Tanweer […] lived with his father, Muhammad Mumtaz, a fish and chip shop owner, and mother, Parvaz Akhtar.
Quite possible that he was given money by the brainwashers in Pakistan on his last visit there.
House prices around here (Leeds) took off dranatically about five years ago, and in the last tow or three they went mad.
My house in a nearby town went from £36K to £90K in about eight months, and houses in Leeds itself are more expensive.
Certain parts of Leeds exceeded this trend, as they were near to renewal zones, but I would not think this would be true of Beeston, which is a dump and has low house prices and property values in general.
My guess is that a lot of his money came from his parents who run a chippy, and this would be a way of avoiding taxes, by making tax free gifts in the form of various tax free savings schemes on his behalf, it is well within the bounds of possibility.
It may even have been a way of laundering money too, shops in this area are not always economic, and a few have been closed down for being fronts.
This could be all legit, or not, we’ll just have to wait until investigations are completed, but if it is connected with a gold seam I really doubt the intelligence agencies will release anything but the most basic information.
Regarding property, mortgages, etc.: Don’t forget that Muslim rules prohibit investments which reward with interest, which means that more Muslims invest in property, often in shared ownership among families. One possibilty is that part of the £120k was such part-ownerships, for which he may not have made an initial investment (i.e. as gifts or loans from elder relatives).
According to this report (Word document), Beeston is an area where demand in the housing market has ‘outstripped supply’.
I stated that “Civil claims generally are not barred by death – they proceed against the deceased’s estate.”
You replied: “Have you evidence for this?”
I provided the legal citation of the law that sets out that civil claims generally are not barred by death, and instead proceed against the deceased’s estate: Order 15, rule 6A, of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
These rules are what the Supreme (superior) court in England use, which is the court through which people would sue the bomber.
The relevant part of the sub-rule reads:
As to where you might find this on the WWW, your guess is as good as mine.
GorillaMan, you might also wish to track down the appeal decision in CHELTENHAM & GLOUGESTER Plc, Plaintiff/Respondent v. (1) MOORE MANTON (A Firm) (2) ANDREW NEWBY and WILLIAM PARSONS, Defendants, [1998] E.W.J. No. 807, which reviews a decision made by the Leeds District High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, and which goes into Rules of the Supreme Court Order 15, rule 6A.
Muffin, very interesting. The question that I have (and what I thought GorillaMan was getting at) is whether the UK recognizes what in the US is called a wrongful death suit – namely, whether a claim that you killed my decedent is proper. It seems to me that a wrongful death suit, by its very nature, is not the type of suit envisioned by the rule you cited – that seems to apply more to a personal injury suit that becomes a wrongful death suit. (Although I suppose the Rule would apply to a survivor of the bombings who sues, then dies during the pendency of the suit from causes other than injuries caused by the bombing.)
Do you know whether the UK recognizes a cause of action for wrongful death? I had never thought about it – I assumed that they must, but now I’m curious and my ability to research UK law (never a strong suit) is no good this morning. Thanks for any help.
In the US, as I recall, chippy is slang for a woman of uncertain virtue.
Gorilla Man
from your link…
All that actually means is that because the housing is relatively cheap in that area, there is a heavy demand.
In Morley, the rules of supply and demand follow what you would expect and high demand has led to higher house prices, but then it was starting off from a low base.
Beeston does not follow those rules, the prices still remain relatively low, compare a through terrace house in Beeston against one in Headingly, both being inner city areas and you’ll find at least £20k differance and in some small enclaves a good deal more, given similar houses.
The average inner city price for a terrace house in Leeds is around £85k, but in Beeston this is less than £75k
http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/citylife/housing/house_prices.shtml
There are a couple of areas in Leeds that are lower priced, such as Wortley and Holbeck, but Beeston is one of the lowest prices areas around, this is because everyine in Leeds knows that this place is a dump.
Here is what we are dealing with, personally I think this article is too kind, as it does not mention the extensive heroin use and consequent crime and violence.
http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=828
Muffin - thanks for the further information, that’s satisfied my curiosity (and once I had phrases to Google with, this was easy to find 
) I guess I’m surprised that any action can be brought against an estate in this way - unlike if, say, a murdered died before a civil claim for damages was concluded.
At work today I was talking to a colleague who takes the local Leeds Newspaper.
It turns out that the subject had a semi-detatched house( duplex) which would be around this value.
When you take out a mortgage over here, you must also purchase life assurance for the mortgage term, probably standard practice aroud the world.
If the insurance had been taken out in good faith, which it seems it was, then the policy would pay out on the policyholders death, and this would pay off any outstanding amount on the mortgage, leaving the deceased with a house as part of the estate.
It may stick in the craw, but it appears this is what happened.
:eek: You’re right! I always used it to mean an air-headed flighty girl into girly things but I stand corrected. Ooops.
I’m amazed that an insurance company paid out so willingly. It took a friend of mine three months to settle a claim on her mortgage after her husband died. And I’m also surprised that such insurance policies don’t exclude suicide.
I’m also amazed, what life assurance policies exist that pay out for suicides?
Has the coroner officially recorded that the death was indeed suicide?
There seems reasonable circumstantial evidence that this was the case, but legally it might be still open pending further investigation?
Even then I would imagine the policy would be placed on-hold until a decision? Perhaps it pays out on the proviso that if the verdict comes back as suicide they money is returned.
There are some inconsistencies around the bombings - ie. whether all the men genuinely knew they were carrying bombs etc - I don’t know if these have been cleared in a court of law yet.
From a wikipedia article:
“However, after a number of court judgments against the industry, payouts do occur on death by suicide” - usually when it can be shown that the policy-holder was about to benefit anyway, but there may other circumstances.
Sorry, one more…
From HDFC Standard Life:
Does this suggest that if the policy is over a year old it will still pay out in the case of suicide?
I believe that the coronor keeps a case open when it’s part of an ongoing criminal investigation, as in this situation.
I am not aware of a common law tort for wrongful death, but there is a statutory tort in England for wrongful death that permits dependants and close family members seek relief. See the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Ch. 30 at s.1 (as substituted/amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, Ch. 53, s. 3):