The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
This was a Michael Gove policy announced on the quiet in the hope no body would notice...
Well it's either that or grade A incompetency - and I don't want to think which one it is...
Just a case of people taking more of an interest in these 'technical consultations' on planning.
It isn't a fraction as bad as some of the things they have been churning out over the last decade though. At one point they passed legislation to allow you to appoint an agent to grant yourself planning permission, circumventing the local planning authority completely. It never got enacted but the primary legislation is still there.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
I am old enough to remember the Spastics Society charity shop before they rebranded.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Which was even worse as it came about because of the guy they kept having on blue peter , joey deacon as I remember
Nothing to see here. The Electoral Commission is working with the NCSC to lock the stable door, which is the high-tech equivalent of lessons will be learnt.
Looks like the demolition of the entire structure was absolutely illegal. The council have confirmed. Some evil fucker is in trouble. Hunt them down and torment them
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
Joey from the 1990s makes me think of Joey Tribbiani. 🤷♂️ How you doin'?
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
I am old enough to remember the Spastics Society charity shop before they rebranded.
1994 isn't that long ago.
It's nearly thirty years, Andy...
1994 is as far away from now as the end of rationing was from 1983.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
I doubt it was ever very common. Joey is a bit of a nickname for Joseph isn't it?
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
It is a phenomenon of inflating euphemism. At one time moron and retarded were legitimate medical terms.
I have heard youngsters describe each other disparaging as "special needs".
We need to update our language, but even more so need to update our attitudes.
When The Spastic Society changed its name to Scope, kids at my school were calling each other "scopers" within days. I don't know if it stuck.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
I doubt it was ever very common. Joey is a bit of a nickname for Joseph isn't it?
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
It is a phenomenon of inflating euphemism. At one time moron and retarded were legitimate medical terms.
I have heard youngsters describe each other disparaging as "special needs".
We need to update our language, but even more so need to update our attitudes.
"special needs" has been around for a while. Quasi Medical euphemisms carry inherent risks in this area.
Mine just refer to someone as being 'Special' and you can hear the quote marks the way they say it
It's weird how they can do that. A just discernible pause and the meaning is completely inverted. No wonder people find English a hard language to learn.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
I am old enough to remember the Spastics Society charity shop before they rebranded.
1994 isn't that long ago.
It's nearly thirty years, Andy...
I've just been watching the 1959 election show, so 1994 seems pretty modern compared to that.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Barns are ‘alien features’ too of course.
In our village (not in a National Park) you can knock down an existing dwelling and build a new one, and convert a barn to a house in certain circumstances, but that hasn’t led to any new buildings as such; the same number of buildings still exist.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
No-one was suggesting adding more and more housing added in, the proposal relates only to existing barn structures. Any additional structures will of course require planning permission in the usual way.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Barns are ‘alien features’ too of course.
In our village (not in a National Park) you can knock down an existing dwelling and build a new one, and convert a barn to a house in certain circumstances, but that hasn’t led to any new buildings as such.
If you are playing the game of alien features - do you place sheep as alien features or not.
Because the current landscape of the Dales / Lakes / Moors all come from sheep farming. Without that most of the areas would be woodland...
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Trouble is they aren't functional and haven't been since plastic wrap for hay/haylage was invented, and no use for stuff that still needs to be under cover because modern tractors can't get in to them. They're utterly useless for farming.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Barns are ‘alien features’ too of course.
In our village (not in a National Park) you can knock down an existing dwelling and build a new one, and convert a barn to a house in certain circumstances, but that hasn’t led to any new buildings as such; the same number of buildings still exist.
I had some friends in an AONB who had a giant 1980's potato shed that looked like an aircraft hangar. I thought that they could get planning permission to knock it down and build a smaller more sensitive house but they didn't want to do the work in designing something that would complement the landscape (ie appointing an architect), they wanted instead to convert the barn in to a massive house. The problem with these Permitted Development rules are that they encourage the laziest, worst quality form of development in the most sensitive, high quality landscapes.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Trouble is they aren't functional and haven't been since plastic wrap for hay/haylage was invented, and no use for stuff that still needs to be under cover because modern tractors can't get in to them. They're utterly useless for farming.
They are also too mostly too small to be converted into housing. But that won't stop people buying them and extending them to meet their needs....
There's absolutely zero chance of Sunak calling an earlier-than-necessary election unless the polls show a very significant narrowing of Labour's lead. And there's no sign of the polls narrowing. So he will hang on in quiet desperation, which is the English way, hoping that something turns up.
I quoted Genesis. You quoted Pink Floyd.
Fellow PBers, we need more prog rock quotes in this thread to illustrate. A pink moon is on its way, and its name is Serkeir...
My name is Panurge and I have come from hell.
There is no fucking way the little shit will "go early". Has any PM ever done that when they are so fucked in the polls?
"There is no fucking way the little shit will "go early" ". Are you referring to your friend Putin?
Certainly not you he was referring to or it would have been "humungous steaming shit"
Lol. While I was out Malcolmg entered the room to lower the average IQ of the forum. I wish he would let us know when his trolley pushing shifts are at Halfords, so I can know when to avoid his puerile senile dribbling.
Sad one dimensional crock of shit foreskin, at least try to change one word in your pathetic attempts at insults. A 5 year old could do better, a worm has more brains than you. Just go spend your JSA.
Those anger management courses still not succeeding I see, and I guess your most recent BTec from the University of Life still hasn't improved your wit or eloquence. Maybe you should try loosening your jackboots or spend less time jerking off to pictures of Alex Salmond to improve your mood?
Consistently boring and lacking in any charisma, another one of you retreads. Sad lonely git with no wit or panache.
Ben Walker saw last weeks local by-election results and is nervous. Labour also know that if there is a by election in mid Beds they will probably end up third. So better go now and pre-empt further falls in support.
Ben Walker saw last weeks local by-election results and is nervous. Labour also know that if there is a by election in mid Beds they will probably end up third. So better go now and pre-empt further falls in support.
The only thing Labour can achieve in Mid Beds is help the Tories win the seat by splitting the opposition vote.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
It is a phenomenon of inflating euphemism. At one time moron and retarded were legitimate medical terms.
I have heard youngsters describe each other disparaging as "special needs".
We need to update our language, but even more so need to update our attitudes.
"special needs" has been around for a while. Quasi Medical euphemisms carry inherent risks in this area.
Mine just refer to someone as being 'Special' and you can hear the quote marks the way they say it
It's weird how they can do that. A just discernible pause and the meaning is completely inverted. No wonder people find English a hard language to learn.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
People really don't bother reading posts when it gets in the way of a witty retort, do they? From the actual rules:
In terms of accessibility, the barn must be ‘roadside’. There is a degree of flexibility here but essentially that means that the site must already be accessible by a standard road vehicle without the need to create new tracks
In the light of this, could you pick out which of the barns in your image this policy actually applies to?
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
I have considered this carefully and figured that a helipad will remove the need for roads and electricity poles are replaced by a wind turbine although I didn’t have time to draw the rotors so just the shaft. I think it will look lovely.
Ben Walker saw last weeks local by-election results and is nervous. Labour also know that if there is a by election in mid Beds they will probably end up third. So better go now and pre-empt further falls in support.
Anyone extrapolating anything from local by elections in July and August needs to go and get some sun somewhere....
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
People really don't bother reading posts when it gets in the way of a witty retort, do they? From the actual rules:
In terms of accessibility, the barn must be ‘roadside’. There is a degree of flexibility here but essentially that means that the site must already be accessible by a standard road vehicle without the need to create new tracks
In the light of this, could you pick out which of the barns in your image this policy actually applies to?
The issue is that is the current rules.
The proposed rules would make all those barns convertible... when the policy at the moment is to leave them as is and where not maintained let them fall into disrepair...
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
Another American usage coming into use by the British right.
It's idiotic because in this country we have a party with "Liberal" in its title that, far from being on the left, actually propped up the Tories in government for five years while presiding over ruinous cuts to local public services! Socialist isn't a dirty word in this country like in the US. Please, PB right wingers, don't call people on the left "Libs", it just makes you look even more dumb than you actually are.
Speaking of how people characterise their political opponents, Sturgeon is apparently an anti-British Marxist.
Nicola and Ralph Miliband up a tree Plotting the downfall of this country
Although that remark is so poorly punctuated it's hard to even know what she means. Has the right in this country always been this moronic?
The hard/far right almost certainly. Corbyn was of course the most stupid person by a long way to lead a mainstream British party and those of you of a left persuasion might be surprised to realise he is not of the right.
And for frothing English hating Scottish Nationalists I pass you Exhibit Malcolmg, graduate of the University of Life, and far and away the most obnoxious and stupid moron to contribute to this otherwise excellent site.
I remain convinced that you and Malcolm are a delightful old couple with a raffish theatrical past who engage in ironic banter on PB in between making each other cups of tea and buttery crumpets in front of the fire somewhere in Sussex.
Then tea cups are put down, a tense silence fills the drawing room and the fisting begins.
You had to go there.
If I knew who the scumbag was I would knock the ugly barsteward handsome. The crumpets and the teapot would be shoved up his arse sideways on the end of a shovel.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
I was born in 1974. I heard it all the time. Pretty horrible looking back. I remember we got called into an assembly when he died and one kid a few years above me got kicked out for laughing. I shudder at the memory.
Looks like the demolition of the entire structure was absolutely illegal. The council have confirmed. Some evil fucker is in trouble. Hunt them down and torment them
Tories need more like him. Instinctive politicians
I believe you can make such an order if and only if you can prove it was deliberately demolished. His letter rather pathetically skirts round the fact that he knows this perfectly well.
I think we can be fairly sure it was “deliberately demolished” as here is the footage of it being deliberately demolished by a great big JCB, a day after the fire.
This all smacks of panic to me. Someone torched it and was frightened by the massive online reaction which got police and politicians involved, now they’ve kicked off an even bigger reaction
It won’t go away now
Ah OK the JCB may have been a mistake. if they have any sense they will have a surveyor's report after the fire saying JFC this buiding is lethally dangerous and needs demolished asap. BUT the point about the Punch Bowl is that it was listed, this is not. Not even sure they needed to torch it, unless they were getting in quick ahead of a fast track listing application (if such a thing is possible).
The Georgian Group was pursuing a quick listing with the support of locals
You’ve got this wrong. It’s definitely a highly suspicious sequence of events. Which also implicates Marathon’s the brewers
No, you have got me wrong. I think it absolutely stinks, but I think they will get away with it.
Mind you it was a fugly building and I don't feel that its loss hugely diminishes me. If people valued it they should have drunk a lot of beer there on a regular basis, and it would still be a pub.
One of the reasons it became less popular as a pub is that there was strangely sustained campaign of fly-tipping alll around it, making it hard to access and sometimes unpleasant to visit: I actually learned that from Gavin Williamson's Facebook page. And then in recent months it was suspiciously attacked so that its kitchen and loos were almost unusable....
It sounds to me like these last few days have merely been the culmination of a years long process of making it unviable as a pub, so it will be sold, so it can then be torched and demolished, and then someone makes an absolute mint turning it all into housing
And for once we as a nation should say No, fuck that, and put these greedy c*nts in jail, as an example. Sorted
This is what's wrong with this country. The building wasn't listed, if the owners wanted to demolish it, they ought to just be able to send in bulldozers and it should be none of anyone else's business.
We have a chronic shortage of housing in this country and any time anyone suggests building on greenfield land people scream out no, redevelop brownfield instead.
Now there's a plot of brownfield land available for redevelopment and there is outrage at that too.
Which is it? Do you want green land developed? Or "brownfield" which means tearing down old buildings, just like this.
And if you want a pub to stay open, best bet is to go and drink there. Not never go then complain an establishment you never drank at has shut down.
I'm sure your UK would have incredible GDP figures. But it would utterly charmless, and the welfare of the people who live here no better (or even worse).
There does need to be some sort of concerted effort to save pubs, halls. There is a value in social cohesion that doesn't appear on a spreadsheet. For one, it means that you can escape your poxy flat or new build for a few hours.
If you want a concerted effort to save pubs, halls etc, then start by drinking in them. Frequent those establishments and provide them custom.
If you can't be bothered, then don't complain if they go out of business. Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a pint or two. Regularly.
If they had better cycle provision I'd be more likely to buy a pint.
But seriously - I am a regular pub goer and claim to have singlehandedly kept my local pizzeria going during lockdown. I just wish the pints were as cheap as the cans you can buy in Tesco.
Likewise, I love pubs. I am a regular in at least two around me - the Edinboro Castle and the York and Albany - and often stroll to others in Primrose Hill
I visit plenty of pubs further afield. Soho, Hampstead, Highgate, all over London, and I love a country pub, a coastal pub, a historic pub. I even like really down at heel sketchy pubs, they too can have intense character. As @Gardenwalker says, pubs are one of the best things about Britain, and anyone who goes around criminally tearing down 220 year old British pubs with amazing quirks will feel the wrath of many - and rightly
One main reason I haven't drunk in the Crooked House is because I have never been to South Staffs (at least as far as I can recall) so have never had the chance. A stupid argument
I guess the mistske isn't yours then, but that is clearly one pub that needs to be burned down in the interests of Anglo-Scottish relations. Typical North London idiocy.
"The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy. The other give away is that with their fish & chips (beer battered haddock and "skin-on" chips???) they don't do mushy peas. They do "crushed peas". See what I mean?
... The Edinboro Castle ticks all the "nice" boxes, but I think everything about is poncy, contrived, superficial and self-satisfied. If you're any of those you'll probably quite like it."
If you knew anything about pubs - which you clearly don't - you would know it has been spelt that way for decades and, more inportantly, has one of the airiest interiors and biggest beer gardens in north London, maybe in all of London. As for being "contrived", it is about 160 years old, built for the navvies that built the railways right next door
It is a cracking pub, one that anyone would be delighted to call a local. It is 50 seconds walk from my flat. I love it
And the food used to be desperately shit, and is now notably pleasant
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
I was born in 1974. I heard it all the time. Pretty horrible looking back. I remember we got called into an assembly when he died and one kid a few years above me got kicked out for laughing. I shudder at the memory.
Given my IRL name is Joe and I'm often called Joey by friends and family, I'd have definitely noticed if it was a term of abuse!
Related but different, I notice the whole stroking-your-chin-to-signify-disbelief thing has died out now - we called that 'chinny reckon' or 'chinny Mandela'.
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
People really don't bother reading posts when it gets in the way of a witty retort, do they? From the actual rules:
In terms of accessibility, the barn must be ‘roadside’. There is a degree of flexibility here but essentially that means that the site must already be accessible by a standard road vehicle without the need to create new tracks
In the light of this, could you pick out which of the barns in your image this policy actually applies to?
The issue is that is the current rules.
The proposed rules would make all those barns convertible... when the policy at the moment is to leave them as is and where not maintained let them fall into disrepair...
Well, indeed. The comment by @Chelyabinsk was somewhat ironic given it suggests they had not carefully read the thread so far…
In the vast majority of cases, to get something like this, the process has to be managed by 'PITA' local planning authority. The issue with PD rights is that the whole idea behind it is that they undermine the control of the local planning authority. It is basically a loophole that was deliberately and knowingly created by the government in the hope that it would be unnoticed as a 'technical' reform.
The most idiotic of all the rules the government created over the past decade was office to residential PD rights, developers ended up building the worst kind of slum housing, ie new housing with no windows, new flats with less than 20m floorspace, etc.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Which was even worse as it came about because of the guy they kept having on blue peter , joey deacon as I remember
Is it like ‘Bennies’ for Falkland Islanders?
That was another bad one assuming you are referring to bennie from crossroads
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Which was even worse as it came about because of the guy they kept having on blue peter , joey deacon as I remember
Is it like ‘Bennies’ for Falkland Islanders?
That was another bad one assuming you are referring to bennie from crossroads
It was.
"By their own account, the islanders were a subdued, poorly educated people who had learnt not to stick their necks out. As in Victorian England, everyone knew their place. When the British soldiers arrived to liberate the islands, they nicknamed the islanders 'Bennies' after Benny, the simple soul in Crossroads. But this caused so much upset that the soldiers were banned from using the term, and instead nicknamed them 'Still' - as in 'Still a Benny'."
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
I was born in 1974. I heard it all the time. Pretty horrible looking back. I remember we got called into an assembly when he died and one kid a few years above me got kicked out for laughing. I shudder at the memory.
Given my IRL name is Joe and I'm often called Joey by friends and family, I'd have definitely noticed if it was a term of abuse!
Related but different, I notice the whole stroking-your-chin-to-signify-disbelief thing has died out now - we called that 'chinny reckon' or 'chinny Mandela'.
"Chin-eff" we used to say, which became "chineffry-jeffry" and ultimately "heffry-jeffrey"
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
I was born in 1974. I heard it all the time. Pretty horrible looking back. I remember we got called into an assembly when he died and one kid a few years above me got kicked out for laughing. I shudder at the memory.
Unfortunately, insults and bullying still take place.
Except, now, rather than being directly based on a form of "ist" they adopt different forms, like someone's physical appearance on social media, personality weaknesses, unfashionable views, their use of language, behaviours, or social skills..
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
It's one of the best things they look like doing in ages - my local national park authority takes great pride in being a total PITA and finding spurious reasons not to allow conversions like this.
It's one of the worst things possibly because with a house comes a track and a garden both of which are visible from miles around because you can see a long way when at the top of the path between 2 dales.
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
Contributors are invited to draw roads, domestic gardens, electricity poles and cars to the image below to illustrate how it will not affect the landscape in Upper Wharfdale..
Looks like the demolition of the entire structure was absolutely illegal. The council have confirmed. Some evil fucker is in trouble. Hunt them down and torment them
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
It is a phenomenon of inflating euphemism. At one time moron and retarded were legitimate medical terms.
I have heard youngsters describe each other disparaging as "special needs".
We need to update our language, but even more so need to update our attitudes.
"special needs" has been around for a while. Quasi Medical euphemisms carry inherent risks in this area.
Mine just refer to someone as being 'Special' and you can hear the quote marks the way they say it
It's weird how they can do that. A just discernible pause and the meaning is completely inverted. No wonder people find English a hard language to learn.
In the same vein, Wicked=Good, and so on
Wicked! I is 'ere in da North Ilford Ghetto, hangin' wid me bitches!
The tories have probably got another planning problem emerging, their hastily assembled proposal to allow barn conversions without planning permission in National Parks.
"David Butterworth, the CEO of the Yorkshire Dales national park, told the Guardian: “If I was trying to devise a policy that would essentially lead to the destruction of Yorkshire Dales national park, this would be the policy. These are permitted development rights to convert a property without any planning restriction. This means the 6,500 field barns in the Yorkshire Dales could be converted into homes. The idea they could be homes with no restrictions would decimate the landscapes.
“It is one of the most bonkers examples of environmental destruction I could think of. I am extremely concerned that this has been introduced now with an eight-week consultation. It is just crackers.”
The lib dems have jumped on it, and good luck to them. The tories are trying to shore up their base by blocking almost all new housebuilding in the countryside, at great economic cost, and then they go and do this - it's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
That sounds eminently sensible. How does turning a barn into a house “decimate the landscapes”? The buildings are there already!
These farm buildings are functional and part of an agricultural landscape. If they get turned to residential, with all the paraphernalia, window openings, cladding etc they appear as oversized, alien features that are unduly prominent in the landscape. The landscape then just gets turned in to a semi rural landscape where you get more and more housing added in because 'where's the harm'? The national parks are supposed to have the very highest standard of protection against this.
Barns are ‘alien features’ too of course.
In our village (not in a National Park) you can knock down an existing dwelling and build a new one, and convert a barn to a house in certain circumstances, but that hasn’t led to any new buildings as such; the same number of buildings still exist.
I had some friends in an AONB who had a giant 1980's potato shed that looked like an aircraft hangar. I thought that they could get planning permission to knock it down and build a smaller more sensitive house but they didn't want to do the work in designing something that would complement the landscape (ie appointing an architect), they wanted instead to convert the barn in to a massive house. The problem with these Permitted Development rules are that they encourage the laziest, worst quality form of development in the most sensitive, high quality landscapes.
Amusingly someone has just put in a planning application just a few metres down the valley from my vineyard for a huge corrugated iron agricultural barn. They presumably need permission for this because the land is a small paddock, less than a hectare, and in an AONB. I very much doubt it'll be granted.
The neighbours are much aggrieved, and suspicious. Some are convinced it is a trojan horse for a later development into a dwelling, others that this means "travellers" (on account of the name of the person making the application).
I'm staying well out of it, as I do at home when there are planning applications on the road or the mews behind us. (It would though probably help me as precedent in any future application for a cabin / shed / tasting room on my land, and would bring the mains electricity connection a bit closer).
Tories need more like him. Instinctive politicians
I believe you can make such an order if and only if you can prove it was deliberately demolished. His letter rather pathetically skirts round the fact that he knows this perfectly well.
I think we can be fairly sure it was “deliberately demolished” as here is the footage of it being deliberately demolished by a great big JCB, a day after the fire.
This all smacks of panic to me. Someone torched it and was frightened by the massive online reaction which got police and politicians involved, now they’ve kicked off an even bigger reaction
It won’t go away now
Ah OK the JCB may have been a mistake. if they have any sense they will have a surveyor's report after the fire saying JFC this buiding is lethally dangerous and needs demolished asap. BUT the point about the Punch Bowl is that it was listed, this is not. Not even sure they needed to torch it, unless they were getting in quick ahead of a fast track listing application (if such a thing is possible).
The Georgian Group was pursuing a quick listing with the support of locals
You’ve got this wrong. It’s definitely a highly suspicious sequence of events. Which also implicates Marathon’s the brewers
No, you have got me wrong. I think it absolutely stinks, but I think they will get away with it.
Mind you it was a fugly building and I don't feel that its loss hugely diminishes me. If people valued it they should have drunk a lot of beer there on a regular basis, and it would still be a pub.
One of the reasons it became less popular as a pub is that there was strangely sustained campaign of fly-tipping alll around it, making it hard to access and sometimes unpleasant to visit: I actually learned that from Gavin Williamson's Facebook page. And then in recent months it was suspiciously attacked so that its kitchen and loos were almost unusable....
It sounds to me like these last few days have merely been the culmination of a years long process of making it unviable as a pub, so it will be sold, so it can then be torched and demolished, and then someone makes an absolute mint turning it all into housing
And for once we as a nation should say No, fuck that, and put these greedy c*nts in jail, as an example. Sorted
This is what's wrong with this country. The building wasn't listed, if the owners wanted to demolish it, they ought to just be able to send in bulldozers and it should be none of anyone else's business.
We have a chronic shortage of housing in this country and any time anyone suggests building on greenfield land people scream out no, redevelop brownfield instead.
Now there's a plot of brownfield land available for redevelopment and there is outrage at that too.
Which is it? Do you want green land developed? Or "brownfield" which means tearing down old buildings, just like this.
And if you want a pub to stay open, best bet is to go and drink there. Not never go then complain an establishment you never drank at has shut down.
I'm sure your UK would have incredible GDP figures. But it would utterly charmless, and the welfare of the people who live here no better (or even worse).
There does need to be some sort of concerted effort to save pubs, halls. There is a value in social cohesion that doesn't appear on a spreadsheet. For one, it means that you can escape your poxy flat or new build for a few hours.
If you want a concerted effort to save pubs, halls etc, then start by drinking in them. Frequent those establishments and provide them custom.
If you can't be bothered, then don't complain if they go out of business. Put your money where your mouth is and go buy a pint or two. Regularly.
If they had better cycle provision I'd be more likely to buy a pint.
But seriously - I am a regular pub goer and claim to have singlehandedly kept my local pizzeria going during lockdown. I just wish the pints were as cheap as the cans you can buy in Tesco.
Likewise, I love pubs. I am a regular in at least two around me - the Edinboro Castle and the York and Albany - and often stroll to others in Primrose Hill
I visit plenty of pubs further afield. Soho, Hampstead, Highgate, all over London, and I love a country pub, a coastal pub, a historic pub. I even like really down at heel sketchy pubs, they too can have intense character. As @Gardenwalker says, pubs are one of the best things about Britain, and anyone who goes around criminally tearing down 220 year old British pubs with amazing quirks will feel the wrath of many - and rightly
One main reason I haven't drunk in the Crooked House is because I have never been to South Staffs (at least as far as I can recall) so have never had the chance. A stupid argument
I guess the mistske isn't yours then, but that is clearly one pub that needs to be burned down in the interests of Anglo-Scottish relations. Typical North London idiocy.
"The Edinboro Castle is a poncy pub with poncy interior decor and full of poncy people. Somebody else may well say it's a stylish cool pub with stylish cool decor and stylish cool people. So it's horses for courses. But at somepoint - probably when somebody decided to change the name from the "Edinburgh Castle" to the "Edinboro Castle", it became poncy. The other give away is that with their fish & chips (beer battered haddock and "skin-on" chips???) they don't do mushy peas. They do "crushed peas". See what I mean?
... The Edinboro Castle ticks all the "nice" boxes, but I think everything about is poncy, contrived, superficial and self-satisfied. If you're any of those you'll probably quite like it."
Fucking "Nunhead" doesn't even count as London. It's so far south and drearily suburban it's basically Kent or Surrey or Who Cares. I have literally never been to Nunhead and have zero desire to do so. UGH. It makes me want to vomit just thinking about it. NUNHEAD. lol. PUKE
And yours hasn't got a massive beer garden. And it's not in groovy Camden, 2 minutes from Regent's Park
FAIL
It does actually have quite a substantial multi-tiered beer garden. It is two minutes from Telegraph Hill Park, the "new Hampstead Heath" according to the Daily Mail, which of a summer evening throngs with beautiful people (Goldsmiths students and the like). And to be honest Skehans isn't actually in Nunhead, it's in Telegraph Hill and has a New Cross postcode. And it is the best pub in London, and does excellent Thai food, none of your crushed peas and beer battered cod (yawn, so basic). So your loss!
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
Again, I must be unusual here.
Everyone will know how anti-Woke I am (virulently) but I don't think this is a term that should be revived.
I am happy with idiot, moron, pillock and even (sometimes) retard but these ones should rightly stay in the dustbin.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
"Joey" as well
Ah, good old Joey Deacon, the celebrated Blue Peter Spastic, as was.
Terrible really. At some point in the 1990s there must have been a noticeable drop-off in boys who were given that name by their parents.
It was more the early 80s. When I was at school 90% of the insults had Joey in them
Sorry to bite on the trolling bait, but they are horrible terms which have correctly been largely binned off as insults. I for one am quite glad that words for shagging and body parts have become more mainstream and less offensive, as nasty words based on race and disability become much less acceptable.
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
I was born in 1974. I heard it all the time. Pretty horrible looking back. I remember we got called into an assembly when he died and one kid a few years above me got kicked out for laughing. I shudder at the memory.
Given my IRL name is Joe and I'm often called Joey by friends and family, I'd have definitely noticed if it was a term of abuse!
Related but different, I notice the whole stroking-your-chin-to-signify-disbelief thing has died out now - we called that 'chinny reckon' or 'chinny Mandela'.
Yeah, I echo Doug. I was born in 1975 and I'd say that most playground insults were Joey Deacon related. Also, I don't think we necessarily knew there was a real life person with that name that the insults sprang from. At least I remember finding out, and thinking his parents had chosen a name very unwisely.
Afternoon drinking in a proper pub, with the rain falling from dark clouds outside, shop lights reflecting in the puddles, is one of life's great pleasures.
I once spent 13 hours in the same pub, it was brilliant.
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
Again, I must be unusual here.
Everyone will know how anti-Woke I am (virulently) but I don't think this is a term that should be revived.
I am happy with idiot, moron, pillock and even (sometimes) retard but these ones should rightly stay in the dustbin.
It's not a question of woke or not, just common decency.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
If you are going to lose the election, what is the rational course of action?
It’s time BartyBobbins to accept that he has the aesthetic and cultural sense of a spastic frog, and to leave discussions around national heritage to everyone else.
Crass. No doubt people with cerebral palsy are cheered by the fact that there are still some who find their condition an appropriate insult.
Do you know any spastic frogs? Are they easily offended, as a rule?
Even so: best not used, for the reason given.
Suggest 'pithed frog'. What is, or used to be, done to frogs in A level biology etc.
Don’t be so feeble. Spastic, like retarded, is due for a revival.
Nobody knows what pithed means. I still don’t, despite reading your post.
Stick to your guns. Spastic is a brilliant term of abuse because it can be SPAT out with venom. SPASTIC
It is deeply satisfying
It used to be Spaz when I was a kid. We also had Flid and Mong. The cruelty in those terms is quite something.
Again, I must be unusual here.
Everyone will know how anti-Woke I am (virulently) but I don't think this is a term that should be revived.
I am happy with idiot, moron, pillock and even (sometimes) retard but these ones should rightly stay in the dustbin.
It's not a question of woke or not, just common decency.
Afternoon drinking in a proper pub, with the rain falling from dark clouds outside, shop lights reflecting in the puddles, is one of life's great pleasures.
I once spent 13 hours in the same pub, it was brilliant.
That’s a good effort. I always try to find a pub for the last day of the Six Nations, which is usually about eight hours start to finish.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Irony is it would be local occupancy only - but that doesn't solve the problem when they are S106 houses for sale for over £500,000
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
What were the Yorkshire Dales like 2,000 years ago? Every change that has happened since has 'desecrated' the landscape. It is not what it was. It is an 'unnatural' landscape, as is the vast majority of the UK. Why do you want it held in aspic now, with no change ever? Because someone can always call a minor change 'desecration'
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Indeed.
We must keep the countryside exactly as it was. While demanding that immigration runs at a chunk of a percent per year.
The obvious answer is to ship the more problematic excess population overseas. A clearance, as it were.
I love sports cars, not SUVs, but you sort of get funneled into the pragmatics of them when you have 2 or 3 kids and live outside London.
Yes, shock horror, some people do live outside London.
Twenty years ago, my brother and his wife went on holiday to North Wales in his Lotus Elise. At least, he did. His wife drove another car carrying their first child and all the bags...
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Irony is it would be local occupancy only - but that doesn't solve the problem when they are S106 houses for sale for over £500,000
Strangely, if you build enough houses, then people can afford to live in them.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Indeed.
We must keep the countryside exactly as it was. While demanding that immigration runs at a chunk of a percent per year.
The obvious answer is to ship the more problematic excess population overseas. A clearance, as it were.
You’re right, let’s allow every field barn in the Dales to be converted and that’ll absorb the Tory’s current level of net immigration for all of about three hours…
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Irony is it would be local occupancy only - but that doesn't solve the problem when they are S106 houses for sale for over £500,000
Strangely, if you build enough houses, then people can afford to live in them.
Look at rural France.
The houses at that price haven't sold - it was priced for hope over reality....
In the vast majority of cases, to get something like this, the process has to be managed by 'PITA' local planning authority. The issue with PD rights is that the whole idea behind it is that they undermine the control of the local planning authority. It is basically a loophole that was deliberately and knowingly created by the government in the hope that it would be unnoticed as a 'technical' reform.
The most idiotic of all the rules the government created over the past decade was office to residential PD rights, developers ended up building the worst kind of slum housing, ie new housing with no windows, new flats with less than 20m floorspace, etc.
Which did not actually answer the question I asked. Which do you prefer? A pleasing and essentially useless ruin, or something that has amended or updated the structure to give it a modern use? Because so many of our 'timeless' structures have been heavily amended over time.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I was astonished when I read it. Astounded.
That is only (a) a blog (b) a personal comment and (c) a very brief one, not an exhibition. It's more about what one might be missing when looking at the obvious story. It's not even being used for exhibiton labels.
Yet GW and CR regard it as the end of days ...
Similar things can be - and should be, and are - written about poverty, or slavery, or wealth, implicit in museum collections and surviving objects. (For instance, how much a Victorian woman's dress cost, and the implications for those who worked on it.) It's standard social history and nothing new in it.
Four months after arguments over housing asylum seekers on barges began, Britons are now slightly more likely to say such barges are an acceptable form of accommodation
Acceptable: 59% (+9 from April) Unacceptable: 28% (-5)
Afternoon drinking in a proper pub, with the rain falling from dark clouds outside, shop lights reflecting in the puddles, is one of life's great pleasures.
I once spent 13 hours in the same pub, it was brilliant.
Was it 22nd August 1988? When, finally, pubs could stay open all day.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I think you have misunderstood the link, which is to a gay man whose views on "woke" align very closely with Casino's.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I think you have misunderstood the link, which is to a gay man whose views on "woke" align very closely with Casino's.
I think I have understood it well enough. Have you?
Afternoon drinking in a proper pub, with the rain falling from dark clouds outside, shop lights reflecting in the puddles, is one of life's great pleasures.
I once spent 13 hours in the same pub, it was brilliant.
Was it 22nd August 1988? When, finally, pubs could stay open all day.
In England. In Scotland, earlier. 1976. Was always disconcerting to come south and find the doors locked if one wasn't thinking ahead.
I love sports cars, not SUVs, but you sort of get funneled into the pragmatics of them when you have 2 or 3 kids and live outside London.
Yes, shock horror, some people do live outside London.
If our last 3 cars are anything to go by (MPVs and now SUV [I think as I get confused]) the cars seem to get bigger outside but smaller inside. Sadly opposite of a Tardis really.
In the vast majority of cases, to get something like this, the process has to be managed by 'PITA' local planning authority. The issue with PD rights is that the whole idea behind it is that they undermine the control of the local planning authority. It is basically a loophole that was deliberately and knowingly created by the government in the hope that it would be unnoticed as a 'technical' reform.
The most idiotic of all the rules the government created over the past decade was office to residential PD rights, developers ended up building the worst kind of slum housing, ie new housing with no windows, new flats with less than 20m floorspace, etc.
Which did not actually answer the question I asked. Which do you prefer? A pleasing and essentially useless ruin, or something that has amended or updated the structure to give it a modern use? Because so many of our 'timeless' structures have been heavily amended over time.
Look at the Tower of London. No panning permission for most of the changes. Richard III didn’t even file for change of use, before burying people there.
Can imagine what would happen if you tried to build Tower Bridge today?
I love sports cars, not SUVs, but you sort of get funneled into the pragmatics of them when you have 2 or 3 kids and live outside London.
Yes, shock horror, some people do live outside London.
If our last 3 cars are anything to go by (MPVs and now SUV [I think as I get confused]) the cars seem to get bigger outside but smaller inside. Sadly opposite of a Tardis really.
That might be to do with crumple zones and safety. More room to absorb impacts can mean safer (not always...).
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I think you have misunderstood the link, which is to a gay man whose views on "woke" align very closely with Casino's.
I think I have understood it well enough. Have you?
I really don't think you have. Oh look! a bandwagon! Must hop on, I am sure it's going somewhere nice.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Irony is it would be local occupancy only - but that doesn't solve the problem when they are S106 houses for sale for over £500,000
Strangely, if you build enough houses, then people can afford to live in them.
Look at rural France.
The houses at that price haven't sold - it was priced for hope over reality....
The point being that if you build property in line with the population, £500k properties out in the sticks would be manor houses.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Indeed.
We must keep the countryside exactly as it was. While demanding that immigration runs at a chunk of a percent per year.
The obvious answer is to ship the more problematic excess population overseas. A clearance, as it were.
You’re right, let’s allow every field barn in the Dales to be converted and that’ll absorb the Tory’s current level of net immigration for all of about three hours…
Your alternative being a Japanese immigration policy?
In the vast majority of cases, to get something like this, the process has to be managed by 'PITA' local planning authority. The issue with PD rights is that the whole idea behind it is that they undermine the control of the local planning authority. It is basically a loophole that was deliberately and knowingly created by the government in the hope that it would be unnoticed as a 'technical' reform.
The most idiotic of all the rules the government created over the past decade was office to residential PD rights, developers ended up building the worst kind of slum housing, ie new housing with no windows, new flats with less than 20m floorspace, etc.
Which did not actually answer the question I asked. Which do you prefer? A pleasing and essentially useless ruin, or something that has amended or updated the structure to give it a modern use? Because so many of our 'timeless' structures have been heavily amended over time.
Look at the Tower of London. No panning permission for most of the changes. Richard III didn’t even file for change of use, before burying people there.
Can imagine what would happen if you tried to build Tower Bridge today?
I was thinking of the reroofing of Westminster Hall in Richard 2's time. How the locals must have screeched about the desecration of an historic structure...
Incidentally, there was a plan in the 50s or 60s to remove the stonework from Tower Bridge and reclad in glass - the stonework being essentially an unstructural appeasement to Victorian NIMBYs. In that case, they probably got it right...
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I think you have misunderstood the link, which is to a gay man whose views on "woke" align very closely with Casino's.
I think I have understood it well enough. Have you?
I really don't think you have. Oh look! a bandwagon! Must hop on, I am sure it's going somewhere nice.
???
What 'bandwagon' ? I laughed at the link and thought it harmless. Others are getting irate about it.
Amusingly someone has just put in a planning application just a few metres down the valley from my vineyard for a huge corrugated iron agricultural barn. They presumably need permission for this because the land is a small paddock, less than a hectare, and in an AONB. I very much doubt it'll be granted.
The neighbours are much aggrieved, and suspicious. Some are convinced it is a trojan horse for a later development into a dwelling
A Trojan horse in a paddock? Sounds like it's not even a change of use :-)
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I was astonished when I read it. Astounded.
That is only (a) a blog (b) a personal comment and (c) a very brief one, not an exhibition. It's more about what one might be missing when looking at the obvious story. It's not even being used for exhibiton labels.
Yet GW and CR regard it as the end of days ...
Similar things can be - and should be, and are - written about poverty, or slavery, or wealth, implicit in museum collections and surviving objects. (For instance, how much a Victorian woman's dress cost, and the implications for those who worked on it.) It's standard social history and nothing new in it.
Check out this re: The Woke Menace, from noted sporting commentator:
NYT ($) - Trump Cheers the Defeat of Rapinoe and the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team The former president taunted a U.S. team after its defeat on the world stage.
When the United States lost to Sweden in the Women’s World Cup on Sunday, many American viewers saw it as a painful collapse on the grandest stage — the sort of agonizing moment that happens in sports.
For former President Donald J. Trump, it was a sign of national decline.
The loss was “fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform.
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America — No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close,” he added. “WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA.”
The taunt was an extension of a longstanding feud between Mr. Trump and Megan Rapinoe, the retiring soccer star who once refused to visit the Trump White House, and whose missed penalty kick contributed to the team’s loss. . . .
But it was also a striking example of the unforgiving moment in right-wing politics, when a former president will taunt an American team competing on the international stage and relish the agony of its defeat.
SSI - No wonder so many who are obsessed with the Woke Menace are pimping for Trump, Putin, etc.
Do note that #45 is actually working both sides of Woke Street, by mocking Megan Rapinoe for being super-Woke . . . and Ron DeSantis for being super anti-Woke!
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I was astonished when I read it. Astounded.
That is only (a) a blog (b) a personal comment and (c) a very brief one, not an exhibition. It's more about what one might be missing when looking at the obvious story. It's not even being used for exhibiton labels.
Yet GW and CR regard it as the end of days ...
Similar things can be - and should be, and are - written about poverty, or slavery, or wealth, implicit in museum collections and surviving objects. (For instance, how much a Victorian woman's dress cost, and the implications for those who worked on it.) It's standard social history and nothing new in it.
You must remember that there can only ever be one view of history. One perspective. Anything else is utterly wrong and to be shouted at.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
Well I will agree with you (and @Gardenwalker) that it is utterly bonkers, but I don't understand why you think this isn't a modern form of political correctness. It is the same sort of stuff that has always happened in different form or another. I also agree with you that those who do it are probably obsessed about making all sorts of stuff about identity politics and if I got into a discussion with them on it I would probably blow my top, but generally I find it humorous and I don't get angry about it, although I would if it directly impacted me, which may happen, but hasn't yet.
A couple more thoughts on the proposal to develop desecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…
Irony is it would be local occupancy only - but that doesn't solve the problem when they are S106 houses for sale for over £500,000
The conversion for local occupancy only rules are dead easy to get around.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
No, that's all in your head. I just vociferously oppose it.
You get far more angry when this subject comes up than I do.
This farcical update from the Mary Rose museum which uses various objects in its collection to bang on, utterly tangentially, about queer identity and being non-binary.
I keep highlighting the insanity of the Woke mind virus, and being told it's a modern form of political correctness.
It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
The thing is, I find that link *funny*, as I believe it was meant to be. You find it 'woke'.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
I was astonished when I read it. Astounded.
That is only (a) a blog (b) a personal comment and (c) a very brief one, not an exhibition. It's more about what one might be missing when looking at the obvious story. It's not even being used for exhibiton labels.
Yet GW and CR regard it as the end of days ...
Similar things can be - and should be, and are - written about poverty, or slavery, or wealth, implicit in museum collections and surviving objects. (For instance, how much a Victorian woman's dress cost, and the implications for those who worked on it.) It's standard social history and nothing new in it.
Check out this re: The Woke Menace, from noted sporting commentator:
NYT ($) - Trump Cheers the Defeat of Rapinoe and the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team The former president taunted a U.S. team after its defeat on the world stage.
When the United States lost to Sweden in the Women’s World Cup on Sunday, many American viewers saw it as a painful collapse on the grandest stage — the sort of agonizing moment that happens in sports.
For former President Donald J. Trump, it was a sign of national decline.
The loss was “fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform.
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America — No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close,” he added. “WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA.”
The taunt was an extension of a longstanding feud between Mr. Trump and Megan Rapinoe, the retiring soccer star who once refused to visit the Trump White House, and whose missed penalty kick contributed to the team’s loss. . . .
But it was also a striking example of the unforgiving moment in right-wing politics, when a former president will taunt an American team competing on the international stage and relish the agony of its defeat.
SSI - No wonder so many who are obsessed with the Woke Menace are pimping for Trump, Putin, etc.
Do note that #45 is actually working both sides of Woke Street, by mocking Megan Rapinoe for being super-Woke . . . and Ron DeSantis for being super anti-Woke!
Very similar to his tap-dancing re: Ukraine.
Megan Rapinoe represented her country for many years with apparent brilliance and skill. She helped the team she was in win many matches and competitions - she even got the Golden Boot and Golden Ball in 2019.
Yet one missed kick and she's EVIL in the eyes of many I've seen on Twitter.
Let's be honest. It was not about that kick. It's about the fact she's gay and will not quietly and meekly submit.
Instead of congratulating her for her work over the years, and perhaps lamenting that this might have been one tournament to many, she's absolutely slated. By shits.
Comments
It isn't a fraction as bad as some of the things they have been churning out over the last decade though. At one point they passed legislation to allow you to appoint an agent to grant yourself planning permission, circumventing the local planning authority completely. It never got enacted but the primary legislation is still there.
'Hostile actors' gained access to servers of the Electoral Commission
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/08/election-watchdog-cyber-attack-hostile-actors/ (£££)
Nothing to see here. The Electoral Commission is working with the NCSC to lock the stable door, which is the high-tech equivalent of lessons will be learnt.
How you doin'?
The 1990s are not the recent past anymore ...
"Cyber-attack on UK's electoral registers revealed
Published 15 minutes ago"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66441010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGhJr7V-M50
The rules in the Dales are actually very generous - any non-modern roadside barn can be converted - those without road access can't be.
In our village (not in a National Park) you can knock down an existing dwelling and build a new one, and convert a barn to a house in certain circumstances, but that hasn’t led to any new buildings as such; the same number of buildings still exist.
Because the current landscape of the Dales / Lakes / Moors all come from sheep farming. Without that most of the areas would be woodland...
In terms of accessibility, the barn must be ‘roadside’. There is a degree of flexibility here but essentially that means that the site must already be accessible by a standard road vehicle without the need to create new tracks
In the light of this, could you pick out which of the barns in your image this policy actually applies to?
The proposed rules would make all those barns convertible... when the policy at the moment is to leave them as is and where not maintained let them fall into disrepair...
Point of order on 'Joey' He died in 1981, the year I was born, and I never heard the term in the playground once (all the other ones above I certainly did).
As it was:
https://goo.gl/maps/x7Fsa1JUqboAfyuN9
As it is:
https://goo.gl/maps/577dhs6cpRRhtJ6s9
Related but different, I notice the whole stroking-your-chin-to-signify-disbelief thing has died out now - we called that 'chinny reckon' or 'chinny Mandela'.
The most idiotic of all the rules the government created over the past decade was office to residential PD rights, developers ended up building the worst kind of slum housing, ie new housing with no windows, new flats with less than 20m floorspace, etc.
https://www.tcpa.org.uk/resources/these-are-homes-photobook/
Also the yorkshire Dales is a Dark Skies area - so again not allowed for different reasons.
- The Times is anti-Woke and anti-Populist.
- The Guardian is pro-Woke and anti-Populist.
- The Telegraph is anti-Woke and pro-Populist.
Question is what is pro-Woke and pro-Populist..Possibly Socialist Worker or Corbynite stuff?
"By their own account, the islanders were a subdued, poorly educated people who had learnt not to stick their necks out. As in Victorian England, everyone knew their place. When the British soldiers arrived to liberate the islands, they nicknamed the islanders 'Bennies' after Benny, the simple soul in Crossroads. But this caused so much upset that the soldiers were banned from using the term, and instead nicknamed them 'Still' - as in 'Still a Benny'."
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2002/mar/17/features.magazine37
Except, now, rather than being directly based on a form of "ist" they adopt different forms, like someone's physical appearance on social media, personality weaknesses, unfashionable views, their use of language, behaviours, or social skills..
The neighbours are much aggrieved, and suspicious. Some are convinced it is a trojan horse for a later development into a dwelling, others that this means "travellers" (on account of the name of the person making the application).
I'm staying well out of it, as I do at home when there are planning applications on the road or the mews behind us. (It would though probably help me as precedent in any future application for a cabin / shed / tasting room on my land, and would bring the mains electricity connection a bit closer).
And to be honest Skehans isn't actually in Nunhead, it's in Telegraph Hill and has a New Cross postcode.
And it is the best pub in London, and does excellent Thai food, none of your crushed peas and beer battered cod (yawn, so basic). So your loss!
Everyone will know how anti-Woke I am (virulently) but I don't think this is a term that should be revived.
I am happy with idiot, moron, pillock and even (sometimes) retard but these ones should rightly stay in the dustbin.
developdesecrate the Yorkshire Dales… giving free rein to developers to create holiday homes or retirement homes for wealthy outsiders will help neither Julian Smith nor the Conservatives on NYCC to keep their seats… having said that, it will further enrich the landowners that are the bedrock of the Tories in this part of the world…It's not. It's a total obsession with making absolutely everything about identity politics, coupled with moral lectures to be imbibed on top, that are deeply contentious and divisive.
Yes, shock horror, some people do live outside London.
We must keep the countryside exactly as it was. While demanding that immigration runs at a chunk of a percent per year.
The obvious answer is to ship the more problematic excess population overseas. A clearance, as it were.
Look at rural France.
I laugh at (and with) them. You get angry.
That is only (a) a blog (b) a personal comment and (c) a very brief one, not an exhibition. It's more about what one might be missing when looking at the obvious story. It's not even being used for exhibiton labels.
Yet GW and CR regard it as the end of days ...
Similar things can be - and should be, and are - written about poverty, or slavery, or wealth, implicit in museum collections and surviving objects. (For instance, how much a Victorian woman's dress cost, and the implications for those who worked on it.) It's standard social history and nothing new in it.
Four months after arguments over housing asylum seekers on barges began, Britons are now slightly more likely to say such barges are an acceptable form of accommodation
Acceptable: 59% (+9 from April)
Unacceptable: 28% (-5)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/08/08/45727/1
Some listed WW2 aircraft hangers look worse ('worse' being in the eyes of the viewer).
Can imagine what would happen if you tried to build Tower Bridge today?
Incidentally, there was a plan in the 50s or 60s to remove the stonework from Tower Bridge and reclad in glass - the stonework being essentially an unstructural appeasement to Victorian NIMBYs. In that case, they probably got it right...
What 'bandwagon' ? I laughed at the link and thought it harmless. Others are getting irate about it.
NYT ($) - Trump Cheers the Defeat of Rapinoe and the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team
The former president taunted a U.S. team after its defeat on the world stage.
When the United States lost to Sweden in the Women’s World Cup on Sunday, many American viewers saw it as a painful collapse on the grandest stage — the sort of agonizing moment that happens in sports.
For former President Donald J. Trump, it was a sign of national decline.
The loss was “fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media platform.
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America — No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close,” he added. “WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA.”
The taunt was an extension of a longstanding feud between Mr. Trump and Megan Rapinoe, the retiring soccer star who once refused to visit the Trump White House, and whose missed penalty kick contributed to the team’s loss. . . .
But it was also a striking example of the unforgiving moment in right-wing politics, when a former president will taunt an American team competing on the international stage and relish the agony of its defeat.
SSI - No wonder so many who are obsessed with the Woke Menace are pimping for Trump, Putin, etc.
Do note that #45 is actually working both sides of Woke Street, by mocking Megan Rapinoe for being super-Woke . . . and Ron DeSantis for being super anti-Woke!
Very similar to his tap-dancing re: Ukraine.
You get far more angry when this subject comes up than I do.
Yet one missed kick and she's EVIL in the eyes of many I've seen on Twitter.
Let's be honest. It was not about that kick. It's about the fact she's gay and will not quietly and meekly submit.
Instead of congratulating her for her work over the years, and perhaps lamenting that this might have been one tournament to many, she's absolutely slated. By shits.