Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

In the last 13 Westminster by-elections just one has been won by a man – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,152
edited July 2021 in General
imageIn the last 13 Westminster by-elections just one has been won by a man – politicalbetting.com

There have been thirteen Westminster by-elections since December 2016 and an extraordinary fact is that in all but one of them, Stoke Central in February 2017, the winning candidate has been a woman.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Test
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    Some of the personages could've been non-binary :smile:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Fpt
    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Monday, Galloway, the divisive candidate and pro-Palestine campaigner who won more than 8,000 votes in the West Yorkshire constituency, suggested he would stand in Leicester East should there be a byelection there after the trial of Claudia Webbe, the Labour MP turned independent who is facing a harassment charge.

    Meanwhile Apsana Begum, the Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse in east London, faces trial in July on housing fraud charges, which could trigger a byelection if she is found guilty. Census data indicates it had a Muslim population of 33.6% in 2011.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/02/muslim-voters-feeling-unprecedented-discontent-labour-batley-spen

    I suspect we haven’t seen the last of George Galloway.

    Certainly Webbe is a dead loss locally, and will be deselected if not booted out by the courts. She has made no effort at all to reverse her unpopularity locally. For all his faults Keith Vaz knew how to cultivate local popularity.

    There are numbers of Palestinian flags on cars and houses in the constituency, but East Leicester is not Bradford or Bow. The Asian community is more mixed, being Muslim, Sikh and Hindu, and the Muslim part being mostly Gujerati and Somali, so different issues apply.
    In B&S, I thought the local Asian community was half and half Pakistani and Indian. Roughly 10% of each.

    One question is are those Indians Indian Muslim or other religions.

    Data (admittedly based on the 2011 census, but probably still broadly accurate) published by the House of Commons library indicates that the populace of Batley & Spen is 20.2% Asian by ethnicity, and 18.8% Muslim by religion.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063
    edited July 2021

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    I very much doubt whether the Crown has standing to do a CPO.

    However, the real question there is why should Rights be overridden on the whim of some here-today-gone-tomorrow politician or other, just because they want to?

    Where does it stop?

    You need a set of principles underlying your proposition, or we are into appropriation at will by those in power.

    Some of the soft-pedalled principles in the Planning Act 1948 are interesting in this debate - there was quite a lot of nodding towards the nationalisation of control of land, and it has never aiui gone are far as it could.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063
    edited July 2021
    Oh. 7th.

    And what a fascinating insight in the header.

    Thirty years of the "women are always victims; men are always perpetrators" trope?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    Some of the personages could've been non-binary :smile:
    Yes sorry should have thought of that. I'll cancel myself immediately.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Potential upcoming by-elections: potential narratives.

    Poplar & Limehouse - Lab v Galloway
    Leicester East - Lab v Galloway
    Lagan Valley - DUP v UUP v Alliance
    Delyn - Con v Lab
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    I very much doubt whether the Crown has standing to do a CPO.

    However, the real question there is why should Rights be overridden on the whim of some here-today-gone-tomorrow politician or other, just because they want to?

    Where does it stop?
    We could at least start with a freely accessible, central property register.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    edited July 2021
    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

  • TresTres Posts: 2,694
    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    I for one will be celebrating when we elect our first non-binary MP.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
  • TresTres Posts: 2,694
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    I very much doubt whether the Crown has standing to do a CPO.

    However, the real question there is why should Rights be overridden on the whim of some here-today-gone-tomorrow politician or other, just because they want to?

    Where does it stop?
    We could at least start with a freely accessible, central property register.
    That’s what the Land Registry is for - a work in progress but they are digitalising more every year. And it’s freely available
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    I very much doubt whether the Crown has standing to do a CPO.

    However, the real question there is why should Rights be overridden on the whim of some here-today-gone-tomorrow politician or other, just because they want to?

    Where does it stop?
    We could at least start with a freely accessible, central property register.
    We have one accessible at negligible cost, which seems fine. Why should the rest of us subsidise campaigners and developers? The £4 charge seems a good deterrent to me to stop the resource being exploited unnecessarily.

    Given that our registered property (England) is a huge majority of titles, and is compulsory on transfer I think, I'm quite happy.

    How does this work in other countries - does eg France have one?

    I suspect (can't prove) that we are actually very good on that. It is an instructive comparison with Energy Performance Certificates, where we are generally streets ahead of almost everywhere in Europe for accessibility, and have been since they came in.

    Personally my big target for accessibility is Building Regs documents, so the quality of each building is public.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578
    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I think such numbers of parking places "because of climate change" are a national issue, and quite unrealistic, particularly for developments with no public transport. Not least it is harder to charge electric cars. Hence cars parked all over pavements and lawns turned to hardstanding in new developments.

    My parish has a couple of hundred new houses being built at the same time that the bus service was cut to 2 hourly, and the last bus from the city is 1830. There are no cycle paths. Clearly nothing other than cars is viable.

    It is almost as if local people and councils have a better idea about what works locally than rip off developers and national government.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    It can in the public interest by way of compulsory purchase - typically for planning purposes. Or there are various provisions for national security.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Too much land is concentrated in too few hands.
    More visibility of that is necessary.

    My comment about the Somerset foreshore was slightly flippant, but I do believe in a general public right to access the entire coastline.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,694
    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578
    Tres said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    I for one will be celebrating when we elect our first non-binary MP.
    Statistically, there should be a couple. Would Izzard count?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    Exactly. Feudal.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886
    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 6 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    The problem has two elements. First, towns that were barely big enough for the "everyone has a car now" revolution and definitely aren't now households own multiple cars. New estates keep being built where houses are allocated a single parking space plus a garage big enough for a Mini. Some councillors get this is stupid and say so, others cite climate change, either way the planning laws mean they can do little about it.

    Second, people's self-serving sense of entitlement. The only person in the world is them, and if that means acting like a pig-ignorant moron to their neighbours then so what. At the old place the estate didn't have enough parking spaces, but the planners had at least laid it out with regular 90 degree bends to (attempt to) slow traffic down. A row broke out between neighbours across the road from each other.

    Each had a big white van parked half on the pavement (which we all had to do as the street was narrow) which didn't leave enough room. Whose fault it is, who should fuck off with their van etc etc. One tried to get the council involved, then complained to me (as they knew I was in the ruling party and knew the top people) that the council was "useless".

    The problem was the covenants attached to the sale of the plots of land to the freeholders. Several conditions were included, one of which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles (vans were given as example) on the street. Whilst this was hardly enforceable it meant that "can you make them move their van" was met with "you'll have to move yours as well" = "the council are useless".

    As with various other always badly parked vehicles, neighbours managed to persuade both to take a breath and stop competing with each other. The bitterness never stopped - the public highway was THEIRS and they should be able to do what they like on the bit outside THEIR house and screw the rest of you.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    NZ elected its first transsexual MP in 1996.
    U.K. needs to get with the times.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    Dr. Foxy, is that true?

    Six hundred and fifty MPs. How many people do you think are (or statistically would expect to be) non-binary? And do you mean that biologically (genetically), or people who are identifying that way?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063
    edited July 2021
    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    That's really stupid short-sited posturing on the policy imo, unless perhaps it is city. Camden had a no-new-spaces-in-new-developments practice when I was there up to about 2002 iirc, but the Council was run by virtue-signallers. Justifiable in some areas, but not generally.

    At least it will keep house prices down when most people don't want them and the area is unpleasant.

    The route to deal with the neighbour issue is the Community Protection Team at the local council. If such are not faced down, they will treat neighbours as a doormat.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Monday, Galloway, the divisive candidate and pro-Palestine campaigner who won more than 8,000 votes in the West Yorkshire constituency, suggested he would stand in Leicester East should there be a byelection there after the trial of Claudia Webbe, the Labour MP turned independent who is facing a harassment charge.

    Meanwhile Apsana Begum, the Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse in east London, faces trial in July on housing fraud charges, which could trigger a byelection if she is found guilty. Census data indicates it had a Muslim population of 33.6% in 2011.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/02/muslim-voters-feeling-unprecedented-discontent-labour-batley-spen

    I suspect we haven’t seen the last of George Galloway.

    Certainly Webbe is a dead loss locally, and will be deselected if not booted out by the courts. She has made no effort at all to reverse her unpopularity locally. For all his faults Keith Vaz knew how to cultivate local popularity.

    There are numbers of Palestinian flags on cars and houses in the constituency, but East Leicester is not Bradford or Bow. The Asian community is more mixed, being Muslim, Sikh and Hindu, and the Muslim part being mostly Gujerati and Somali, so different issues apply.
    In B&S, I thought the local Asian community was half and half Pakistani and Indian. Roughly 10% of each.

    One question is are those Indians Indian Muslim or other religions.

    Data (admittedly based on the 2011 census, but probably still broadly accurate) published by the House of Commons library indicates that the populace of Batley & Spen is 20.2% Asian by ethnicity, and 18.8% Muslim by religion.
    Worth noting that India is one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet, with around 200 million, so many in B and S could be Indian Muslims.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    darkage said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    It can in the public interest by way of compulsory purchase - typically for planning purposes. Or there are various provisions for national security.
    Sure - but in this case (which is what I was referring to) none of that applies
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I think such numbers of parking places "because of climate change" are a national issue, and quite unrealistic, particularly for developments with no public transport. Not least it is harder to charge electric cars. Hence cars parked all over pavements and lawns turned to hardstanding in new developments.

    My parish has a couple of hundred new houses being built at the same time that the bus service was cut to 2 hourly, and the last bus from the city is 1830. There are no cycle paths. Clearly nothing other than cars is viable.

    It is almost as if local people and councils have a better idea about what works locally than rip off developers and national government.
    In this case the 1 car rule is being initiated by the Council.

    What I can say is that it is quite hard to prove harm in a planning application through excessive on street parking demand arising from new development. It has to really become a safety issue; to run with this you need to prove the amount of cars being parked on the road is contributing to a dangerous situation and that is really difficult. Some London Boroughs have data based on parking surveys, if it is say 90%, then you enter in to a situation where cars are crawling around the roads looking for somewhere to park and this can lead to a heightened risk of collision. But the broader problems - ie quality of life, don't really count for much.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
    Nearly 1000 years ago…
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,856
    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578

    Dr. Foxy, is that true?

    Six hundred and fifty MPs. How many people do you think are (or statistically would expect to be) non-binary? And do you mean that biologically (genetically), or people who are identifying that way?

    Around 0.3% of the population identify as non-binary in population surveys, by self definition.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,639
    Goddammit, hit by the new thread thing yet again…

    FPT:
    Sean_F said:
    ’WRT White Working Class constituencies, if one wants to know why the Conservatives have gained strongly in some and not others, I think much of the answer lies in coal-mining, and its subsequent demise…

    ‘…My view is that these places were actually pretty right wing in outlook for decades, but the voters' economic interests, based on mining, inclined them strongly to Labour. Once mining went, and as over time, people either bought their own homes, and plenty of new houses were built, that historic loyalty to Labour went with it.

    ‘In demographically similar constituencies where coal-mining was not of much importance, or where there were always other signficant sources of employment, one does not see the same shift in allegiances.’


    You could write a dissertation about this subject. Having been born and raised in Yvette Cooper’s constituency, surrounded by (ex-)mining communities and (ex-)miners, here’s my brief take…

    You make a good point that these places have always been small-c conservative. Very socially conservative. But the strong trade union movement led people to vote Labour - as you say it suited their economic interests.

    There are many factors why that knee jerk Labour support is eroding but if I were to try and sum it up quickly I would say it boils down to demographics. These communities are chock full of old people. If you go into Pontefract it is full of pensioners. It feels like a sleepy town. These pensioners were raised on a diet of war films and the Empire. I have heard more than one person say ‘We should never have got rid of the Empire’.

    You go into Leeds and it is full of young people. I’m only in my 40s and walking around Leeds I think to myself ‘Christ, everyone’s young!’ Leeds feels like the future.

    Young people from round here, if they have the means or opportunity to, generally move away as soon as they can. I certainly did. I came back in my late 20s for what I intended to be for a few months, but then life happened and I ended up staying. I don’t mind, I went to uni, broadened my outlook, got educated, had my 20s in more exciting places. Once you want a quieter life, this is a nice place to live.

    But most of those who leave don’t come back.

    So we have aging, socially conservative populations in these places who don’t like change, don’t like foreigners, want everything to stay the same. The more liberal, progressive types generally move elsewhere.

    Now they’re chucking up houses round here. We will be a dormitory town for Leeds. How that plays out in terms of voting will be interesting to watch. Will it bring more young, liberal types who simply can’t afford to live in Leeds who will be centrist or left-leaning? Or will, by the very act of buying a house, they become more inclined to vote Tory as they get older and move out of the city?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063
    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I expect that that criteria will be pithed or mitigated in the LP approval process.

    Are they signalling to their local green nimbies, like a political-no on a Planning Application that they know will pass at Appeal?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,856

    Potential upcoming by-elections: potential narratives.

    Poplar & Limehouse - Lab v Galloway
    Leicester East - Lab v Galloway
    Lagan Valley - DUP v UUP v Alliance
    Delyn - Con v Lab

    ....and I think Bill Cash was looking a bit peaky.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578
    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
  • Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
    Nearly 1000 years ago…
    Bloody foreigners.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,639
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    Yep that thought had occurred to me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    Dr. Foxy, that'd put it at around 2, if one goes by averages.

    But self-identifying doesn't alter one's genetics. There's also the strong possibility they're mostly younger, whereas MPs are mostly older.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578

    Dr. Foxy, that'd put it at around 2, if one goes by averages.

    But self-identifying doesn't alter one's genetics. There's also the strong possibility they're mostly younger, whereas MPs are mostly older.

    Being nonbinary is not an issue of genetics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063
    edited July 2021
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I think such numbers of parking places "because of climate change" are a national issue, and quite unrealistic, particularly for developments with no public transport. Not least it is harder to charge electric cars. Hence cars parked all over pavements and lawns turned to hardstanding in new developments.

    My parish has a couple of hundred new houses being built at the same time that the bus service was cut to 2 hourly, and the last bus from the city is 1830. There are no cycle paths. Clearly nothing other than cars is viable.

    It is almost as if local people and councils have a better idea about what works locally than rip off developers and national government.
    In this case the 1 car rule is being initiated by the Council.

    What I can say is that it is quite hard to prove harm in a planning application through excessive on street parking demand arising from new development. It has to really become a safety issue; to run with this you need to prove the amount of cars being parked on the road is contributing to a dangerous situation and that is really difficult. Some London Boroughs have data based on parking surveys, if it is say 90%, then you enter in to a situation where cars are crawling around the roads looking for somewhere to park and this can lead to a heightened risk of collision. But the broader problems - ie quality of life, don't really count for much.
    I would expect that to be reasonably easy to demonstrate - there are figures available by area, plus the housing mix on the development should be known (?)

    Perhaps the way to argue it would be disability discrimination. That's usually the easiest way to get unsatisfactory anti-cycling barriers off cycle paths.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578
    edited July 2021

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    Yep that thought had occurred to me.
    I think the private life of a journalist is of marginal public interest. That of a prominent cabinet minister more so, particularly with the bungs, jobs for sexual partners and casual hypocrisy of other cabinet ministers.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,487

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 6 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    The problem has two elements. First, towns that were barely big enough for the "everyone has a car now" revolution and definitely aren't now households own multiple cars. New estates keep being built where houses are allocated a single parking space plus a garage big enough for a Mini. Some councillors get this is stupid and say so, others cite climate change, either way the planning laws mean they can do little about it.

    Second, people's self-serving sense of entitlement. The only person in the world is them, and if that means acting like a pig-ignorant moron to their neighbours then so what. At the old place the estate didn't have enough parking spaces, but the planners had at least laid it out with regular 90 degree bends to (attempt to) slow traffic down. A row broke out between neighbours across the road from each other.

    Each had a big white van parked half on the pavement (which we all had to do as the street was narrow) which didn't leave enough room. Whose fault it is, who should fuck off with their van etc etc. One tried to get the council involved, then complained to me (as they knew I was in the ruling party and knew the top people) that the council was "useless".

    The problem was the covenants attached to the sale of the plots of land to the freeholders. Several conditions were included, one of which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles (vans were given as example) on the street. Whilst this was hardly enforceable it meant that "can you make them move their van" was met with "you'll have to move yours as well" = "the council are useless".

    As with various other always badly parked vehicles, neighbours managed to persuade both to take a breath and stop competing with each other. The bitterness never stopped - the public highway was THEIRS and they should be able to do what they like on the bit outside THEIR house and screw the rest of you.
    Covenants on new builds are weird. For instance, in our 'village', we are not allowed caravans outside our houses - and the builders provided a small, secure, caravan park for them to be parked up in. Except it was too small to begin with, and never expanded as the council kept on allowing more houses.

    Likewise, we were not allowed satellite dishes, as we would all have cable. And the houses built in the first few years did - before the company went bust and loads of houses were built without cable. I've never heard of the no-satellite-dishes rule being enforced. ;)

    Building standards are also really lax. I've been saying this on here for years, and had people saying they were not that bad. Then Grenfell happened. We see cases of houses with poor insulation, wall cracks, subsidence, flooding gardens. They're not terribly built, but they're not brilliant, either.

    The government and councils need to understand that it is absolutely fine introducing new standards, rules and levies - e.g. on energy efficiency. But they're pointless unless those standards are robustly checked, and that costs money. Likewise, they need to think more of the lived environment, and throwing more houses onto smaller plots may not be an ideal way forward.

    Sadly, though, checks and large plots all cost money, and drive up the prices of new builds. So we're in a race to the bottom.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    MattW said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I expect that that criteria will be pithed or mitigated in the LP approval process.

    Are they signalling to their local green nimbies, like a political-no on a Planning Application that they know will pass at Appeal?
    Who know. However, the most likely explanation is municipal ignorance.
    With regard to nimbies, their biggest complaint people have is often about parking, so putting in a limit of 1 space will not go down well with these people.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    Dr. Foxy, hmm.

    I have to admit, I don't get that at all. There's nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or a chap who does things mostly associated with women (I sewed up some loose seams on a t-shirt the other day...). If people choose to identify that way then bully for them, but it just seems a bit pointless to me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,761
    Weird and interesting.

    When I was in hospital recently it was very noticeable that women now seem to dominate the medical profession. There were several young female doctors for every male and of course a preponderance of nurses were female (possibly some uptick in the number of males there?) Such men as were about tended to be more senior, at consultant level. The bevy of young doctors following the consultants about on their ward rounds contained a token male but no more.

    Is it possible that our politics might go the same way? In the next PM stakes I think I would go for Liz Truss at the moment, even ahead of Rishi.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    F1: no thunderstorms forecast any more (well, there are some possible where I live but not where the race will be). Bit of a shame, but Mercedes may have improved and softer tyres could alter things too.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    Mr. L, Truss is 26 on Betfair, Sunak just 4.

    Already backed both and hedged so not inclined to dabble any more.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063

    Goddammit, hit by the new thread thing yet again…

    FPT:
    Sean_F said:
    ’WRT White Working Class constituencies, if one wants to know why the Conservatives have gained strongly in some and not others, I think much of the answer lies in coal-mining, and its subsequent demise…

    ‘…My view is that these places were actually pretty right wing in outlook for decades, but the voters' economic interests, based on mining, inclined them strongly to Labour. Once mining went, and as over time, people either bought their own homes, and plenty of new houses were built, that historic loyalty to Labour went with it.

    ‘In demographically similar constituencies where coal-mining was not of much importance, or where there were always other signficant sources of employment, one does not see the same shift in allegiances.’


    You could write a dissertation about this subject. Having been born and raised in Yvette Cooper’s constituency, surrounded by (ex-)mining communities and (ex-)miners, here’s my brief take…

    You make a good point that these places have always been small-c conservative. Very socially conservative. But the strong trade union movement led people to vote Labour - as you say it suited their economic interests.

    There are many factors why that knee jerk Labour support is eroding but if I were to try and sum it up quickly I would say it boils down to demographics. These communities are chock full of old people. If you go into Pontefract it is full of pensioners. It feels like a sleepy town. These pensioners were raised on a diet of war films and the Empire. I have heard more than one person say ‘We should never have got rid of the Empire’.

    You go into Leeds and it is full of young people. I’m only in my 40s and walking around Leeds I think to myself ‘Christ, everyone’s young!’ Leeds feels like the future.

    Young people from round here, if they have the means or opportunity to, generally move away as soon as they can. I certainly did. I came back in my late 20s for what I intended to be for a few months, but then life happened and I ended up staying. I don’t mind, I went to uni, broadened my outlook, got educated, had my 20s in more exciting places. Once you want a quieter life, this is a nice place to live.

    But most of those who leave don’t come back.

    So we have aging, socially conservative populations in these places who don’t like change, don’t like foreigners, want everything to stay the same. The more liberal, progressive types generally move elsewhere.

    Now they’re chucking up houses round here. We will be a dormitory town for Leeds. How that plays out in terms of voting will be interesting to watch. Will it bring more young, liberal types who simply can’t afford to live in Leeds who will be centrist or left-leaning? Or will, by the very act of buying a house, they become more inclined to vote Tory as they get older and move out of the city?

    One extra note - of course miners were very well paid, and could all afford their houses, which is potentially a Tory time bomb.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578

    Dr. Foxy, hmm.

    I have to admit, I don't get that at all. There's nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or a chap who does things mostly associated with women (I sewed up some loose seams on a t-shirt the other day...). If people choose to identify that way then bully for them, but it just seems a bit pointless to me.

    Yes, I think there is a lot of stereotyping of what a man or woman should be like, and in many ways worsening. Look at how gendered children's toys and clothes are for example.

    But just because gender identity doesn't matter much to me or you doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to others. There are some folk obsessed by politics, ancient wars and formula 1 for example, which others find boring or irrelevant.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true?

    Six hundred and fifty MPs. How many people do you think are (or statistically would expect to be) non-binary? And do you mean that biologically (genetically), or people who are identifying that way?

    Around 0.3% of the population identify as non-binary in population surveys, by self definition.
    Don't a similar percentage self-report being decapitated in surveys too?

    If a population is as low as 0.3% in a survey then I'd think the true percentage would be much lower since the error of people ticking a box for shits and giggles rather than being honest grows.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,626
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    Yep that thought had occurred to me.
    I think the private life of a journalist is of marginal public interest. That of a prominent cabinet minister more so, particularly with the bungs, jobs for sexual partners and casual hypocrisy of other cabinet ministers.
    I'm afraid her private life is very very relevant. For the simple reason that her husband is one of the most senior ministers in a government that has used the state to intervene in all our private lives in a way that was utterly unthinkable just two years ago. What he has been doing and who he lived with during this period is now very relevant.

    What you reap you sow imho.

    Remember Ferguson saying SAGE didn't believe people would stand for the restrictions they were talking about in a free society?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,530
    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    Well.....


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,578
    DavidL said:

    Weird and interesting.

    When I was in hospital recently it was very noticeable that women now seem to dominate the medical profession. There were several young female doctors for every male and of course a preponderance of nurses were female (possibly some uptick in the number of males there?) Such men as were about tended to be more senior, at consultant level. The bevy of young doctors following the consultants about on their ward rounds contained a token male but no more.

    Is it possible that our politics might go the same way? In the next PM stakes I think I would go for Liz Truss at the moment, even ahead of Rishi.

    Around 65% of my Medical School intake are female, and has been so for decades now. It does vary significantly by speciality though where they wind up. Orthopedics is a male bastion still, for example.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,353
    .

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
    Nearly 1000 years ago…
    Bloody foreigners.
    Indeed, I have a purity of Celtic heritage that pre dates all the invaders.

    I stake my claim!
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,027
    Off topic but.. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e24110dd-aed2-4122-8d22-600edae889a7

    London will always find a way I guess..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,758
    Dr. Foxy, aye. But liking a particular sport or period of history is fundamentally different to claiming you don't belong to either gender in vague and strange ways.

    Ironically, perhaps, I strongly agree with you on sexual stereotypes, to the extent that some people now think if a chap's into sewing or a girl's into engineering then they're 'really' the other sex.

    I'd support the right of a knowing adult to transition, though once again that's beyond me, but marketing this stuff to kids is deeply disturbing, as is the degradation of women's sport and having rapists sent to women's prison when they choose to identify that way.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,063

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 6 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    The problem has two elements. First, towns that were barely big enough for the "everyone has a car now" revolution and definitely aren't now households own multiple cars. New estates keep being built where houses are allocated a single parking space plus a garage big enough for a Mini. Some councillors get this is stupid and say so, others cite climate change, either way the planning laws mean they can do little about it.

    Second, people's self-serving sense of entitlement. The only person in the world is them, and if that means acting like a pig-ignorant moron to their neighbours then so what. At the old place the estate didn't have enough parking spaces, but the planners had at least laid it out with regular 90 degree bends to (attempt to) slow traffic down. A row broke out between neighbours across the road from each other.

    Each had a big white van parked half on the pavement (which we all had to do as the street was narrow) which didn't leave enough room. Whose fault it is, who should fuck off with their van etc etc. One tried to get the council involved, then complained to me (as they knew I was in the ruling party and knew the top people) that the council was "useless".

    The problem was the covenants attached to the sale of the plots of land to the freeholders. Several conditions were included, one of which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles (vans were given as example) on the street. Whilst this was hardly enforceable it meant that "can you make them move their van" was met with "you'll have to move yours as well" = "the council are useless".

    As with various other always badly parked vehicles, neighbours managed to persuade both to take a breath and stop competing with each other. The bitterness never stopped - the public highway was THEIRS and they should be able to do what they like on the bit outside THEIR house and screw the rest of you.
    Covenants on new builds are weird. For instance, in our 'village', we are not allowed caravans outside our houses - and the builders provided a small, secure, caravan park for them to be parked up in. Except it was too small to begin with, and never expanded as the council kept on allowing more houses.

    Likewise, we were not allowed satellite dishes, as we would all have cable. And the houses built in the first few years did - before the company went bust and loads of houses were built without cable. I've never heard of the no-satellite-dishes rule being enforced. ;)

    Building standards are also really lax. I've been saying this on here for years, and had people saying they were not that bad. Then Grenfell happened. We see cases of houses with poor insulation, wall cracks, subsidence, flooding gardens. They're not terribly built, but they're not brilliant, either.

    The government and councils need to understand that it is absolutely fine introducing new standards, rules and levies - e.g. on energy efficiency. But they're pointless unless those standards are robustly checked, and that costs money. Likewise, they need to think more of the lived environment, and throwing more houses onto smaller plots may not be an ideal way forward.

    Sadly, though, checks and large plots all cost money, and drive up the prices of new builds. So we're in a race to the bottom.
    The 'checks' issue is partly to do with normal Building Regs inspections being on a sample basis, and maybe to do with Private Building Regs services being available.

    My remedy would be more thorough inspections, and all the docs to be public for every house.

    For the individual, it is a professional snagging service.

    30s Estates around London are a great example of what happens with car provision - places like Surbiton. They were built for "Morris Motor Houses" and Austin 7s. And the kerbs are really, really horrible.

    Not fit for Plonker-Tonkas, and regulations that force anyone who may transport 4 children to get a 7-seater.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,927

    Dr. Foxy, hmm.

    I have to admit, I don't get that at all. There's nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or a chap who does things mostly associated with women (I sewed up some loose seams on a t-shirt the other day...). If people choose to identify that way then bully for them, but it just seems a bit pointless to me.

    This may come as a bit of a shock to you but some people consider F1 a vast, pointless exercise..
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,856
    Sarah Vine has asked for privacy.

    It just gets funnier!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,955
    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, that'd put it at around 2, if one goes by averages.

    But self-identifying doesn't alter one's genetics. There's also the strong possibility they're mostly younger, whereas MPs are mostly older.

    Being nonbinary is not an issue of genetics.
    There are some heated debates about that.
    I don’t think there’s sufficient current knowledge to settle that either way, but I’d be very surprised if there is no genetic influence.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,963

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
    So why do you read it
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,530

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
    So why do you read it
    Same reason you watch Sky News and complain about it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,098
    Roger said:

    Sarah Vine has asked for privacy.

    It just gets funnier!

    With a love life like his, no wonder Hugh Grant wants to silence the press
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 6 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    The problem has two elements. First, towns that were barely big enough for the "everyone has a car now" revolution and definitely aren't now households own multiple cars. New estates keep being built where houses are allocated a single parking space plus a garage big enough for a Mini. Some councillors get this is stupid and say so, others cite climate change, either way the planning laws mean they can do little about it.

    Second, people's self-serving sense of entitlement. The only person in the world is them, and if that means acting like a pig-ignorant moron to their neighbours then so what. At the old place the estate didn't have enough parking spaces, but the planners had at least laid it out with regular 90 degree bends to (attempt to) slow traffic down. A row broke out between neighbours across the road from each other.

    Each had a big white van parked half on the pavement (which we all had to do as the street was narrow) which didn't leave enough room. Whose fault it is, who should fuck off with their van etc etc. One tried to get the council involved, then complained to me (as they knew I was in the ruling party and knew the top people) that the council was "useless".

    The problem was the covenants attached to the sale of the plots of land to the freeholders. Several conditions were included, one of which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles (vans were given as example) on the street. Whilst this was hardly enforceable it meant that "can you make them move their van" was met with "you'll have to move yours as well" = "the council are useless".

    As with various other always badly parked vehicles, neighbours managed to persuade both to take a breath and stop competing with each other. The bitterness never stopped - the public highway was THEIRS and they should be able to do what they like on the bit outside THEIR house and screw the rest of you.
    Covenants on new builds are weird. For instance, in our 'village', we are not allowed caravans outside our houses - and the builders provided a small, secure, caravan park for them to be parked up in. Except it was too small to begin with, and never expanded as the council kept on allowing more houses.

    Likewise, we were not allowed satellite dishes, as we would all have cable. And the houses built in the first few years did - before the company went bust and loads of houses were built without cable. I've never heard of the no-satellite-dishes rule being enforced. ;)

    Building standards are also really lax. I've been saying this on here for years, and had people saying they were not that bad. Then Grenfell happened. We see cases of houses with poor insulation, wall cracks, subsidence, flooding gardens. They're not terribly built, but they're not brilliant, either.

    The government and councils need to understand that it is absolutely fine introducing new standards, rules and levies - e.g. on energy efficiency. But they're pointless unless those standards are robustly checked, and that costs money. Likewise, they need to think more of the lived environment, and throwing more houses onto smaller plots may not be an ideal way forward.

    Sadly, though, checks and large plots all cost money, and drive up the prices of new builds. So we're in a race to the bottom.
    Yes, we also had a no satellite dishes covenant. Pretty much every single house had a dish. Some had two.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    You can’t move in Hackney for various trans-, queer and asexual self-identifiers.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    We would be taking back control from foreign invaders.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Some absurd stories on Twitter about Gove.
    It is rainbow month and we should be more relaxed about these things.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,723
    Waiting in a pretty long queue with my wife for her second Moderna jab. Wait time of around 2h at the moment and the queue is getting longer. It's surely time for the government to remove the 12 and 8 week restrictions for Pfizer and Moderna people. Let people book themselves in as early as they can get an appointment.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,735
    MattW said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I think such numbers of parking places "because of climate change" are a national issue, and quite unrealistic, particularly for developments with no public transport. Not least it is harder to charge electric cars. Hence cars parked all over pavements and lawns turned to hardstanding in new developments.

    My parish has a couple of hundred new houses being built at the same time that the bus service was cut to 2 hourly, and the last bus from the city is 1830. There are no cycle paths. Clearly nothing other than cars is viable.

    It is almost as if local people and councils have a better idea about what works locally than rip off developers and national government.
    In this case the 1 car rule is being initiated by the Council.

    What I can say is that it is quite hard to prove harm in a planning application through excessive on street parking demand arising from new development. It has to really become a safety issue; to run with this you need to prove the amount of cars being parked on the road is contributing to a dangerous situation and that is really difficult. Some London Boroughs have data based on parking surveys, if it is say 90%, then you enter in to a situation where cars are crawling around the roads looking for somewhere to park and this can lead to a heightened risk of collision. But the broader problems - ie quality of life, don't really count for much.
    I would expect that to be reasonably easy to demonstrate - there are figures available by area, plus the housing mix on the development should be known (?)

    Perhaps the way to argue it would be disability discrimination. That's usually the easiest way to get unsatisfactory anti-cycling barriers off cycle paths.
    In Japan, in order to buy a car you need to be able to prove you have somewhere to park it. And so the streets and pavements are less cluttered. Though it obviously raises the bar quite high for car ownership in a densely populated island.

    One vision of the very near future which I am attracted by, if not totally sold on, is that no-one owns cars. If you want to go somewhere by road, you order a car as you would an user: a few minutes later, it turns up, you get in, and off you go. The problem of parking spaces becomes a thing of the past. This would be a far cheaper model than car ownership, which is an inefficient use of assets - thus would happen organically rather than needing enforcement; you could still choose to own a car if you want to - and would also be a better use of urban space.
    It would need autonomous vehicle technology to work properly.
    It would also mean no longer using the boot of my car as a sort of store room for random objects.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,886

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
    So why do you read it
    I don't. I noted its existence in a profit-making newspaper which means that the people paying their dollah to the Heil want to read it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    MaxPB said:

    Waiting in a pretty long queue with my wife for her second Moderna jab. Wait time of around 2h at the moment and the queue is getting longer. It's surely time for the government to remove the 12 and 8 week restrictions for Pfizer and Moderna people. Let people book themselves in as early as they can get an appointment.

    I’m in the 15 min cool off now. Islington.
    Walked into the Design Centre at 9:05, jabbed at 9:10.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,353
    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    Sarah Vine has asked for privacy.

    It just gets funnier!

    With a love life like his, no wonder Hugh Grant wants to silence the press
    Indeed, her glass house no longer has any glass.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,021
    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true?

    Six hundred and fifty MPs. How many people do you think are (or statistically would expect to be) non-binary? And do you mean that biologically (genetically), or people who are identifying that way?

    Around 0.3% of the population identify as non-binary in population surveys, by self definition.
    I wonder how many of that actually are, or just don't understand the question or are taking the piss or something? When you get very low numbers like that, even a small percentage of such people can affect the results significantly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,723
    edited July 2021

    MaxPB said:

    Waiting in a pretty long queue with my wife for her second Moderna jab. Wait time of around 2h at the moment and the queue is getting longer. It's surely time for the government to remove the 12 and 8 week restrictions for Pfizer and Moderna people. Let people book themselves in as early as they can get an appointment.

    I’m in the 15 min cool off now. Islington.
    Walked into the Design Centre at 9:05, jabbed at 9:10.
    Is that doing Moderna? Because that was my experience with Pfizer. There's loads more places doing it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Waiting in a pretty long queue with my wife for her second Moderna jab. Wait time of around 2h at the moment and the queue is getting longer. It's surely time for the government to remove the 12 and 8 week restrictions for Pfizer and Moderna people. Let people book themselves in as early as they can get an appointment.

    I’m in the 15 min cool off now. Islington.
    Walked into the Design Centre at 9:05, jabbed at 9:10.
    Is that doing Moderna? Because that was my experience with Pfizer. There's loads more places doing it.
    Yeh, Moderna. I actually asked why there were no queues...
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,735

    Dr. Foxy, hmm.

    I have to admit, I don't get that at all. There's nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or a chap who does things mostly associated with women (I sewed up some loose seams on a t-shirt the other day...). If people choose to identify that way then bully for them, but it just seems a bit pointless to me.

    Yes, I agree. The trans lobby preach diversity, but seem to believe there are exactly two personalities: stereotype man and stereotype woman. Neither of these personalities are actually terribly attractive.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,963
    Good morning

    Good news headlines this morning


    London reclaims Europe's share trading crown from Amsterdam (FT)

    Vauxhall to build electric van at Ellesmere Port safeguarding 1,000 factory jobs (BBC)

    Merkel and Boris agree to resolve the issues in the Northern Ireland Protocol (Euro news)
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,021

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 6 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    The problem has two elements. First, towns that were barely big enough for the "everyone has a car now" revolution and definitely aren't now households own multiple cars. New estates keep being built where houses are allocated a single parking space plus a garage big enough for a Mini. Some councillors get this is stupid and say so, others cite climate change, either way the planning laws mean they can do little about it.

    Second, people's self-serving sense of entitlement. The only person in the world is them, and if that means acting like a pig-ignorant moron to their neighbours then so what. At the old place the estate didn't have enough parking spaces, but the planners had at least laid it out with regular 90 degree bends to (attempt to) slow traffic down. A row broke out between neighbours across the road from each other.

    Each had a big white van parked half on the pavement (which we all had to do as the street was narrow) which didn't leave enough room. Whose fault it is, who should fuck off with their van etc etc. One tried to get the council involved, then complained to me (as they knew I was in the ruling party and knew the top people) that the council was "useless".

    The problem was the covenants attached to the sale of the plots of land to the freeholders. Several conditions were included, one of which prohibited the parking of commercial vehicles (vans were given as example) on the street. Whilst this was hardly enforceable it meant that "can you make them move their van" was met with "you'll have to move yours as well" = "the council are useless".

    As with various other always badly parked vehicles, neighbours managed to persuade both to take a breath and stop competing with each other. The bitterness never stopped - the public highway was THEIRS and they should be able to do what they like on the bit outside THEIR house and screw the rest of you.
    Covenants on new builds are weird. For instance, in our 'village', we are not allowed caravans outside our houses - and the builders provided a small, secure, caravan park for them to be parked up in. Except it was too small to begin with, and never expanded as the council kept on allowing more houses.

    Likewise, we were not allowed satellite dishes, as we would all have cable. And the houses built in the first few years did - before the company went bust and loads of houses were built without cable. I've never heard of the no-satellite-dishes rule being enforced. ;)

    Building standards are also really lax. I've been saying this on here for years, and had people saying they were not that bad. Then Grenfell happened. We see cases of houses with poor insulation, wall cracks, subsidence, flooding gardens. They're not terribly built, but they're not brilliant, either.

    The government and councils need to understand that it is absolutely fine introducing new standards, rules and levies - e.g. on energy efficiency. But they're pointless unless those standards are robustly checked, and that costs money. Likewise, they need to think more of the lived environment, and throwing more houses onto smaller plots may not be an ideal way forward.

    Sadly, though, checks and large plots all cost money, and drive up the prices of new builds. So we're in a race to the bottom.
    Yes when the people who build the houses aren't the ones who are going to live in them, quality inevitably suffers. Too bad we do virtually no self-build in GB.

    That's one thing I'll change at once in my future stint as dictator.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,723
    edited July 2021

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Waiting in a pretty long queue with my wife for her second Moderna jab. Wait time of around 2h at the moment and the queue is getting longer. It's surely time for the government to remove the 12 and 8 week restrictions for Pfizer and Moderna people. Let people book themselves in as early as they can get an appointment.

    I’m in the 15 min cool off now. Islington.
    Walked into the Design Centre at 9:05, jabbed at 9:10.
    Is that doing Moderna? Because that was my experience with Pfizer. There's loads more places doing it.
    Yeh, Moderna. I actually asked why there were no queues...
    Because it's not been properly advertised. Ridiculous. If we'd known we would have just gone there, it's closer than here.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,319

    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    Well.....


    That penguin is death - the other 500 nesting penguins left as quickly as they could waddle while carrying an egg.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,963

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
    So why do you read it
    I don't. I noted its existence in a profit-making newspaper which means that the people paying their dollah to the Heil want to read it.
    If you do not read it how do you know the content
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,963
    edited July 2021

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    The old Spanish saying;

    "If you sit by the river long enough the body of your enemy will come floating by' must be bringing a smile to Mr and Mrs Ed Miliband this morning.

    After Ms Sarah Vine's very personal attacks on Justine Thornton during the 2015 General Election even Michael Portillo was moved to say;

    "Newspapers want you to write that vile stuff? That lady has done nothing wrong in life apart from she happens to be married to the leader of the opposition. To compare her to an alien is in my view not justified."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/15/daily-mails-sarah-vine_n_7069346.html

    (An alien when she's married to Gove?)

    Sarah Vine asking for privacy for her marriage breakdown rather takes some chutzpah, as someone who has earned a good living stirring up trouble in other people's marriages.
    No no, its not hypocrisy. The people she wrote about were peons! Don't we know who she is (or soon, was)? Anyway, Daily Heil readers love to objectify people so that they can pull them apart, the newspaper is full of it.
    So why do you read it
    Same reason you watch Sky News and complain about it?
    Actually I have switched to BBC and do not have Sky streaming in my lounge

    Also he says he does not read it
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,021

    Dr. Foxy, hmm.

    I have to admit, I don't get that at all. There's nothing wrong with being a tomboy, or a chap who does things mostly associated with women (I sewed up some loose seams on a t-shirt the other day...). If people choose to identify that way then bully for them, but it just seems a bit pointless to me.

    This may come as a bit of a shock to you but some people consider F1 a vast, pointless exercise..
    Like basically all professional sports.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,498
    On topic.
    By-elections are characterised by negative campaigning.
    It is harder to "go negative" on a female candidate without looking like a dick.
    We are not yet in a post-feminist world where "gallantry" is not a thing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,404
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Car parking spaces are a big thing in our village. One of my elderly near neighbours came to my door twice a while back, asking for help/support. Once he even brought legal documents/maps with him. His house has one driveway space, and another space allocated in a shared car park. His next-door neighbour's house is large, and contains five adults (two adults, three young adults). And (I think!) six cars, as one of the lads is into his fast cars. (All from memory; I'm keeping out of it, aside from suggesting he talk to the council.)

    The neighbours use his parking space in the shared car park, including storing a dishevelled non-runner in it. His documents show clearly they 'belong' to him (the actual land ownership is a very different matter). It's all got very messy, and sometimes nasty. They sometimes park on the pavement directly in front of his house, blocking it (which annoyed me when I had to use a pram.)

    It will get much more common with time as the horde of kids in our young village grow up and get cars.

    IMV six cars for a four/five bedroom house with two parking spaces, in a built-up area, is a tad unreasonable. If you want that many cars, buy a house with more land ...
    Our local council have decided to introduce a maximum provision of 1 car parking space per house in their draft local plan, supposedly to tackle climate change. This is despite the Councillors all driving to work, so they are probably 2+ car households; and the Council itself requiring that most of its staff are car users, in the interests of efficiency (although it is a small local authority, and there would be no real difficulty in getting around by e-bike at 15 mph.

    Parking is becoming a significant problem and it isn't helped by the situation you describe. The family over the road from where I am writing has 7 cars - two sports cars, a land cruiser parked on the road, a large saloon, 2 cars for the kids, and a van - for which they have 3 parking spaces.

    I think such numbers of parking places "because of climate change" are a national issue, and quite unrealistic, particularly for developments with no public transport. Not least it is harder to charge electric cars. Hence cars parked all over pavements and lawns turned to hardstanding in new developments.

    My parish has a couple of hundred new houses being built at the same time that the bus service was cut to 2 hourly, and the last bus from the city is 1830. There are no cycle paths. Clearly nothing other than cars is viable.

    It is almost as if local people and councils have a better idea about what works locally than rip off developers and national government.
    In this case the 1 car rule is being initiated by the Council.

    What I can say is that it is quite hard to prove harm in a planning application through excessive on street parking demand arising from new development. It has to really become a safety issue; to run with this you need to prove the amount of cars being parked on the road is contributing to a dangerous situation and that is really difficult. Some London Boroughs have data based on parking surveys, if it is say 90%, then you enter in to a situation where cars are crawling around the roads looking for somewhere to park and this can lead to a heightened risk of collision. But the broader problems - ie quality of life, don't really count for much.
    I would expect that to be reasonably easy to demonstrate - there are figures available by area, plus the housing mix on the development should be known (?)

    Perhaps the way to argue it would be disability discrimination. That's usually the easiest way to get unsatisfactory anti-cycling barriers off cycle paths.
    In Japan, in order to buy a car you need to be able to prove you have somewhere to park it. And so the streets and pavements are less cluttered. Though it obviously raises the bar quite high for car ownership in a densely populated island.

    One vision of the very near future which I am attracted by, if not totally sold on, is that no-one owns cars. If you want to go somewhere by road, you order a car as you would an user: a few minutes later, it turns up, you get in, and off you go. The problem of parking spaces becomes a thing of the past. This would be a far cheaper model than car ownership, which is an inefficient use of assets - thus would happen organically rather than needing enforcement; you could still choose to own a car if you want to - and would also be a better use of urban space.
    It would need autonomous vehicle technology to work properly.
    It would also mean no longer using the boot of my car as a sort of store room for random objects.
    FPT
    Big thing in our small town, too. We've got a big, and free, car park, but it's nearly full with residents cars, so every so often there are arguments about visitors being able to park.
    Trouble is, of course, that when the town was built one either didn't need to leave it, walked, or took the next horse out of the coaching inn in the Town Centre. Now everyone has their own transport.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
    Nearly 1000 years ago…
    Bloody foreigners.
    The Irish still see my family like that - we were only in situ for 800
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Cookie said:



    In Japan, in order to buy a car you need to be able to prove you have somewhere to park it. And so the streets and pavements are less cluttered. Though it obviously raises the bar quite high for car ownership in a densely populated island.

    One vision of the very near future which I am attracted by, if not totally sold on, is that no-one owns cars. If you want to go somewhere by road, you order a car as you would an user: a few minutes later, it turns up, you get in, and off you go. The problem of parking spaces becomes a thing of the past. This would be a far cheaper model than car ownership, which is an inefficient use of assets - thus would happen organically rather than needing enforcement; you could still choose to own a car if you want to - and would also be a better use of urban space.
    It would need autonomous vehicle technology to work properly.
    It would also mean no longer using the boot of my car as a sort of store room for random objects.

    The simpler solution is to just make it faster to get around by light electric vehicles (scooters, bikes, the renault twizy if it is raining)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,955
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Did we need the sub header? "The other twelve winners have all been penguins" would be news.

    Well.....


    That penguin is death …
    Seems a very odd form for the grim reaper to adopt.
    Now the bagpipes I could believe.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,994

    Too much land is concentrated in too few hands.
    More visibility of that is necessary.

    My comment about the Somerset foreshore was slightly flippant, but I do believe in a general public right to access the entire coastline.

    Don't need to seize land to provide for that I'd have thought.

    I do enjoy right of way stuff generally though. It can be pretty harsh on landowners - for instance if they've been a bit haphazard in trying to be clear people cannot wander through their land, or only have signage from one side, or people wander off a permissive path and then claim the non permissive bit - but there are some fun stories of rich twerps buying property and then being aghast that people are able to walk though bits of it, and falling back on lame 'would you like it if it was your land?' whinges.

    I can never keep straight in my head which is 'as of right' and which is 'by right', so I had best never get into such a dispute personally.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,498

    NZ elected its first transsexual MP in 1996.
    U.K. needs to get with the times.

    We did have a transsexual MEP.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,761

    On topic.
    By-elections are characterised by negative campaigning.
    It is harder to "go negative" on a female candidate without looking like a dick.
    We are not yet in a post-feminist world where "gallantry" is not a thing.

    Interesting idea but this particular by election seems to have been peculiarly nasty with references to the winning candidate's sexuality, for example. The various leaflets without a clear author and the aggression shown in the streets were also quite exceptional.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,761
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true?

    Six hundred and fifty MPs. How many people do you think are (or statistically would expect to be) non-binary? And do you mean that biologically (genetically), or people who are identifying that way?

    Around 0.3% of the population identify as non-binary in population surveys, by self definition.
    I wonder how many of that actually are, or just don't understand the question or are taking the piss or something? When you get very low numbers like that, even a small percentage of such people can affect the results significantly.
    Several of my son's friends ticked other for a laugh. Its what teenage boys do.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,994
    edited July 2021
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Tres said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Fpt

    darkage said:

    MattW said:

    darkage said:



    My Neighbour turned up at my door in an anxious state one afternoon a few years ago. He said he owns our garden, based on some document from a hundred years ago - even though the title plan for both properties indicates otherwise, as well as the reality on the ground.

    The cause of this outburst was that we had a planning application in to do some minor works. I told him he would have to put his case to the Council (if he was correct, I would have needed to have filled in a different ownership certificate). The Council took one look at the land registry plan and found in my favour, helpfully the planning officer then wrote as much in the officer report.

    He hasn't raised it again for a few years, but I am not convinced it has completely gone away.

    The problem with these situations is that they quickly descend in to a fog where it is not clear who is right or wrong (as is the case with the conservative councillor).

    Important point, that.

    When one thing arises, everybody checks everything and all the issues get flushed out at once.

    I think "found in my favour" is the wrong terminology. AIUI the Council have no power to make such a finding - only to decide their opinions and how their process should operate.

    He should have taken his advice from a solicitor or MRICS.

    Well they agreed that I had filled out the correct ownership certificate, meaning that on the evidence before them he doesn't have any interest in the land. But you are right that this is not a binding finding over the issue. That would need to be determined in a court.

    What was interesting is the fact that the land registry plan is not really absolute in relation to boundaries, there is also a procedure of changing title plans if they are incorrectly drawn based on earlier information. So this type of problem can really happen to anyone - I've come to the view that freehold land isn't really what it seems.

    A friend of mine had an amusing fight over land a few years ago. Usually the Crown owns the foreshore (I think) as a matter of right, except for a chunk of North Somerset which was granted to my friend’s ancestors a while back.

    The government tried to claim it but it was proved in court they didn’t. But they then stated in the recitals of some act of parliament that they owned this specific piece of foreshore… that had to go pretty far up the chain to sort out
    These feudal irregularities should be killed off.

    The Crown should seize your friend’s foreshore by compulsory purchase.
    Why? Why should the state seize private property?
    In the national interest to prevent it being sold to a russian oligarch.
    These guys were French oligarchs whose family moved here a while back
    eek emoji
    Nearly 1000 years ago…
    Bloody foreigners.
    The Irish still see my family like that
    What, all of the Irish? What did you all do to the poor buggers?!
This discussion has been closed.