing making considerable strides in issues that had been wrestled with for years outside, in the car industry and elsewhere. Namely in a form of technology that will benefit the wider world when transferred to the automobile industry via less use of finite resources, greater efficiency, lower emissions and greater collection and use of what otherwise would be waste energy.
And ultimately what F1 has done (or should have) is not only negate by far its and motorsport's biggest brand negative, that of irresponsible gas guzzling, but do a lot to reverse it by harnessing the extraordinary ability of the F1 designer and engineer to to find solutions not before thought of in double-quick time. As Darren Heath - having witnessed the new cars close at hand and in the main functioning beautifully after just 12 days' testing time - noted post Melbourne: 'just imagine - outside the world of F1 - how long getting this right would have taken. Many company bosses in the wider automobile world would pay billions for such expertise, rigour and result'. I even spotted a glowing article on what F1 has done in The Guardian of all places, and not even in the sports pages. It's a considerable - and you feel much-needed - thing for the sport to be rather proud about.
You feel that only Formula One could take such a good news story and turn it immediately into something negative. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And sure enough somehow it managed it.
Some noticed that the cars didn't make as much noise as before. Ironically they managed to create a heck of a lot of decibels over the matter.
Bernie Ecclestone had rather a lot to say about 2014-spec Formula One at the time of the opening pre-season Jerez test, none of it positive, and of which noise was part. Nevertheless those present in southern Spain (and Bernie wasn't one of them) while noting they wouldn't need earplugs anymore reckoned mostly that the sound of the revised machines remained representative of a racing engine, as well as that the lower volume would have a few auxiliary benefits. So not a great deal more was made of it.
But then the circus arrived in Melbourne for the season-opener, and it was there that things really kicked off.
Who's he again? Much of the discourse
of F1 in 2014 has involved Bernie Ecclestone
It started with local journalists in their copy protesting at the new relatively hushed F1 machines, especially in comparison with the old V10 in the two-seater Minardi that was doing passenger runs around the Albert Park venue. And before you knew it plenty of fans - some at the race, some not - were complaining in kind on internet forums and social media, a sentiment which spread like flame after someone had spread lighter fluid around the place.
Bernie (who still hadn't inconvenienced himself to actually show up to the track) probably couldn't believe his luck and thus hopped onto this rather convenient bandwagon with a gleeful 'I told you so' air. And he was joined quickly on it by his big mucker Ron Walker, Race Chairman of the Melbourne event, who was in colourful prose espousing threats to sue as well as to host Indycar at his place instead of F1, and convince other venues to follow.
Various bigwigs from Red Bull in time leapt aboard too (including Sebastian Vettel, who has in Nigel Roebuck's words 'long shared with Melbourne promoter Ron Walker the presidency of The Bernie Ecclestone Appreciation Society' - not that I draw any conclusions from that) as did Ferrari's President Luca Montezemolo. Their rap sheet in addition to the noise included their respective various other bugbears of choice about the new formula - supposed unappealing on-track fare and apparent complexity among them. Big Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz even seemed among it all, without actually spelling it out, to throw his future involvement in the sport into doubt. Which came as a bit of a shock to all those employed in the Milton Keynes team.
Such people have also done their best to whip up fans' fervour to support their case, but even so it's not clear what the actual split of opinion was and is (an no, Ferrari's absurd 'poll' got us no nearer an answer); the extent that the complainants are representative or simply reflect a small and possibly vexatious bunch shouting loud (perhaps appropriately). The best evidence is yet that fans were divided.
Of course, one doesn't want to sneer. For many fans the noise of the cars is an important part of the experience, and it would be wrong to dismiss all concerns expressed as malign.
And perhaps those who'd like the volume turned up again haven't been all that well-represented. Some of the claims made in support of their 'side' have stretched credulity to breaking point, such as Walker's threats to sue on the grounds of the diminished noise and 'sexiness' (I find it hard to believe that his race contract contained a minimum definition of either), as well as in his threat to decamp to Indycar (erm, who wants to tell him that Indycar engines are just as turbo and are actually quieter than F1 engines?)
But still, this change as any must be viewed holistically as any change almost inevitably will have a downside from somebody's perspective. And in taking the holistic view, is not the loss of a few decibels a price well worth paying for the benefits already outlined?
It's also tempting to ask, as Karun Chandhok did, what exactly those objecting now expected in advance? 'I have to say I'm bored with this whole noise chat' said Chandhok on Sky's F1 Show, 'it is what it is and when you put an exhaust through a turbo that's what it going to sound like, it's not like we didn't know what's coming. But I think it sounds alright, it's more of a raspy growl than a screaming banshee...'
It's also tempting to point out, as Ron Dennis has, that many of those complaining such as Red Bull and Ferrari participated in constructing these regulations. Now, after manufacturers have spent millions and the technology has only just hit the track, hardly seems the time to start complaining. It's further tempting to ask where exactly the sport would be right now without change, both in terms of how it's viewed more widely, and closer to home what exactly it would be doing for engines right now...
There is little from sport's history from when it used turbos before or from other forms of motorsport that use turbos themselves that suggests we have much to fear, and indeed the closest thing to a constant in F1's past is change, as well as that such change is got used to very quickly. In this ilk someone dug out a picture of a fan's banner from a race in early 2006 decrying the then-new V8 engines in comparison with the previous V10s. Plus ca change...
Above all else, for all of the fury is anyone apart from the odd crank really going to walk away from F1 without a backwards glance purely because the cars aren't making as much noise as before?
Yet whatever your predispositions on the noise issue one can appreciate something a bit strange going on here, in that the guy whose job it is more than anyone's to promote the sport, as well as some of its major players, should be denigrating it so audibly in public. Such a thing would be unthinkable in NASCAR for example, or in pretty much any other activity or industry. Pat Symonds in Bahrain rightly warned of the real risk of 'doing a Ratner'.
It all seems further evidence that despite being awash with capitalists as well as that the paddock crawls with nominal PR staff wielding Dictaphones, F1 exhibits something somewhere between naivety and ignorance when it comes to PR's very fundamentals.
Part of the problem is that F1 doesn't really have any centralised PR capability, so any messaging requires one of the players within the game to take the initiative, and often none of them do. So it was this time. Bernie wasn't going to do it as we have seen. Nor were any of the teams, nor the race promoters (and these two groups in any case tend to act on their own accord rather than coordinate).
Should Jean Todt have done more?
Which leaves the FIA, and while Jean Todt and his organisation can be commended with being the main driving force in establishing the new F1, he also seems rather reluctant to talk much about it. It seems Todt's modus operandi is and always has been one of a bunker-occupier, rather than one who draws attention to himself in public. He's also not one as far as we can tell that keen on head-on conflict, instead preferring consensus-building. This further was evidenced in this case when one of the few of Todt's public comments on the matter of the new rules was to offer to row back somewhat if everyone agreed.
As Joe Saward noted on Sidepodcast what Todt really should have done in Melbourne for the season opener were he PR-savvy was very publicly and visually celebrate the sport's new 'green washing'. This could even have involved dressing the grid girls in green, perhaps getting them waving big green flags and the like. Maybe even Todt himself could have got in on the act (the wearing green part I mean, him waving flags I can do without). It would have been silly but it would have got the message across. It also likely would have taken the attention away from the noise matters among those local journalists who started the rather destructive ball rolling. Nature abhors a vacuum after all. As it was, there was barely so much as a press release on what F1 was up to.
Bernie's not been into the new rules pretty much from their first conceptualisation. It's never been clear why (I consider his arguments of concern over the fans' experience too much of a Damascene conversion), though many assumed that it owes to his continuing power politicking with Todt. But in the opening weeks of the 2014 campaign the conundrum just might have had some clarity added to it. The idea formed that Bernie might be seeking to lead a consortium to buy the sport's commercial rights back from venture capitalists CVC Capital Partners, and just like when you buy a second hand car you might try to knock the price down by pointing out the miles on the clock and that the brakes seem a bit dodgy, possibly Bernie's talking down of modern F1 is aimed at the same end.
And - as further rumour has it - Red Bull and Ferrari (and Mercedes) may be part of the said consortium. Which if so would explain their respective stances too.
And when the question was put to Bernie as to whether he was indeed planning such a thing, his response was a hardly unequivocal 'not really, no'.
Other matters that really could have benefited from the sound and fury afforded to the noise debate in early 2014 have instead continued to fester like uncleansed wounds. These include establishing a more equitable revenue share among the teams as well as effective cost control - and the latest attempt at a budget cap has been quietly dropped much to the smaller teams' chagrin while Fabio Leimer found that not even a GP2 championship plus $14m is enough to get into F1 these days, and Lotus this year has demonstrated rather graphically the extent that even highly-rated teams can sail close to the wind on finance. It would also include changing the weight limit rules so that drivers don't feel the need to starve themselves to the point (literally) of passing out. Among other things.
But as seems the way in recent times as the teams, the FIA and FOM cannot unite around sensible things that would fix such glaring problems they find some silly things to rally around instead, possibly so to create the illusion of activity (it puts me in mind of the line from Yes, Minister: 'They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement'). So the sport as well as agonising over the noise issue now talks also about glowing brake disks, cars that emanate sparks and the like. Tweaks to increase the volume are to be tried out in Spain.
Another festering matter is the sport's sell-out to CVC from 2006. The CVC deal is regrettable for a number of reasons: partly because the venture capitalists take revenue from the sport that as intimated it can hardly do without; partly too that it's obliged Bernie - he now in effect an employee - to follow the money even more than he'd be minded to do anyway. And this has tended to manifest itself in chasing vast hosting fees from new territories, which has had the double negative impact of taking the sport away from its core support as well as associating F1 with, shall we say, questionable governing regimes who wield the chequebooks. It's also more lately strated to manifest itself in the sport's TV coverage disappearing behind paywalls. In other words the fans are the first to miss out.
But moreover the CVC deal itself continues to have a rather murky drip-drip from it, which as the deal's author has ensured Bernie Ecclestone once again is at the centre of matters. There have been a swarm of court cases related to the deal, but while none yet have landed a glove on the said Bernie they remain rather embarrassing to the sport, including one case a few weeks ago wherein the judge described Bernard Charles Ecclestone as not 'a reliable or truthful witness'.
And now Bernie faces his biggest battle of all. Criminal charges and a court case which - given how it is staggered so to allow Bernie to continue to run the sport - will stretch on throughout the summer. The accusation is by now oft-repeated - that he bribed a German banker called Gerhard Gribkowsky, formerly the chief risk officer of Bavarian state-owned bank BayernLB, to undervalue its shares in the sport when it was sold to present owners CVC eight years ago, as said deal would allow Bernie to retain control of the sport's reins. And the bribee just so happens to be sitting in prison as a result of it all. Bernie admits he made the payment, but insists that it was instead a response to blackmail from Gribkowsky, as he was threatening to go to HMRC on his involvement in the Bambino Holdings trust, which had the potential to land Bernie with a large tax bill. Bernie insists he did nothing wrong on that one, but was worried about Gribkowsky making false claims and thus paid up.
Bernie up until now has shown a persistent ability to dodge the muck; it remains to be seen if he can emerge from this particular dirty pool smelling clean.
In just about any other activity someone, particularly someone in such a CEO-type role, facing criminal charges would be suspended from their duties at the very least. In the latest occasion of F1 operating by rather different rules seemingly Bernie however carries on, aside from stepping down from the Delta Topco board whatever that means.
Those in F1 willing to be audibly critical of Bernie - be they teams, drivers, journalists, even fans - are as rare as hen's teeth; plenty while all of this has been going on indeed have been rather vociferous in their support of him. Perhaps it's fear, perhaps it's something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome at play, perhaps it's an instinctive desire to defend 'one of their own' against attack from the outside ('he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch' as varying US Presidents have been attributed as saying of varying brutal dictators...). Perhaps it reflects more simply that such as been his all-pervading influence on F1 for now upwards of 40 years that many simply cannot imagine what things would be like without him.
I however have been of the view for a while that we've passed the point at which Bernie not only has outlived his usefulness, but at which he's started to hold the sport back on a few levels. Even over and above the various legal embarrassments and the other regrettable consequences of his CVC deal outlined already, he continues to make the sport look foolish at regular intervals with cringe-worthy comments (those on Vladimir Putin and homosexuality being merely the latest). More generally he appears a man out of time; the age of the rogue - of which Bernie definitely is one - has now passed replaced by corporate squeaky-cleanliness.
Bernie also has something of a mental block on internet and social media coverage - I'm told on the grounds that he sees it all as something he can't make money from rather than appreciating its intangible benefits, particularly in terms of what younger people expect in terms of coverage these days (the young person's lack of love for F1 - and for the automobile more generally - probably is the sport's biggest future challenge).
Of course we all know what Bernie's done for the sport (though he's taken a lot too let's not forget), but everyone has a shelf life. Harsh? Yes - but this is a harsh business. Bernie should know this better than most. And if nothing else he's 83 years old. Any responsible organisation would have a succession plan in place for someone with that importance, even without his advanced stage in life. If there is such a plan vis-a-vis Bernie then it's been kept well under wraps.
And now - finally and with a heave of relief no doubt - onto on-track matters. Another stick used to beat F1 2014-style is that its in-race entertainment value has so far been rather lacking. Possibly, albeit with but the low base available thus far, they had a point. Though equally their beat was rather disrupted by the Bahrain round, the most diverting F1 race in some time.
But again perhaps such an outcome - for now - shouldn't have been unforeseen. To outline a pertinent example, those who like to say that modern F1 has gone to the dogs tend to refer back to the balmy days of the late 1990s and early to mid noughties as the era wherein the sport got it right (never understood why personally, most races then were soporific. But I digress). Yet when the fundamentals of that formula were laid out for the 1998 season we in the early days had an even greater gulf between a single team and the rest with the McLarens lapping the field in round one, before in round two beating the rest by a mere minute - and in neither case giving the impression of getting beyond half-throttle.
Or to put it another way, it's always a possibility that when rules are changed radically a single team either from good luck or good engineering can get it right, or at least a lot closer to right than anyone else, from the off and thus periodically divide the competitive order into two highly distinct groups - them out front and the rest.
This has happened this time too, and the one doing the dividing yet again was not unforeseen. Even before cars first rolled out of the trailers for the first test in Jerez - indeed for some months previously - most thought the Mercedes was the power unit with the legs of the rest. And of the Merc runners the works team would be best-placed to make good on it all. So, pretty much exactly, has it proved.
To most, Mercedes has been but a blur in 2014
The marque indeed has had this year's change in regs circled on their calendars for a while now; let's not forget its preparations were a crucial part of convincing Lewis Hamilton in late 2012 to come aboard. Some have said that its advantage can be traced back yet further, to 2008 when unlike Ferrari (who outsourced it to Magneti Marelli) or Renault (who let the teams get of with it) Mercedes kept its development of the impending KERS technology in-house, and it's now benefiting from the knowledge that accrued from there.
But even with this lead-in Mercedes's Eureka moment was incredibly simple, Merc placing the turbo's air compressor at the front of the engine rather than at the customary rear, which has had a myriad of inter-related benefits (for more details see here). The other Merc-powered runners have of course access to the same unit, and thus have been able to benefit to some extent especially on tracks such as Bahrain's wherein there are long straights. What they didn't have however was the same time in which to plan and thus build their cars around the beneficial layout that the works team had. Word is this idea came into focus around two years ago.
Four poles and four wins from four rounds have gone the way of the Silver Arrows, and the sheer extent of the W05's advantage was on show in Bahrain; after the safety car peeled back in giving us ten or so laps of racing to the flag the Mercs routinely lapped upwards of two seconds a lap quicker than anyone else including their closest (a relative term) pursuers. And in the final shake out the best lap from any other car was in the region of 1.7 seconds over that of either. Perhaps given that the Mercs were on fresh tyres in that final sprint and many of those behind weren't the gap was a bit exaggerated, but few doubt that the representative time that the silver cars at full pelt have in hand is well north of a second a lap right now.
As for the match-up between the two Merc pilots, as expected neither has blitzed the other, but with things breaking down currently to two clear wins for Lewis Hamilton over Nico Rosberg, one close call and one race inconclusive things do seem to be totting up in Lewis's favour ever so gradually. And he in 2014 - so far at least - appears to have at last developed a positive mental approach that matches his talent, and we've long been of the opinion that if he could ever do that then he might just become unstoppable.
Thanks in large part to a DNF for Lewis in the season-opener in Melbourne though Nico leads the drivers' table - just.
As for the rest, as Jonathan Noble in Autosport noted even with this year's massive shake-up and with Ferrari and Renault which supplies Red Bull far from getting it right, it still appears that the top three teams of before - not by coincidence the three to be the massive winners from the sport's latest financial settlement - is prevailing, with the Red Bull and Ferrari even this early clawing its way up to being next up after the Mercs. And if this season with all its change can't alter this prevailing orthodoxy then you begin to suspect that almost nothing will.
The reverberations from the Merc earthquake have been felt at both of its nearest rivals however. Ferrari has lost a team principal, the popular and genial Stefano Domenicali falling on his sword in order to save the heads of those below him apparently. The first few races this year created a scenario that made seasoned Ferrari-watchers shudder. While losing out to garagistes on aero - as has broadly been the case in recent years for Ferrari - was one thing, its experience this year of losing out to a rival manufacturer that has taken the same new set of rules (that was supposed to suit the Scuderia) at the same time and cleanly leapt ahead having done a markedly better job, and mainly on engines, is something else entirely. And to top it all off Luca Montezemolo along with various other members of Ferrari royalty were in attendance in Bahrain to witness the red cars being cruised past on the straights by such luminaries as the Force Indias. You could almost see the axe being sharpened before your eyes.
Marco Mattiacci is the guy brought in in Domenicali's stead, from within (or rather, from selling Ferrari road cars in North America). While the broad reaction was 'who he?' and this led some to head straight for the conclusion that he was merely keeping the seat warm for one such as Ross Brawn, the team instead concluded apparently that promoting from within was the way to go as learning Ferrari and its politics was more of a challenge than learning about F1. If the Scuderia's history could be summed up in one line...
Despite everything, Fernando Alonso
has continued to impress
Once again Fernando Alonso has been the Scuderia's most valuable asset; the Spaniard placed third in the table (though that's something of a kingdom of the blind coronation right now). However, while the Ferrari unit has looked rather breathless on the full throttle bits, in a reverse of the team's traditional priorities its chassis apparently is not a bad one.
While Red Bull's pre-season suggested that things would be worse still, with throughout testing - and to everyone's astonishment akin to slipping into a parallel universe - its RB10 appearing genuinely off the back of the pack on pace as well as unable to complete more than a handful of laps without conking out. A lot of the problem was with the Renault power unit, which for reasons as yet not fully explained was woefully under-cooked. But perhaps Red Bull contributed to the woes with its as-usual to-the-edge cooling package.
Come Melbourne most of the worst vices had all of a sudden been solved and many observers just as swiftly realised that in among all of the smoky halts once again the Milton Keynes team's chassis looked the class of the field. If only the Renault unit could be got right.
Or even, for that matter, the Ferrari.
The full extent of Red Bull creating troubles for itself wasn't over however. For reasons best known to the team's management it decided to pick a fight with the FIA over the matter of fuel flow (another new rule for this year), claiming its own readings more accurate than those of the authorities in the Melbourne race and therefore refusing to cede to the stewards' requests to turn that particular tap down. Funnily enough Red Bull lost, and thus 18 points and Daniel Ricciardo's richly-deserved debut podium evaporated.
Some were cynical enough to suggest that it was all a ploy by Red Bull to get the fuel flow regulations eased or removed altogether, as it reckoned it would benefit competitively from such a tweak. It certainly wouldn't be the first time it had indulged in such behaviour, as anyone whose memory stretches back 12 months could attest. At least though, unlike then, the team now seems to have unclamped its jaws from this one.
A common sight from pre-season testing
Behind the haughty silver cars much of the intrigue has been within teams. With yet more Red Bull intrigue, against most expectations it is Ricciardo who's been more potent than Vettel in the opening four rounds, with the Australian qualifying ahead and finishing ahead (on the road at least) in three of those meetings. Danny Ric being much better than most thought from his Toro Rosso days is part of the explanation of this, but Seb also appears to be experiencing woes all of his own. The most common mooted reasoning is that the passing of the exhaust blown diffuser has punished him especially, but no one - least of all Seb or his Red Bull team apparently - knows for certain as things stand.
While the keenly-anticipated Fernando vs Kimi face-off at Ferrari hasn't lived up to billing, with Raikkonen thus far rarely getting near Alonso vapour trails. Word is that the F14 T isn't handling to Kimi's precise preference. Though perhaps the most potent explanation is also the most simple; that Fernando Alonso is very good at driving fast.
And while an unintended consequence of the testing restrictions was making things particularly tricky for the F1 young guy, in early 2014 we had our strongest indication in a while that, after all, the kids are alright. Ricciardo we've mentioned, and Valtteri Bottas, like Ricciardo not yet 25, also has impressed. Daniil Kvyat and Kevin Magnussen, both debutants this season, have turned a few heads too; Magnussen even bagging a podium finish on his debut and hardly putting a wheel wrong as he did so.
In the more immediate future though the most pressing question is can the Mercs be hauled in, just as McLarens were to a large extent back in 1998? My guess is no, and this is due to the nature of the team's advantage. Perhaps the greatest beauty of all as far as the Brackley squad is concerned is that where it has the decisive edge - the power unit layout and coke bottle area - are probably the most time-consuming and difficult to create your own versions of. It will be no work of a moment for rivals to honour this by imitation. Even though power unit homogolation is to a large extent more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and Ferrari and Renault will be working hard to make up the deficits, the probability is that even if they do get it right by that time Mercedes will, for 2014 at least, be over the hills and far away.
Labels: Alonso, Bottas, di Montezemolo, Ecclestone, Ferrari, FIA, Hamilton, Kvyat, Lotus, Magnussen, Mateschitz, Melbourne, Mercedes, Raikkonen, Red Bull, Ricciardo, Rosberg, Todt, Turbos, Vettel
This electric smoker is easy to carry and this is durable. You can smoke lots of food by this electric smoker. After using everybody will say that this is best electric smoker because of its quality.
New F1Plus.com article: Are the F1 cars of 2014 to...
Something positive to come out of Monaco
The vision thing - the importance of eyesight to a...
Should Lewis have taken the Monaco pit call into h...
Digging in for trench warfare
Monaco GP Report: The same, only different
Monaco Qualifying - Escape road to victory
New F1 Times article: Trial of Lewis - my take on ...
Monaco GP Betting Preview - Forget the rest - Nico...
Monaco Preview: If not now, when?
Review of the Ayrton Senna McLaren MP4/4 magazine ...
The biggest question: can Mercedes win every race ...
Silly season latest part 2 - Fernando Alonso to Me...
Silly season latest part 1 - Adrian Newey to Ferra...
Ferrari favouring Fernando or full fabrication?
Spanish GP Report: All's well that ends well
Barcelona Qualifying - Lewis delivers when it matters
Spanish GP Betting Preview - Red Bull will be clos...
Barcelona Preview: Predictable to a point


Beatport Launches Mainstage,
a New Genre Inspired by the Festival Experience
June 25, 2021 | Words : Cameron Holbrook
Words: Jordan Mafi
Bring DJ sets to life with Mainstage — Beatport's new home for Big Room, Electro House, Future House, Midtempo, and Speed House.
Beatport has launched a new dedicated genre page that unites Big Room, Electro House, and Future House into one all-encompassing category: Mainstage.
Home to the high-energy sounds of the festival mainstage, this genre celebrates a diverse range of dance music fit for a sold-out crowd filled with the most dedicated ravers. Nestled under the Mainstage genre are five subgenres often heard on festival stages worldwide: Big Room, Future House, Electro House, Midtempo, and Speed House.
After collecting feedback from various labels, DJs, distributors, artists, and dance music communities alike, Beatport has decided that the following changes will give these sounds more visibility on the store. In addition to this, the new category will allow for the creation of a Beatport Hype section.
We feel that this move will benefit our customers, artists, and labels by making this music easier to locate. Additionally, receiving featured spots and reaching the top 10 within the genre will become the coveted position as it once was on Beatport.
"I think that the new Mainstage section will provide a more efficient and tightened up referencing for songs that have the same type of energy and belong to most main stages," Future House innovator Tchami says about Beatport's newest genre.
Prominent Dutch label SPINNIN' RECORDS stated: "It's amazing to see Beatport making moves to make the genre more competitive and appealing! Even for our artists, the name 'Mainstage' has a nice ring to it. Playing on the mainstage is the ultimate goal for every artist, and it fits the style of the electronic music featured in here to a tee. We're more than ready to dive into a successful festival summer together with Beatport on this one!"
Globally renowned label Ultra Music also added: "With tour dates dropping, clubs reopening and line-ups being announced, it finally feels like our community can begin healing from the past year. Mainstage feels like the perfect place to kick off the celebration. We're excited that Beatport is giving fans a place to gather across genres because that's what music is all about — bringing people together."
After the past year without festivals, we're ready to return to the Mainstage. Beatport is excited to represent the many subgenres of the Mainstage sound under a new genre page that will garner even more attention than before.
Explore Beatport's new Mainstage genre page here.
The 7 Best Mainstage Tracks On Beatport
Beatport Launches new Dance/Electro Pop Genre


Smoky City BBQ
Mobile menu contact icon
Mobile menu contact information
March 2, 2017 by Smoky City BBQ
Smoky City Bar-B-Que fires up opportunity in North Memphis
High Ground News posted "Smoky City Bar-B-Que fires up opportunity in North Memphis" featuring It's been said that the Smoky City got its name from the active smokestacks of blacksmiths in the area.
It's been said that the Smokey City got its name from the active smokestacks of blacksmiths in the area.
While industry left the North Memphis neighborhood decades ago, smoke has returned with the opening of a new restaurant, which is a rare site in the area.
When Nathan Strong Sr., 54, opened Smoky City Bar-B-Que in the Smokey City neighborhood in June 2016, he understood the odds may have been stacked against him. But as a businessman and entrepreneur for close to 40 years, he felt prepared for the challenge.
"You've got to be consistent," he said. "I can't sleep sometimes thinking about what has to be done. It's hard work and you need to be prepared for it."
Nathan Strong peeks at some ribs that were prepared in the smoker.
Smoky City Bar-B-Que is at 1023 Jackson Avenue at the corner of Decatur Street. The newly renovated structure, with a beige paint job and black trim, creates a welcomed interruption from the weather-worn and un-kept buildings on the block.
"I've been in the building a little over year. Before we renovated the building, it was an eyesore in the community; vagrants hung around," he said, adding the building had gone through many transitions, including a thrift store, restaurant and used furniture store.
Strong previously owned a nightclub and grill in the area. Over time, his late-night business, which he owned for 22 years, stood alone as fewer eateries remained open.
"From this community (Smokey City), there are limited places with acceptable hours," Strong said. "There was no place for me to go. We needed a comfortable family-type atmosphere instead of everything closing early in the day or grab the food and go."
Smoky City Bar-B-Que is on the corner of Jackson Avenue and Decatur Street.
Now seven months after opening, business is good and growing with the help of Strong's son, Nathan Jr., who runs the day-to-day operations. Also aiding the business is Strong's daughters, friends and co-owner Kenny Smith. One such friend, Frankie Walter, volunteers and helps with training and mentoring new employees.
"Most of the young people need help in presenting themselves professionally, being on time and learning to communicate with the customers effectively," Walter said, adding the young people hired who live in the community have remained with the restaurant since it opened.
Walter sees some growth in the community with the addition of Smoky City Bar-B-Que as well as other new businesses such as the Neighborhood Christian Center, Family Dollar and the nearby Crosstown Concourse project.
New storefronts can only bring surface-level improvement, Walter said.
"There's no program or immediate help as far as jobs," Walter said. "There are vacant lots, vacant properties. Children don't have playgrounds and community centers. Our elected officials need to create opportunities in the community and they haven't done anything."
Frankie Walter peeks out from the kitchen door at Smoky City Bar-B-Que.
Both Walter and Strong grew up in the Smokey City community. Strong attended Gordon Elementary, Humes Junior High School and graduated from Northside High School. Walter, 54, moved away, and later returned to live in her childhood home.
In addition to the restaurant, Strong hires people from the community to do jobs such as paint and help with construction work that is being done on the building. Strong is now expanding the rear of the building for additional storage space with the eventual goal of adding a walk-up window.
"People just don't have the knowledge that if one person makes it, then there's an opportunity for other people to make it. I do my part. I don't pat myself on the back," Strong said.
The business sells more than its centerpiece of barbecue. Veggie burgers, hamburgers, chicken, fish, steak, veggies and homemade desserts round out the menu.
Lil Nate, one of the cooks at Smoky City BBQ, works the grill in the kitchen.
Strong uses word-of-mouth buzz, social media, TV and radio ads and the support of friends to maintain the flow of customers. The business is open Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m., and Sunday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
"Business is great. We have good customers, great location. It's clean and we're friendly and we have great food," Strong said, adding he gets a lot of repeat customers and referrals.
Smokey City resident Brenda Spraggins, 64, can attest to the varied menu and the quality of the food. She retired from the Internal Revenue Service more than a decade ago and views the restaurant as a plus for the community.
"It means a whole lot to have the restaurant in the community because getting to anything is a problem because everything is so far out," she said.
Strong and his wife, Paula, and their three children live in Northeast Memphis, but his heart is still a part of the Smokey City community.
Although Strong's track record has had its highs and lows, his instincts and his sincere drive to better his community keeps him motivated.
"Any business in the black community is important," he said. "It gives people a chance to hope. People will support and be grateful."
Smoky City Bbq Grill & Diner
Copyright © 2021 Smoky City BBQ
Website by John Gehrig


News analysis: Buratai's bruises on Nigerian troops
Sunday, June 23, 2019 7:00 am
Lieutenant General Tukur Yusuf Buratai
By Festus Adedayo
Whether the Chief of Army Staff, General Tukur Buratai, failed to think through his statement last Tuesday condemning Nigerian military troops who are on the frontline of fighting the Boko Haram insurgency or he was just being magisterial like all bosses do, the import and symbolism of that waffling condemnation, it will seem, are far too fatal than he probably can guess. His allegation against the hapless soldiers, shunned of hyperboles, is treason. At the opening ceremony of a workshop tagged "Transformational leadership" which was organized by the Army Headquarters Department of Transformation and Innovation, which held at the Army Resource Centre in Abuja, Buratai had said: "It is unfortunate, but the truth is that almost every setback the Nigerian Army has had in our operations in recent times can be traced to the insufficient willingness to perform assigned tasks or simply insufficient commitment to a common national/military course by those at the frontlines. Many of those on whom the responsibility for physical actions against the adversary squarely falls are yet to fully take ownership of our common national or service cause."
Buratai's allegation has provoked critical discourses. Broken down to its basest ingredients, the Lieutenant General was simply accusing his troops of treason. If anyone says that the claim by the Nigerian state, represented by its No 1 Army Commander, that the multiple killings of Nigerians in recent time by an apparently more coordinated, closely-knit and more forward-looking Boko Haram fighters, as well as the shrouded, yet loudly sounding sad news of the killing of hapless soldiers in the last couple of months, were as a result of "insufficient willingness" of the soldiers, isn't an accusation of treason, then we may have to break open the Thesaurus to find its hidden semantics.
Festus Adedayo
Discourses on Buratai's accusation and allegation have sought to look at the moral of the allegation from a boss to his subordinates, its intendment, purport and implication for us as Nigerian people. Let us begin from its fundament; that is, the purport and implication of the allegation. According to Part X11 of the Nigerian Armed Forces Act, especially Section 45, 46, 47 and 48 which deal with misconduct of military personnel, there was an emphatic zeroing-in on offences that border on Buratai's claim against the troops. They are offences of aiding, communicating with the enemy, offences against morale and cowardly behavior of troops which, upon trial by courts-martial, could earn culprits sentences that range from death, life imprisonment and the like. Among these can be found the offence of "insufficient willingness" of soldiers..
Give it to him, before Buratai could volunteer this information to the public, there must have been a broken down attempt to rein in the incubus of disintegration among the troops. "Insufficient willingness" could be a symptom of several malaises, ranging from weariness to fight, disobedience to command, sagging morale, cowardly behavior, communicating with the enemy, among panoply of other tendencies. The truth is that, the Nigerian Army has attempted severally to keep the lid tight on putrid oozes from its operations in the last few years but it would be shocked that the smelly information is available everywhere, even at bus stops.
Like every sector of the Nigerian economy, the Nigerian Army too is suffocating under very atrocious jackboots of corruption. Billions of Naira that are voted for purchase of equipment and fighting of the enemy are scooped inside the filthy arms of Generals and their surrogates in crime; the defence establishment grows rotund tummies each time such budgetary allocations are made and, like Eddie Iroh said in his Toads of War, the Generals suddenly acquire the bellies of toads, at the expense of soldiers daily killed by Boko Haram. Allocations for the upkeep of the suffering and hapless loyal troops are filched by these heartless species of nature's creation and they vicariously kill these boys who are sent to the frontline literally barehanded. The scamper for the cash of military budgets is so huge that many of the characters named above have acquired the heartlessness of the dragon, at the expense of the loyal fighting troops. It is thus no wonder that the enemy, in this case Boko Haram fighters, picks them from the cliff like the praying-mantis effortlessly harvests its ant prey.
A window into the welfare of the troops was opened on Monday, April 29, 2019 when Dr. Sidi Mohammed, a member of the Presidential Committee on the North East Initiative (PCNI) claimed that fighters of the Boko Haram terrorist group get paid the sum of N1 million ($3000) on a daily basis while, on the other hand, Nigerian troops earn a paltry sum of N1000 daily. Sidi was speaking at an International Monetary Fund (IMF) Sub-Sahara Africa's Economic Outlook Report in Abuja. He made this assertion to complement the belief that enlistment into the Boko Haram insurgency family is such a lucrative business that would make recruitment into it a fait accompli, especially among youths in the North Eastern part of Nigeria that is ravaged by the pestilence of want, unemployment and despondency.
Buratai is probably too engrossed in the voyeuristic fancy of Generals to realize that soldiers did not descend from Uranus and that they indeed have members of their families whom they communicate on their fates in the trenches. They tell horrible stories of neglect, abandonment and shabby treatment by the military establishment. Worse still is that, in deference to that inscrutable god of non-disclosure and national security, the military hide the casualty figure of our children, the loyal troops killed in action, from us. Some of them are buried in unmarked graves and the ones who are lucky enough are siphoned into military cemeteries at nocturnes for burial. The unpalatable news filtering in every now and then is that the figures are frighteningly alarming and are recently on the upswing. Generals who are vicariously responsible for their deaths smile to the bank to cash the bloody proceeds of their deaths.
The unwritten intendment of the drafters of theNigerian Armed Forces Act was not to forge, in the smithy of Army Barracks, a slavish band of yes-men soldiers who have no minds of their own. Or soldiers who would remain pliable in the face of obvious, superior officers-manufactured deaths that harvest them from the cliff, in droves and on a daily basis.How Buratai expects to forge a troop that is loyal, bendable and with "sufficient willingness" is curious, going by the Generals' abetment of soldiers' overrun by Boko Haram.
A far worse implication of Buratai's alarm is that we are all in danger as Nigerians. If we, as captives of the Nigerian state, are being "protected" by soldiers who do not have the "sufficient willingness", we are all dead on arrival. Only God knows what would happen if some enemy forces bump in on us at the moment. No wonder President Muhammadu Buhari recently resorted to supplication to supernatural forces as way out of the bind Nigerians have found themselves. While reacting to an attack last Sunday by suicide bombers, Buhari was quoted to have said that insurgents who unleashed the terror at a viewing centre in Mandarari, Konduga Local Government Area of Borno State, "would be punished by God." Speaking through one of his media aides, he was said to have "decrie(d) the heinous acts, stressing that perpetrators of evil acts have judgment awaiting them, not only from man via the long arms of the law, but also from God Almighty."
About 30 persons were reportedly killed in the multiple bomb blasts and 40 others were said to have been mortally wounded. The truth is, if we count the number of the dead since Buhari assumed office in 2015, it should be near the casualty figure of the Nigerian civil war. Yet, he and his government said that the insurgents have been technically defeated. Zamfara, Sokoto, Kaduna States and even his Katsina home, have become hotspots of deaths from nefarious bandits at whose feet the supposedly powerful Nigerian state now grovelingly supplicates. Only on Friday, rampaging bandits killed 18 people in Zamfara and abducted its district head. But all is calm at the Villa; except that we should pray to God. People have asked if Buhari shouldn't resign his office, so that Nigerians can totally, physically surrender Nigeria's security to Him and His sovereignty while we start operating the papacy of the Holy See. Nigerians want an effective government that is capable of combating Boko Haram and would not take the lame and escapist scamper into the bosom of God to hide governmental ineptitude.
Does Buratai's "insufficient willingness" troop include the hapless thousands of soldiers who, so far, have laid their lives as supreme price in the hands of Boko Haram? Of a truth, in saner societies, Buratai should have tendered his letter of resignation after that unconscionable statement, for government to begin a diligent probe into the allegation, as well as the funding of the military in the last ten years or so. It is an indictment on the General's ability; indeed, a naked surrender on account of incapability. But, this is Nigeria: a land where mediocrity rules; where the worst of us rule the best of us; where value qualification for the top is appetite for illicit wealth and acquisition, where redemption is very near, yet so distant, hidden in the unseen bowel of an unforeseeable future.
Edo and the vicious cycle of war
I do not know at what point it will occur to the power elite in Nigeria, especially governors who seek to play the role of godfathers, that planting surrogates to clean them up when they leave office can only result in cataclysm. Many godfathers have had their noses bruised by godsons who suddenly grow Dracula teeth with which they bite their insatiable godfathers. One person who is learning this hard reality is the Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Adams Oshiomhole. Erstwhile governor of Edo State, he thought the lid on the state was firmly sealed and its keys tossed into his insatiable pockets at his anointing of his godson, Godwin Obaseki as the governor to take over from him. No sooner this deal was struck, than the godson became independent-minded and started to ask very discomfiting questions.
What godfathers fail to realize is that, the godson who was looking at government and governance from afar, ostensibly didn't have an idea of how dirty and smelly his godfather was. He still sees him as a fighter to whom he is indebted. The moment he is handed the mantle of power, he is shown the books, he is led into the leaky vault and the pipes that the godfather plugged into the till of the state, wherein finance is siphoned into foreign accounts. He is alarmed at the avarice of his godfather, his shamelessness and callousness. The godfather also makes the mistake of looking at the godson with the eye of yesterday – apologies for a direct transliteration of Yoruba – forgetting that the moment he mounts the rostrum of power, the godson is no longer the small fry of yesterday. And so, he suddenly becomes a rebel. This is accentuated by the demeaning demands of the godfather who fails to imbibe that eternal wise-saying of Yoruba ancient philosophy. It says that when you hand over a ram to the masquerade, you surrender it in totality, including its rope. When they leave, godfathers scarcely realize that the dawn is here and yesterday has receded into the threshold of history.
Now, the people of Edo State are witnessing the battle of the godson and his godfather. Obaseki has grown in political and power stature. He has seen through the veneer of Oshiomhole's pretense and realized his Achilles heels. He controls the purse and the people. Oshiomhole mistakenly believes that his imperial power of eight years still subsists. So the House of Assembly is the first turf of the demonstration of that power. While searching for a successor, the party chairman made the first mistake in power calculus – he got a very cerebral man to replace him, rather than one with a Primary Six School Leaving Certificate like him. Obaseki is said to be very deep and understands the geography and contours of power. More fundamentally, he comes from the largest tribe in Edo State.
I cry ahead for the great people of Edo. As Don Carlos sang, there will be weeping, wailing, mourning and gnashing of teeth. These two elephants would burrow their warring feet into the virgin lands of the state and upturn its apple carts. It is however a cycle that comes full throttles every four or eight years in virtually all Nigerian states, with no lessons learnt and no message taken from a prophetic system that destroys its very self.


Sign In / Become a Member Members Directory Search for an Article
Profile incomplete 0%
Arranging Finance
Landlord Events
by Readers Question
9:11 AM, 4th May 2018
Tax self assessment on tenants in common
Make Text Bigger
Dear all, we currently have a tax return self assessment problem here. My husband and I bought a house in tenants in common which he is holding 1% and I am holding 99%. We are not quite sure what documents we need to submit when doing our self-tax assessment.
1. Do we have to submit the Declaration of Trust?
2. Is this the compulsory document?
3. If it is, does anyone have solicitors to recommend?
4. If this is not compulsory, is there any substitute document can be used?
1. No
2. Yes you don't have to submit the Declaration of Trust but it is compulsory to have one.
3. We can help you with this if you wish to book a Tax Consultation with Mark Alexander >> https://www.property118.com/tax/
5. Joint owners of property need to submit form 17 to HMRC within 3 months of splitting beneficial ownership to inform them of the basis of taxation. If that was not done at the time then HMRC rules are that income, expenses and profit must be declared as 50/50
Report Comment Reply
14:21 PM, 4th May 2018
Thank you for your responses.
Just to clarify my understanding:
1. So we do need Declaration of Trust to proof 99% holding and 1% holding?
2. As currently, we currently got TR1 form and joint ownership form from our solicitor to confirm the 99% and 1% share holding between me and my husband. Is TR1 form or joint ownership not sufficient enough to prove the split beneficial ownership?
3. On your point 5, do you mean once we got Declaration of Trust, we need to complete Form 17 and submit them together to HMRC?
Many thanks again.
Reply to the comment left by phoebe at 04/05/2018 - 14:21
Please see below a link to the relevant page of the HMRC manual on this topic, which answer your questions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/income-tax-declaration-of-beneficial-interests-in-joint-property-and-income-17
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.
84% of private renters satisfied or very satisfied
Evicting vulnerable tenant in hospital – Landlord Action response
9:55 AM, 3rd July 2019
About 2 weeks ago 69
The scrapping of Section 21: landlord responses
14:39 PM, 28th June 2019
Government plans for deposit passporting
9:17 AM, 28th June 2019
Lettings & Management services from 4%
or Discussion
14:55 PM, 18th July 2019
About A day ago 2
Insurance loophole – illegal activities
Let to buy from sadly deceased tenant?
Is the Trust deemed to be a landlord?
My own landlord's GDPR policy
Privacy Policy BACKGROUND: Property118 Ltd understands that your privacy is important to you and that you care about how your personal data is used and shared online. We respect and value the privacy of everyone who visits this website, www.property118.com ("Our Site") and will only collect and use personal data in ways that are described here, and in a manner that is consistent with Our obligations and your rights under the law. Please read this Privacy Policy carefully and ensure that you understand it. Your acceptance of Our Privacy Policy is deemed to occur upon your first use of Our Site. If you do not accept and agree with this Privacy Policy, you must stop using Our Site immediately.
"Cookie" means a small text file placed on your computer or device by Our Site when you visit certain parts of Our Site and/or when you use certain features of Our Site. Details of the Cookies used by Our Site are set out in section 13, below;
"Cookie Law" means the relevant parts of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003;
"personal data" means any and all data that relates to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified from that data. In this case, it means personal data that you give to Us via Our Site. This definition shall, where applicable, incorporate the definitions provided in the EU Regulation 2016/679 – the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"); and
"We/Us/Our" Means Property118 Ltd , a limited company registered in England under company number 10295964, whose registered address is 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.
Our Site is owned and operated by Property118 Ltd, a limited company registered in England under company number 10295964, whose registered address is 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.
Our VAT number is 990 0332 34.
Our Data Protection Officer is Neil Patterson, and can be contacted by email at npatterson@property118.com, by telephone on 01603 489118, or by post at 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB.
As a data subject, you have the following rights under the GDPR, which this Policy and Our use of personal data have been designed to uphold:
The right to be informed about Our collection and use of personal data;
The right of access to the personal data We hold about you (see section 12);
The right to rectification if any personal data We hold about you is inaccurate or incomplete (please contact Us using the details in section 14);
The right to be forgotten – i.e. the right to ask Us to delete any personal data We hold about you (We only hold your personal data for a limited time, as explained in section 6 but if you would like Us to delete it sooner, please contact Us using the details in section 14);
The right to restrict (i.e. prevent) the processing of your personal data;
The right to data portability (obtaining a copy of your personal data to re-use with another service or organisation);
The right to object to Us using your personal data for particular purposes; and
If you have any cause for complaint about Our use of your personal data, please contact Us using the details provided in section 14 and We will do Our best to solve the problem for you. If We are unable to help, you also have the right to lodge a complaint with the UK's supervisory authority, the Information Commissioner's Office.
For further information about your rights, please contact the Information Commissioner's Office or your local Citizens Advice Bureau.
What Data Do We Collect?
Depending upon your use of Our Site, We may collect some or all of the following personal data (please also see section 13 on Our use of Cookies and similar technologies):
Date of birth;
Address and post code;
Business/company name and trading status;
Number of properties owned;
Accountants details;
Proof of residence and ID;
Financial information such as income and tax status;
Landlords insurance renewal dates;
Property Portfolio details such as value and mortgage outstanding;
All personal data is processed and stored securely, for no longer than is necessary in light of the reason(s) for which it was first collected. We will comply with Our obligations and safeguard your rights under the GDPR at all times. For more details on security see section 7, below.
Our use of your personal data will always have a lawful basis, either because it is necessary for our performance of a contract with you, because you have consented to our use of your personal data (e.g. by subscribing to emails), or because it is in our legitimate interests. Specifically, we may use your data for the following purposes:
Providing and managing your access to Our Site;
Supplying our products and or services to you (please note that We require your personal data in order to enter into a contract with you);
Personalising and tailoring our products and or services for you;
Replying to emails from you;
Supplying you with emails that you have opted into (you may unsubscribe or opt-out at any time by the unsubscribe link at the bottom of all emails;
Analysing your use of our site and gathering feedback to enable us to continually improve our site and your user experience;
Provide information to our partner service and product suppliers at your request.
With your permission and/or where permitted by law, We may also use your data for marketing purposes which may include contacting you by email and or telephone with information, news and offers on our products and or We will not, however, send you any unsolicited marketing or spam and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that We fully protect your rights and comply with Our obligations under the GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
We do not keep your personal data for any longer than is necessary in light of the reason(s) for which it was first collected. Data will therefore be retained for the following periods (or its retention will be determined on the following bases):
Member profile information is collected with your consent and can be amended or deleted at any time by you;
Anti-Money Laundering information and tax consultancy records are to be kept as required by law for up to seven years.
How and Where Do We Store Your Data?
We only keep your personal data for as long as We need to in order to use it as described above in section 6, and/or for as long as We have your permission to keep it.
Some or all of your data may be stored outside of the European Economic Area ("the EEA") (The EEA consists of all EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein). You are deemed to accept and agree to this by using our site and submitting information to Us. If we do store data outside the EEA, we will take all reasonable steps to ensure that your data is treated as safely and securely as it would be within the UK and under the GDPR
Data security is very important to Us, and to protect your data We have taken suitable measures to safeguard and secure data collected through Our Site.
Do We Share Your Data?
We may share your data with other partner companies in for the purpose of supplying products or services you have requested.
We may sometimes contract with third parties to supply products and services to you on Our behalf. Where any of your data is required for such a purpose, We will take all reasonable steps to ensure that your data will be handled safely, securely, and in accordance with your rights, Our obligations, and the obligations of the third party under the law.
We may compile statistics about the use of Our Site including data on traffic, usage patterns, user numbers, sales, and other information. All such data will be anonymised and will not include any personally identifying data, or any anonymised data that can be combined with other data and used to identify you. We may from time to time share such data with third parties such as prospective investors, affiliates, partners, and advertisers. Data will only be shared and used within the bounds of the law.
In certain circumstances, We may be legally required to share certain data held by Us, which may include your personal data, for example, where We are involved in legal proceedings, where We are complying with legal requirements, a court order, or a governmental authority.
What Happens If Our Business Changes Hands?
We may, from time to time, expand or reduce Our business and this may involve the sale and/or the transfer of control of all or part of Our business. Any personal data that you have provided will, where it is relevant to any part of Our business that is being transferred, be transferred along with that part and the new owner or newly controlling party will, under the terms of this Privacy Policy, be permitted to use that data only for the same purposes for which it was originally collected by Us.
How Can You Control Your Data?
In addition to your rights under the GDPR, set out in section 4, we aim to give you strong controls on Our use of your data for direct marketing purposes including the ability to opt-out of receiving emails from Us which you may do by unsubscribing using the links provided in Our emails.
Your Right to Withhold Information
You may access certain areas of Our Site without providing any data at all. However, to use all features and functions available on Our Site you may be required to submit or allow for the collection of certain data.
You may restrict Our use of Cookies. For more information, see section 13.
How Can You Access Your Data?
You have the right to ask for a copy of any of your personal data held by Us (where such data is held). Under the GDPR, no fee is payable and We will provide any and all information in response to your request free of charge. Please contact Us for more details at info@property118.com, or using the contact details below in section 14.
Our Site may place and access certain first party Cookies on your computer or device. First party Cookies are those placed directly by Us and are used only by Us. We use Cookies to facilitate and improve your experience of Our Site and to provide and improve Our products AND/OR We have carefully chosen these Cookies and have taken steps to ensure that your privacy and personal data is protected and respected at all times.
All Cookies used by and on Our Site are used in accordance with current Cookie Law.
Before Cookies are placed on your computer or device, you will be shown a cookie prompt requesting your consent to set those Cookies. By giving your consent to the placing of Cookies you are enabling Us to provide the best possible experience and service to you. You may, if you wish, deny consent to the placing of Cookies; however certain features of Our Site may not function fully or as intended. You will be given the opportunity to allow only first party Cookies and block third party Cookies.
Certain features of Our Site depend on Cookies to function. Cookie Law deems these Cookies to be "strictly necessary". These Cookies are shown below in section 13.5. Your consent will not be sought to place these Cookies, but it is still important that you are aware of them. You may still block these Cookies by changing your internet browser's settings as detailed below in section 13.9, but please be aware that Our Site may not work properly if you do so. We have taken great care to ensure that your privacy is not at risk by allowing them.
The following first party Cookies may be placed on your computer or device:
Name of Cookie Purpose Strictly Necessary
JSESSIONID Used only to collect performance data, with any identifiable data obfuscated No
__cfduid This cookie is strictly necessary for Cloudflare's security features and cannot be turned off. Yes
Our Site uses analytics services provided by Google Analytics and Facebook. Website analytics refers to a set of tools used to collect and analyse anonymous usage information, enabling Us to better understand how Our Site is used. This, in turn, enables Us to improve Our Site and the products AND/OR services offered through it. You do not have to allow Us to use these Cookies, however whilst Our use of them does not pose any risk to your privacy or your safe use of Our Site, it does enable Us to continually improve Our Site, making it a better and more useful experience for you.
The analytics service(s) used by Our Site use(s) Cookies to gather the required information.
The analytics service(s) used by Our Site use(s) the following Cookies:
Name of Cookie First / Third Party Provider Purpose
__utma, __utmb, __utmc, __utmt, __utmz First Google Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website
_fbp First Facebook Helps to understand how their visitors engage with our website
In addition to the controls that We provide, you can choose to enable or disable Cookies in your internet browser. Most internet browsers also enable you to choose whether you wish to disable all cookies or only third party cookies. By default, most internet browsers accept Cookies but this can be changed. For further details, please consult the help menu in your internet browser or the documentation that came with your device.
You can choose to delete Cookies on your computer or device at any time, however you may lose any information that enables you to access Our Site more quickly and efficiently including, but not limited to, login and personalisation settings.
It is recommended that you keep your internet browser and operating system up-to-date and that you consult the help and guidance provided by the developer of your internet browser and manufacturer of your computer or device if you are unsure about adjusting your privacy settings.
If you have any questions about Our Site or this Privacy Policy, please contact Us by email at info@property118.com, by telephone on 01603 489118, or by post at 1st Floor, Woburn House, 84 St Benedicts Street, Norwich, NR2 4AB. Please ensure that your query is clear, particularly if it is a request for information about the data We hold about you (as under section 12, above).
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Become a Member, it's FREE
Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents
Smart Meters - Beware and advice needed?
Read 13047 times in the last 7 days
Stamp duty - First property in joint names?
Read 7233 times in the last 7 days
Johnson considers Stamp Duty switch from buyer to seller...
Living in same building as their serial bad tenant -...
Most Popular Discussions
Evicting vulnerable tenant in hospital – Landlord...
The scrapping of Section 21: landlord responses...
Government plans for deposit passporting...
Citizens Advice calling for National Housing Body...
How do I sell up a portfolio?
The Alliance Housing Policy...
© Property118 2019
Legal Advice For Landlords
Create an Article or Discussion
Landlords Calculator
Search Article Archive
Incorporation Viability Calculator
YPN Magazine
GDPR Readiness Statement