Young Palestinians and Arab Israelis Unite in Boxing Day Anti- Lockdown Rave at Muslim Holy Site

Techno party at Muslim holy site draws censure from Palestinian leadership

https://www.timesofisrael.com/techno-party-at-muslim-holy-site-draws-censure-from-palestinian-leadership/

Amid blame game, Palestinian Authority forms committee to probe who was behind party at Nabi Musa mosque, arrests prominent DJ; Hamas condemns rave as ‘despicable’

Palestinian and Arab Israeli rave attendees make merry at the Nabi Musa mosque in the West Bank on December 26, 2020 (Screenshot/Twitter)

Palestinian and Arab Israeli rave attendees make merry at the Nabi Musa mosque in the West Bank on December 26, 2020 (Screenshot/Twitter)

A Saturday night dance party by Palestinians at a West Bank Muslim holy site featuring alcohol and techno music has elicited condemnation from across the Palestinian political spectrum.

Videos from the Nabi Musa mosque between Jerusalem and Jericho showed a rave held at the scene, featuring young Palestinians and Arab Israelis dancing and drinking.

Prominent Palestinian disc jockey (DJ) Sama Abd al-Hadi led the festivities. Abd al-Hadi, originally from Ramallah, is considered a pioneering artist in the budding Palestinian electronic music scene, as well as one of the first female DJs in an overwhelmingly male-dominated field.

Abd al-Hadi was arrested Sunday night by Palestinian Authority police, the Kan public broadcaster reported, citing Palestinian sources.

The festivities appeared to have alcohol and men and women dancing together at the Muslim holy site. Most forms of Islam forbid drinking alcohol, and mixed dancing is also controversial in many parts of conservative Palestinian society.

A number of other Palestinians, apparently angered by what they considered to be the desecration of the site, arrived and confronted them. The partygoers told the newcomers that they had received permission from the Palestinian Authority Tourism Ministry in Ramallah to hold the event.

“Whisky! Alcohol! Women! Tourism Ministry, this isn’t religious morals. In fact, these aren’t morals,” one of the angry demonstrators said as he videotaped the site with his phone.

The Nabi Musa mosque — named after Moses, who many Jews, Christians and Muslims all revere as a prophet of God — is a prominent West Bank pilgrimage site. Each year in spring, Palestinian Muslims travel by foot to the mosque, which is situated between Jerusalem and Jericho.

Most of the revelers on Saturday night were either Arab Israelis or Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, and the matter is currently being processed by the Israel Police. A spokesperson for the police’s West Bank Division could not be reached for comment.

PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh has assembled an investigative committee to look into the incident, PA government spokesperson Ibrahim Milhem said.

“I feel disgust and rage about what happened at the Nabi Musa mosque… I do not know yet who is responsible for this sin, but whoever is will receive a punishment to fit the atrocity of what was committed. A mosque is a house of God; its sanctity is the sanctity of religion itself,” said Mahmoud al-Habbash, PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s advisor on religious affairs.

Nabi Musa lies largely in Area C, meaning that the Oslo Accords designates the area as under full Israeli security and civil control. Israeli security forces arrived at the scene during the night when the confrontation occurred.

“There were Israeli soldiers there, but the incident is being dealt with by the Israel Police and Palestinian institutions,” a spokesperson for the Israeli army said, without elaborating.

In the aftermath of the incident, Palestinian Authority ministries have engaged in a blame game in an attempt to avoid the wrath of the public from the perceived desecration of the holy site. The Tourism Ministry has sought to blame the Religious Affairs Ministry, which has denied any knowledge of plans to hold a rave at the site.

“I was surprised to hear the news that people had entered the mosque… the Religious Affairs Ministry was never asked for permission or consultation, nor did it ever issue a permit to hold a party in the mosque,” Religious Affairs Deputy Minister Hussam Abu al-Rabb told Ajyal Radio on Sunday.

The Nabi Musa mosque, in the Judean Desert, south of Jerusalem, on January 29, 2017.

On Sunday afternoon, several dozen Palestinians went to the site to pray. Videos posted on social gathered showed the worshippers hurling the remnants of last night’s party from the walls of the sanctuary before setting them ablaze.

Officials from Hamas, an Iran-backed terror group that rules the Gaza Strip and opposes the PA, quickly took advantage of the anger over the rave in the West Bank holy site to criticize their political rivals for allegedly allowing the event to take place. Palestinian Authority police, however, are rarely permitted by Israel to enforce their laws in Area C.

“We condemn the fact that this was done with the formal approval and under the protection of Mohammad Shtayyeh’s government,” said Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum, who called the rave “a despicable violation of the house of God.”

“This is a crime committed by riff-raff, at a time when the mosques are closed, and worshippers are pursued and arrested on the crime of prayer and violating the law and government orders… how can such a violation of the sanctity of mosques and of the law be permitted?” said Hamas West Bank legislator Nayef Rajoub.

Restoring The Record book: Less than 6 years left before footpaths are extinguished

Less than 6 years left before unrecorded and under-recorded paths are extinguished!
http://www.restoringtherecord.org.uk

  • Want to check historic rights on a local track but don’t know where to start?
  • Need to find extra evidence before a public inquiry?
  • Worried about your first visit to an archive office?
  • Experienced, but just want to check which Act authorised which activities?

Then you need Rights of Way: Restoring the Record, the research guide by Sarah Bucks and Phil Wadey.

For each of the most commonly used documentary evidence types, this book explains where the evidence can be found, why it is of value to proving or disproving highway status, and how to set out an application for a definitive map modification order.

There are notes on archive offices and helpful hints and time-saving tips on how to carry out the research.

It explains in detail how to initiate the legal process and, step by step, how to follow it through to an order being made.

It includes a long list of the Acts and Schedules which make up the legal background to current rights of way law.

This book is an essential guide for the novice, and an invaluable reference book for the more experienced.

It will appeal to user groups, local authority rights of way practitioners, land agents, land owners and property lawyers, as well as local historians and those interested in their part of the countryside.

Find out how to buy.

Rights of Way: Restoring the Record

http://www.restoringtherecord.org.uk/inbrief.htm
Authors Sarah Bucks and Phil Wadey

Publication date:  22 August 2017 (second edition)

Synopsis: Essential guide to over 20 sources of evidence valuable for proving or disproving the existence of public rights of way in England and Wales.

Description: For each of the most commonly used documentary evidence types, this book explains where the evidence can be found, why it is of value to proving or disproving highway status, and how to set out an application for a definitive map modification order.

There are notes on the national and county archive offices and helpful hints and time saving tips on how to carry out the research.

It explains in detail how to initiate the legal process and, step by step, how to follow it through to an order being made.

It includes a long list of the Acts and Schedules which make up the legal background to current rights of way law.

This book is an essential guide for the novice, and an invaluable reference book for the more experienced.

It will appeal to user groups, local authority rights of way practitioners, land agents, land owners and property lawyers, as well as local historians and those interested in their part of the countryside.

Design: Paul Tompsett, Free Range Book Design & Production Ltd
ISBN 978-0-9574036-0-4 (first edition)
ISBN 978-0-9574036-1-1 (second edition)
Format: Paperback
Size 246mm (height) x 189 mm (width).
Pages 336 (first edition), 416 (394+xxii) (second edition)
Cover price £30. (+ postage and packing) (First edition)
Cover price £32. (+ postage and packing) (Second edition)
Postal address: “Bucks & Wadey”, Bryants Farm, Dowlish Wake, Ilminster TA19 0NX – D-U-N-S221471370

Prince Charles sold his Duchy food brand, bought Waitrose distribution depot to cloak John Lewis stake – massive property empire

Revealed: Prince Charles’s secret property deals – including £38 million industrial carbuncle

see also below – The secrets of Prince Charles’ homes and properties

Exclusive: Duchy estate bought Milton Keynes supermarket depot despite his famously forthright views on preserving traditional architecture and countryside

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-prince-charles-s-secret-property-deals-including-ps38-million-industrial-carbuncle-8659596.html

Cahal Milmo @cahalmilmo – Saturday 15 June 2013

Revealed: Prince Charles’s secret property deals – including £38 million industrial carbuncle

The Prince bought the sprawling grey warehouse complex in Milton Keynes from an Anglo-Indian property fund, The Independent has established

The Independent employs over 100 journalists around the world to bring you news you can trust. To support truly independent journalism, please consider making a contribution or taking a subscription.

Prince Charles, renowned for his aversion to “monstrous carbuncle” buildings, has spent £38m on an industrial depot in Milton Keynes as part of a £102m series of confidential property deals, The Independent can reveal. The purchase of the vast supermarket warehouse through his estate – one of the single largest acquisitions by the Duchy of Cornwall in its 670-year history – was completed 18 months ago but has been kept from being made public.

A recent judicial ruling declared the Duchy to be a “public body” potentially liable to freedom of information rules.

But Clarence House has repeatedly refused to disclose any details of the expensive acquisition due to what the Prince’s officials said was the Duchy’s “private” status.

The Prince bought the sprawling grey warehouse complex in Milton Keynes from an Anglo-Indian property fund, The Independent has established. His tenants are Waitrose, who are using the depot as a lorry distribution hub. The deal offers a glimpse into the hard-nosed business ethos of the Duchy, established in the 14th century to provide an income for the Prince of Wales and his heirs, as well as the multiple layers of confidentiality and opaque procedure that govern the Prince’s commercial dealings.

Under an arrangement which is now being scrutinised by MPs, the Duchy is exempt from capital gains and corporation tax, saving it millions of pounds a year. Charles voluntarily pays income tax.

An investigation by The Independent has revealed that the Duchy, which is one of Britain’s largest private estates and owns more than 50,000 hectares of land, conducted property transactions worth at least £102m between 2009 and last December.

Any sale or purchase by the Prince worth more than £500,000 must be approved by the Treasury.

The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted

The Duchy’s holdings of land and property form the bulk of its assets, worth £693m, and stretch across 23 counties, including most of the Scilly Isles, Dartmoor Prison, the Oval cricket ground in central London, a Holiday Inn in Reading and the Prince’s private homes such as Highgrove. To this extensive list has now been added property title BM191066, otherwise known as the Waitrose distribution centre in Brinklow, Milton Keynes, whose new owners are listed by the Land Registry as “His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Chester and Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland”, and the Duchy. The sale price was £38,385,500.

Like all other significant Duchy transactions, the deal in November 2011 with Indian property fund Meghraj Properties had to be approved by the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury, an ancient post held by Government whips.

The depot, built in 1993 to withstand 20 million lorry journeys over its lifetime, sits awkwardly with the heir to the throne’s well-publicised love of traditional architecture along with his emphasis on rural life and environmental sustainability.

The purchase of the 396,000 sq ft warehouse is not the first link between Charles and the John Lewis Partnership supermarket. A previous deal between the Duchy and Waitrose in 2009 saw it take over the once-troubled Duchy Originals organic food brand, which now generates more than £1m a year for the prince’s charities.

When The Independent yesterday approached Clarence House with evidence of the warehouse purchase, it insisted there was no connection with the Duchy Originals tie-up, adding it was a “coincidence” that Waitrose was the tenant of the industrial complex.

The revelations come at an uncomfortable time for the Duchy, which is facing a private members’ bill in the House of Lords demanding that its structure be radically overhauled and its surplus income – £18.3m last year – be distributed to Cornwall rather than to the heir to throne. The bill’s sponsor, Labour peer Lord Berkeley, says the Duchy is a “feudal anachronism”.

The day-to-day management of the Duchy, including investment decisions on commercial property such as the Waitrose warehouse purchase, is carried out by a professional managerial team. But it is widely known that Prince Charles takes a close personal interest in the running of the estate. In many ways, the estate, which transfers its handsome surplus every year to the heir to the throne to form the bulk of his income, is a paragon of success. Despite the global downturn, the Prince has defied the prevailing economic winds to grow the Duchy’s income every year since at least 2008 – to £26.5m last year. His estate’s total value has risen by 15 per cent to £764m.

Charles voluntarily pays income tax on the income he receives from the Duchy (last year he paid £4.5m to the tax man from incoming funds of £18.3m). He uses the money to fund himself and the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, a sizeable staff and his charitable activities.

But while the Duchy has been slickly managed, a growing number of critics say it has existed for too long in a constitutional no-man’s land where it discharges the duties of a public body, for example running the harbour authority on the Scilly Isles, and is subject to the financial scrutiny of Government whips, yet maintains it is a “private estate”. One benefit of this hybrid status is that the hereditary holding is exempt from both corporation and capital gains tax. The situation, which Clarence House insists is valid because the Duchy is “not a separate legal entity for tax purposes”, has led the powerful Commons public accounts committee, which is also investigating the tax affairs of Google and Starbucks, to demand answers from Treasury ministers as to whether the Prince’s exemptions are justified.

The Duchy is also fighting a separate attempt to force it to be more open about its workings. The Prince’s officials lost an important case before the Information Rights Tribunal, which after a three-year legal battle ruled that his estate was a “public authority” in performing its “primary function” to provide an income for the heir to the throne.

The landmark ruling could make the estate subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Duchy is appealing. A spokeswoman said: “We do not agree that the Duchy performs functions of public administration. Hence we are appealing the ruling.”

Lord Berkeley, who lives in Cornwall, said there was a “conspiracy of silence” surrounding the status of the Duchy and it was time for a debate about its future: “The Duchy is a complete anachronism. It is feudal and I suspect many of those who work for it would say so if they felt able. It vacillates between being a private and a semi-public organisation according to its best advantage and yet there is no debate about how it should be best managed. It would seem to me that the Duchy would be a far better situation if it was turned into a public trust for the benefit of the people after which it is named.”

In a statement, a Duchy of Cornwall spokeswoman said: “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate, not a public body and is not funded by the taxpayer. The Prince of Wales chooses to use his private money from the estate to pay for his public duties, as well as those of the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

“He also chooses to pay income tax on the income generated by The Duchy. The Duke of Cornwall manages the estate for present and future Dukes, and for the wider benefit of tenants, communities and the environment.”

————————————————————————————

 

The secrets of Prince Charles’ homes and properties

https://www.loveproperty.com/gallerylist/82843/the-secrets-of-prince-charles-homes-and-properties