No food shortages No driver shortages No face masks (or rather extremely rare) Kids thoroughly enjoying relaxing laziness after a year of normal, undisrupted schooling Young adults partying just as hard as usual Summer Sweden as fantastic as ever Off to plunge off a 7m diving platform into the sea (water temp 22 degrees) Glorious suntans and happy faces abound Royal Norwegian and Danish yachts are docked down by the pulsing jetty
How’s your Summer of Discontent going?
Devon is identical, but with affordable drink and the SailGP circuit racing to watch in Plymouth over the w/e
How's that £11.50 for a small tin of lager thing working out?
I think the more interesting thing is the general mindset. It could be that Sweden doesn't have a "lockdown" mindset so that any stage of freedom in their minds is freedom. Perhaps the UK does have a "lockdown" mindset and hence any stage of freedom is in their minds still locked down.
IOW the UK has to a large extent fucked with the heads of its citizenry to the extent that significant psychological damage has been done.
Perhaps.
Not sure about the last bit, but the first bit is definitely correct. If we'd put in place the restrictions which were still in place last month, from scratch - masks, nightclubs, large events - I don't think we would have called that a lockdown. Schools and businesses open. Public transport usable.
As I have noted on here before, "lockdown" has become shorthand for extraordinary restrictions on liberty, not actual you must not leave the house instructions.
It's inaccurate and used to irritate me but on reflection I think it's ok. Lockdown = restrictions due to Covid. That's fair enough use of language.
But what I'm still not having is the phrase "we are locked down". This has a different feel. An OTT 'complete lack of perspective' feel. When someone comes out with that I mark them down as not someone to take seriously on this topic.
It's currently 22 degrees in Bristol. Must be close to a record for a night time temperature.
Lucky you. We get that every year in Sweden. It’s called “tropical nights” - when the nighttime temperature does not fall below 20. We’ve just had a fortnight of it. Daytime temp hit 30 several times. You get used to it, but I laugh when my Highland mum describes anything over 16 as “a heatwave “.
Here in Buchan we have had a long warm spell and some seriously warm and sunny days, but no heatwave. As someone who dislikes extremes of weather I have no problem with missing out on the "extreme heat warning" just as I had no problem staying dry whilst southern England was drowned during the Euros.
Traditionally, my family holiday in the western Highlands and Islands, but I am seriously considering breaking that tradition and going for the east coast for our next but n ben.
I adore the north west. I have said "Skye is Scotland" before. But, the NW is biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists. The NE is blissfully free of all that. OK so the mountains are off in the distance rather than up close and personal. But we have amazing sandy beaches, rugged cliffs with insane villages nestled at the bottom, gorgeous little towns and villages, castles, stone circles and The Queen.
Spot on.
“ biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists”
I used to deeply love Ardnamurchan, Mull, Moidart, Appin etc, and further north up to Sutherland, but I’m afraid things have changed. It has been tragic to witness. One used to visit for glorious silence and peace. And the kind hearted locals. Good luck with that now.
My usual route to N.Uist includes the stretch between the Skye Bridge and Portree; Cuillins apart, I've come to dread it.
Skye is now overrun, it’s rather sad. That road you mention is particularly grim.
Like others I can remember when it was magnificently lonely.
There is one corner which is still fairly tranquil - and lovely. The Sleat Peninsula in the south. It’s also one of the most interesting bits - Gaelic speaking
I am amazed to hear that even Ardnamurchan is overcrowded. Ardnamurchan??!
I keep meaning to fit in a trip to Raasay (birthplace of the great Gaelic bard Somhairle MacGill-Eain of coure) but never quite manage to get round to it. I'm sure there are still lots of relatively untouched places out there, largely down to how inconvenient it is to get to them and lack of boutique accommodation.
Anecdata on Skye accommodation. A friend of mine owns a handsome Croft on a tiny offshore island. He’s done it up in fine style and turned it into ultra-luxury self catering. Very very expensive. Despite the price he’s had excellent publicity and reviews - and now it is fully booked, winter and summer, until... 2023
My ambition is to go to the southern end of the western isles - Uist, Barra, Eriskay. They sound dreamy
I've heard that Calmac are booked out for the Outer Hebrides for non commercial vehicles until late autumn, so like so many things we'll all have to wait till next year
Here's an account of the ferry situation. Given these are lifeline services to many communities it's really not good.
Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for why the Pacific Rim countries have been so utterly pisspoor at vaccinating?
Japan, Australia, New Zealand, varying shades of rank incompetence.
The news about the latter two countries' rugby league teams pulling out of the World Cup is the icing on the cake of a truly embarrassing saga.
Complacency. Countries that we're hardest hit also have got very good vaccination rates. Only Canada and Denmark stick out as a countries that didn't have a bad pandemic in relative terms but also have high vaccination rates. The likes of Australia and New Zealand became so sure that COVID would just never cross the border. NZ is probably the last country that has managed to keep it out but it poses an issue if they become a "won't vaccinate" nation but everyone else has.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised. Hence I signed up for a week of "Cycling for Softies" (google note: I see they are still in existence).
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yes, it's great for leisurely cycling: plenty of small troads and tracks with little or no traffic, and it's mostly flat! And it's an absolutely wonderful holiday destination anyway. It's mysterious that Brits seem to have largely forgotten about it, given how close it is.
Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for why the Pacific Rim countries have been so utterly pisspoor at vaccinating?
Japan, Australia, New Zealand, varying shades of rank incompetence.
The news about the latter two countries' rugby league teams pulling out of the World Cup is the icing on the cake of a truly embarrassing saga.
Japan is a victim of it's own racism. Vaccines need to be tested on the japanese ! Australia and NZ fucked up on procurement. Denmark and Canada doing well tbh.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
I do feel for councils, as they get pilloried for it, and when they point out that the government mandates various targets and either you manage it as best you can or it'll be worse, the public never buy that - you get this a lot with eco arguments against any roads/houses.
On topic, twelve items weren't delivered in our weekly home delivery yesterday.
Have to admit the Sainsbury's and Waitrose on Western Road in Brighton have been very empty during the last week.
I had to buy Waitrose's own brand water earlier on this week, it is the end of the days.
I was buying a new pair of trail running shoes yesterday, and the shop said they had a small choice because of supply chain issues. Still bought a nice pair of black-and-red ones though. I seem to be getting through them at an alarming rate: the dewy grass and weeds at this time of year just rip normal running shoes to shreds.
From memory some companies have a combination of global logistical issues with additional Brexit issues on top. I seem to remember being told when Mrs Eek went to buy a pair recently that there was 1 brand were once this stock was sold the next shipment was going to be November and was currently (probably unmade) in Vietnam.
No food shortages No driver shortages No face masks (or rather extremely rare) Kids thoroughly enjoying relaxing laziness after a year of normal, undisrupted schooling Young adults partying just as hard as usual Summer Sweden as fantastic as ever Off to plunge off a 7m diving platform into the sea (water temp 22 degrees) Glorious suntans and happy faces abound Royal Norwegian and Danish yachts are docked down by the pulsing jetty
How’s your Summer of Discontent going?
Devon is identical, but with affordable drink and the SailGP circuit racing to watch in Plymouth over the w/e
How's that £11.50 for a small tin of lager thing working out?
I think the more interesting thing is the general mindset. It could be that Sweden doesn't have a "lockdown" mindset so that any stage of freedom in their minds is freedom. Perhaps the UK does have a "lockdown" mindset and hence any stage of freedom is in their minds still locked down.
IOW the UK has to a large extent fucked with the heads of its citizenry to the extent that significant psychological damage has been done.
Perhaps.
Not sure about the last bit, but the first bit is definitely correct. If we'd put in place the restrictions which were still in place last month, from scratch - masks, nightclubs, large events - I don't think we would have called that a lockdown. Schools and businesses open. Public transport usable.
As I have noted on here before, "lockdown" has become shorthand for extraordinary restrictions on liberty, not actual you must not leave the house instructions.
It's inaccurate and used to irritate me but on reflection I think it's ok. Lockdown = restrictions due to Covid. That's fair enough use of language.
But what I'm still not having is the phrase "we are locked down". This has a different feel. An OTT 'complete lack of perspective' feel. When someone comes out with that I mark them down as not someone to take seriously on this topic.
Good point. Please keep an eye out for it and send the usage report over at the end of each day.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised. Hence I signed up for a week of "Cycling for Softies" (google note: I see they are still in existence).
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yes, it's great for leisurely cycling: plenty of small troads and tracks with little or no traffic, and it's mostly flat! And it's an absolutely wonderful holiday destination anyway. It's mysterious that Brits seem to have largely forgotten about it, given how close it is.
Likewise Ile de Ré. Like the South of France but 30 years ago and an hour away.
On topic, twelve items weren't delivered in our weekly home delivery yesterday.
Have to admit the Sainsbury's and Waitrose on Western Road in Brighton have been very empty during the last week.
I had to buy Waitrose's own brand water earlier on this week, it is the end of the days.
I was buying a new pair of trail running shoes yesterday, and the shop said they had a small choice because of supply chain issues. Still bought a nice pair of black-and-red ones though. I seem to be getting through them at an alarming rate: the dewy grass and weeds at this time of year just rip normal running shoes to shreds.
From memory some companies have a combination of global logistical issues with additional Brexit issues on top. I seem to remember being told when Mrs Eek went to buy a pair recently that there was 1 brand were once this stock was sold the next shipment was going to be November and was currently (probably unmade) in Vietnam.
Wendover did a video on this. Apparently things like the actual physical shipping containers are still all totally out of sync, with empty ones piled up in places they shouldn't, while not enough in places they need them.
The whole global logistics system is a finely balanced operation, i.e. how that one container ship getting stuck in suez canal for a few days had significant knock on effects, which is small beer compared to all the massive and on going disruptions from covid.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
The big error from the start was not to throw money at the problem of self-isolation. 2x, 3x foregone wages or somesuch formula would have made it hugely effective both from a health and cost perspective.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
Israel's free shot with your shot wasn't a bad idea. Bring the clinics to the city centres ! The young aren't hesitant, or massively libertarian. They're just lazy for the main part.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised. Hence I signed up for a week of "Cycling for Softies" (google note: I see they are still in existence).
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yes, it's great for leisurely cycling: plenty of small troads and tracks with little or no traffic, and it's mostly flat! And it's an absolutely wonderful holiday destination anyway. It's mysterious that Brits seem to have largely forgotten about it, given how close it is.
The towns are often a little rundown, the food is patchy
But the chateaux are sublime. Also gorgeous gardens. And the abbey at fontevrauld is magnifique. You can sleep in a nice hotel inside the abbey and they let you wander at will.
Happening upon the moonlit grave of Richard I of England at midnight, blind drunk, is quite the experience
It's currently 22 degrees in Bristol. Must be close to a record for a night time temperature.
Lucky you. We get that every year in Sweden. It’s called “tropical nights” - when the nighttime temperature does not fall below 20. We’ve just had a fortnight of it. Daytime temp hit 30 several times. You get used to it, but I laugh when my Highland mum describes anything over 16 as “a heatwave “.
Here in Buchan we have had a long warm spell and some seriously warm and sunny days, but no heatwave. As someone who dislikes extremes of weather I have no problem with missing out on the "extreme heat warning" just as I had no problem staying dry whilst southern England was drowned during the Euros.
Traditionally, my family holiday in the western Highlands and Islands, but I am seriously considering breaking that tradition and going for the east coast for our next but n ben.
I adore the north west. I have said "Skye is Scotland" before. But, the NW is biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists. The NE is blissfully free of all that. OK so the mountains are off in the distance rather than up close and personal. But we have amazing sandy beaches, rugged cliffs with insane villages nestled at the bottom, gorgeous little towns and villages, castles, stone circles and The Queen.
Spot on.
“ biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists”
I used to deeply love Ardnamurchan, Mull, Moidart, Appin etc, and further north up to Sutherland, but I’m afraid things have changed. It has been tragic to witness. One used to visit for glorious silence and peace. And the kind hearted locals. Good luck with that now.
My usual route to N.Uist includes the stretch between the Skye Bridge and Portree; Cuillins apart, I've come to dread it.
Skye is now overrun, it’s rather sad. That road you mention is particularly grim.
Like others I can remember when it was magnificently lonely.
There is one corner which is still fairly tranquil - and lovely. The Sleat Peninsula in the south. It’s also one of the most interesting bits - Gaelic speaking
I am amazed to hear that even Ardnamurchan is overcrowded. Ardnamurchan??!
I keep meaning to fit in a trip to Raasay (birthplace of the great Gaelic bard Somhairle MacGill-Eain of coure) but never quite manage to get round to it. I'm sure there are still lots of relatively untouched places out there, largely down to how inconvenient it is to get to them and lack of boutique accommodation.
Anecdata on Skye accommodation. A friend of mine owns a handsome Croft on a tiny offshore island. He’s done it up in fine style and turned it into ultra-luxury self catering. Very very expensive. Despite the price he’s had excellent publicity and reviews - and now it is fully booked, winter and summer, until... 2023
My ambition is to go to the southern end of the western isles - Uist, Barra, Eriskay. They sound dreamy
I've heard that Calmac are booked out for the Outer Hebrides for non commercial vehicles until late autumn, so like so many things we'll all have to wait till next year
Here's an account of the ferry situation. Given these are lifeline services to many communities it's really not good.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
I wonder what the actual opportunity cost of that would be - I suspect the only reason it won't be £0 is because statutory sick pay is so low.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
With a promise that as soon as you are old enough you qualify for it also to avoid the "My 17-yr 10mth old son's hell" headlines.
Time for a nice story about the benefits of 2 jabs.
We're off to Co. Kildare in two weeks for the niece's wedding. I went through the ritual of phoning the Irish Embassy but as usual, they didn't answer. However, they did refer me to the relevant part of their website.
It was actually there. No PCR test required for us Golden Oldies. A locator form but they only ask about our first location in Athy, not about our extended family, or the visit to Glenbeigh, the jewel of the Kerry coastline.
I might even manage to return with a suntan, or at least some rust.
It's currently 22 degrees in Bristol. Must be close to a record for a night time temperature.
Lucky you. We get that every year in Sweden. It’s called “tropical nights” - when the nighttime temperature does not fall below 20. We’ve just had a fortnight of it. Daytime temp hit 30 several times. You get used to it, but I laugh when my Highland mum describes anything over 16 as “a heatwave “.
Here in Buchan we have had a long warm spell and some seriously warm and sunny days, but no heatwave. As someone who dislikes extremes of weather I have no problem with missing out on the "extreme heat warning" just as I had no problem staying dry whilst southern England was drowned during the Euros.
Traditionally, my family holiday in the western Highlands and Islands, but I am seriously considering breaking that tradition and going for the east coast for our next but n ben.
I adore the north west. I have said "Skye is Scotland" before. But, the NW is biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists. The NE is blissfully free of all that. OK so the mountains are off in the distance rather than up close and personal. But we have amazing sandy beaches, rugged cliffs with insane villages nestled at the bottom, gorgeous little towns and villages, castles, stone circles and The Queen.
Spot on.
“ biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists”
I used to deeply love Ardnamurchan, Mull, Moidart, Appin etc, and further north up to Sutherland, but I’m afraid things have changed. It has been tragic to witness. One used to visit for glorious silence and peace. And the kind hearted locals. Good luck with that now.
My usual route to N.Uist includes the stretch between the Skye Bridge and Portree; Cuillins apart, I've come to dread it.
Skye is now overrun, it’s rather sad. That road you mention is particularly grim.
Like others I can remember when it was magnificently lonely.
There is one corner which is still fairly tranquil - and lovely. The Sleat Peninsula in the south. It’s also one of the most interesting bits - Gaelic speaking
I am amazed to hear that even Ardnamurchan is overcrowded. Ardnamurchan??!
I keep meaning to fit in a trip to Raasay (birthplace of the great Gaelic bard Somhairle MacGill-Eain of coure) but never quite manage to get round to it. I'm sure there are still lots of relatively untouched places out there, largely down to how inconvenient it is to get to them and lack of boutique accommodation.
Anecdata on Skye accommodation. A friend of mine owns a handsome Croft on a tiny offshore island. He’s done it up in fine style and turned it into ultra-luxury self catering. Very very expensive. Despite the price he’s had excellent publicity and reviews - and now it is fully booked, winter and summer, until... 2023
My ambition is to go to the southern end of the western isles - Uist, Barra, Eriskay. They sound dreamy
I've heard that Calmac are booked out for the Outer Hebrides for non commercial vehicles until late autumn, so like so many things we'll all have to wait till next year
Here's an account of the ferry situation. Given these are lifeline services to many communities it's really not good.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
With a promise that as soon as you are old enough you qualify for it also to avoid the "My 17-yr 10mth old son's hell" headlines.
On the double vax, sure. Even at £20bn potential cost it's cheap compared to a winter lockdown or permanent restrictions.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised. Hence I signed up for a week of "Cycling for Softies" (google note: I see they are still in existence).
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yes, it's great for leisurely cycling: plenty of small troads and tracks with little or no traffic, and it's mostly flat! And it's an absolutely wonderful holiday destination anyway. It's mysterious that Brits seem to have largely forgotten about it, given how close it is.
The towns are often a little rundown, the food is patchy
But the chateaux are sublime. Also gorgeous gardens. And the abbey at fontevrauld is magnifique. You can sleep in a nice hotel inside the abbey and they let you wander at will.
Happening upon the moonlit grave of Richard I of England at midnight, blind drunk, is quite the experience
Yes Fontevraud, but I preferred the ones where you go down a small road, then turn left at the top of the track, carry on past the stile and then on the right is a chateau, owners sitting hopefully outside with a jug of lemonade ready for visitors. Of which, yourself excepted, there are none.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
I wonder what the actual opportunity cost of that would be - I suspect the only reason it won't be £0 is because statutory sick pay is so low.
I think you have to figure in the cost of a winter lockdown in the 90% double jabbed scenario vs no chance of one in the 98% double jabbed scenario which means even at a pretty high cost it's still worth doing.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
It's currently 22 degrees in Bristol. Must be close to a record for a night time temperature.
Lucky you. We get that every year in Sweden. It’s called “tropical nights” - when the nighttime temperature does not fall below 20. We’ve just had a fortnight of it. Daytime temp hit 30 several times. You get used to it, but I laugh when my Highland mum describes anything over 16 as “a heatwave “.
Here in Buchan we have had a long warm spell and some seriously warm and sunny days, but no heatwave. As someone who dislikes extremes of weather I have no problem with missing out on the "extreme heat warning" just as I had no problem staying dry whilst southern England was drowned during the Euros.
Traditionally, my family holiday in the western Highlands and Islands, but I am seriously considering breaking that tradition and going for the east coast for our next but n ben.
I adore the north west. I have said "Skye is Scotland" before. But, the NW is biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists. The NE is blissfully free of all that. OK so the mountains are off in the distance rather than up close and personal. But we have amazing sandy beaches, rugged cliffs with insane villages nestled at the bottom, gorgeous little towns and villages, castles, stone circles and The Queen.
Spot on.
“ biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists”
I used to deeply love Ardnamurchan, Mull, Moidart, Appin etc, and further north up to Sutherland, but I’m afraid things have changed. It has been tragic to witness. One used to visit for glorious silence and peace. And the kind hearted locals. Good luck with that now.
My usual route to N.Uist includes the stretch between the Skye Bridge and Portree; Cuillins apart, I've come to dread it.
Skye is now overrun, it’s rather sad. That road you mention is particularly grim.
Like others I can remember when it was magnificently lonely.
There is one corner which is still fairly tranquil - and lovely. The Sleat Peninsula in the south. It’s also one of the most interesting bits - Gaelic speaking
I am amazed to hear that even Ardnamurchan is overcrowded. Ardnamurchan??!
I keep meaning to fit in a trip to Raasay (birthplace of the great Gaelic bard Somhairle MacGill-Eain of coure) but never quite manage to get round to it. I'm sure there are still lots of relatively untouched places out there, largely down to how inconvenient it is to get to them and lack of boutique accommodation.
Anecdata on Skye accommodation. A friend of mine owns a handsome Croft on a tiny offshore island. He’s done it up in fine style and turned it into ultra-luxury self catering. Very very expensive. Despite the price he’s had excellent publicity and reviews - and now it is fully booked, winter and summer, until... 2023
My ambition is to go to the southern end of the western isles - Uist, Barra, Eriskay. They sound dreamy
I've heard that Calmac are booked out for the Outer Hebrides for non commercial vehicles until late autumn, so like so many things we'll all have to wait till next year
A bicycle is the way to island hop. Provided you don't mind headwinds...
True enough for you hardier souls, I'm more of a bike in the boot of the car and a gentle pedal to the Rodel and back kinda guy.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised.
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yeah, my late mum did it back in the 80s and loved it (she was younger than I am and I assume you are now, just in case you think I'm taking the piss).
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
Still LD policy today, they want garden towns in rural Oxfordshire, a garden town between Harlow and rural North Weald in Essex etc.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Labour MP Khalid Mahmood tells Julia the Labour Party will vote against Boris Johnson’s plans for vaccine passports and guarantees Keir Starmer "will absolutely stick to his position because it's based on principle."
It's currently 22 degrees in Bristol. Must be close to a record for a night time temperature.
Lucky you. We get that every year in Sweden. It’s called “tropical nights” - when the nighttime temperature does not fall below 20. We’ve just had a fortnight of it. Daytime temp hit 30 several times. You get used to it, but I laugh when my Highland mum describes anything over 16 as “a heatwave “.
Here in Buchan we have had a long warm spell and some seriously warm and sunny days, but no heatwave. As someone who dislikes extremes of weather I have no problem with missing out on the "extreme heat warning" just as I had no problem staying dry whilst southern England was drowned during the Euros.
Traditionally, my family holiday in the western Highlands and Islands, but I am seriously considering breaking that tradition and going for the east coast for our next but n ben.
I adore the north west. I have said "Skye is Scotland" before. But, the NW is biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists. The NE is blissfully free of all that. OK so the mountains are off in the distance rather than up close and personal. But we have amazing sandy beaches, rugged cliffs with insane villages nestled at the bottom, gorgeous little towns and villages, castles, stone circles and The Queen.
Spot on.
“ biblically wet, infested with midge bastards and overrun with tourists”
I used to deeply love Ardnamurchan, Mull, Moidart, Appin etc, and further north up to Sutherland, but I’m afraid things have changed. It has been tragic to witness. One used to visit for glorious silence and peace. And the kind hearted locals. Good luck with that now.
My usual route to N.Uist includes the stretch between the Skye Bridge and Portree; Cuillins apart, I've come to dread it.
Skye is now overrun, it’s rather sad. That road you mention is particularly grim.
Like others I can remember when it was magnificently lonely.
There is one corner which is still fairly tranquil - and lovely. The Sleat Peninsula in the south. It’s also one of the most interesting bits - Gaelic speaking
I am amazed to hear that even Ardnamurchan is overcrowded. Ardnamurchan??!
I keep meaning to fit in a trip to Raasay (birthplace of the great Gaelic bard Somhairle MacGill-Eain of coure) but never quite manage to get round to it. I'm sure there are still lots of relatively untouched places out there, largely down to how inconvenient it is to get to them and lack of boutique accommodation.
Anecdata on Skye accommodation. A friend of mine owns a handsome Croft on a tiny offshore island. He’s done it up in fine style and turned it into ultra-luxury self catering. Very very expensive. Despite the price he’s had excellent publicity and reviews - and now it is fully booked, winter and summer, until... 2023
My ambition is to go to the southern end of the western isles - Uist, Barra, Eriskay. They sound dreamy
I've heard that Calmac are booked out for the Outer Hebrides for non commercial vehicles until late autumn, so like so many things we'll all have to wait till next year
Here's an account of the ferry situation. Given these are lifeline services to many communities it's really not good.
Well, that's one scandal that even Malc would find hard to blame on Westminster!
I'm sure Malc has blamed the Ferguson Marine's shipyard issues on the UK Government.
Although how a project can go 100% over budget is an interesting question that does need answers.
And while these ships are 25 years old the SNP have only been in power for the last 15 of them - which means the issue is that the British Government didn't build them with longer lasting engines.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
I think you have to figure in the cost of a winter lockdown in the 90% double jabbed scenario vs no chance of one in the 98% double jabbed scenario which means even at a pretty high cost it's still worth doing.
Surely someone in government has a forecast of what might happen if we hit 90%, 95% and so on for vaccine take-up. If at the low end it says "lockdown likely" and at the high end it says "remain unlocked" then it would almost certainly be worth looking at even quiet expensive measures to push vaccination rates up.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
Still LD policy today, they want garden towns in rural Oxfordshire, a garden town between Harlow and rural North Weald in Essex etc.
Thats the "design" guide for how the houses should look not where they are - it's a different question (albeit another nuanced difference which you probably don't get).
Time for a nice story about the benefits of 2 jabs.
We're off to Co. Kildare in two weeks for the niece's wedding. I went through the ritual of phoning the Irish Embassy but as usual, they didn't answer. However, they did refer me to the relevant part of their website.
It was actually there. No PCR test required for us Golden Oldies. A locator form but they only ask about our first location in Athy, not about our extended family, or the visit to Glenbeigh, the jewel of the Kerry coastline.
I might even manage to return with a suntan, or at least some rust.
Sister in law is back home to visit fam in Dublin with neice and nephew in tow tomorrow. She just needs to show she's double vaxxed to avoid quarantine, 9 year old niece is waved through but 12 year old nephew will need proof of a negative test.
I had a great holiday some years ago in the Loire Valley. I had thought I would go in a car meandering from village bar to village bar before I realised that if I was going to drive into a hedge blind drunk it would be best for me not to be motorised. Hence I signed up for a week of "Cycling for Softies" (google note: I see they are still in existence).
Was fantastic. They took your bags to a different hotel each day which were anything from 5-10 miles apart so you could cycle as much or as little as you wanted. Hardly saw a car the whole time. Plenty of chateaux with shabby chic chateaux owners.
Yes, it's great for leisurely cycling: plenty of small troads and tracks with little or no traffic, and it's mostly flat! And it's an absolutely wonderful holiday destination anyway. It's mysterious that Brits seem to have largely forgotten about it, given how close it is.
The towns are often a little rundown, the food is patchy
But the chateaux are sublime. Also gorgeous gardens. And the abbey at fontevrauld is magnifique. You can sleep in a nice hotel inside the abbey and they let you wander at will.
Happening upon the moonlit grave of Richard I of England at midnight, blind drunk, is quite the experience
Yes Fontevraud, but I preferred the ones where you go down a small road, then turn left at the top of the track, carry on past the stile and then on the right is a chateau, owners sitting hopefully outside with a jug of lemonade ready for visitors. Of which, yourself excepted, there are none.
I did exactly that, several times. My favourite was Coudray, where the lovely owner gave me excellent quiche, a nice carafe of her white, then kinda danced (we were both a bit tipsy) with her white peacocks. Here she is
The rough waves be a coming, I think this is going to be a tough few months for the Tories. From a betting POV, I am very happy with my Labour poll lead bet I placed a few days ago.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
Still LD policy today, they want garden towns in rural Oxfordshire, a garden town between Harlow and rural North Weald in Essex etc.
Thats the "design" guide for how the houses should look not where they are - it's a different question (albeit another nuanced difference which you probably don't get).
Beautiful houses in expanded towns not garden towns slap bang in the middle of rural England like the LDs
A friend reports a new hazard on the roads – inexperienced lorry drivers.
The hazards I am seeing are drivers lacking sleep.
Yesterday on my route home I saw two crashes at junctions within five miles - clearly caused by people pulling out without looking.
I was nearly involved in a third when somebody pulled out straight in front of me without looking and straddled the middle of a wide, straight road. I was doing 55 at the time and had no room to stop. Fortunately, there was no traffic coming and when I beeped the horn they pulled to the side so I was able to miss them.
I’m guessing heat, leading to lack of sleep, leading to lack of concentration.
I’m glad I don’t have to drive anywhere for the next few days.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
Taking the Knee is another tool for Middle Class urban football fans to demonstrate their superiority over their poorer football-supporting brethren. It is the Middle Class types who get to frame the debate and say what is and what is not acceptable, and those who disagree are labelled as bigots by these very types. The FA panders to it because they know that these types also set the public agenda.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
A rejection at parish level = input to planner.
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
If a rejection is made at Parish level then it is likely then it will go to district planning committee but either way the Planning Officer works for the district council anyway.
If appealed after then off to the Inspector, so no different to what I said
Planning officers are not servants of councillors - they can influence the local plan but at a development control level the job is ensuring that the application meets the law and (assuming its valid) the contents of the local plan. It requires district level approval for decisions to be made outside of that.
There are a few councils where planning departments have had to be removed from the local authority because of successful ombudsman complaints (regarding undue influence of development control work) so I would be very careful with your comments above.
Who creates the local plan? District councillors, with input from parish and town councillors via the neighbourhood plan
I wouldn't say councillors 'create' the local plan. I'd say planning officers 'create' the plan and councillors 'approve' it (or not). Though clearly they have to create a plan that the councillors will approve.
Councillors from the majority party decide which areas of the local authority get the most development, often in areas where an opposing party holds the council seats.
Planning officers merely ensure it can be implemented and is legal and do the detail
I dont know any cllrs who would admit to that logic. And if they do it speaks very Ill of them as it is entirely improper to make decisions based on irrelevant considerations.
Cllrs do the best they can, and that keeps them busy enough without making everything about party politics. Yes, votes then split on those lines but similar calls happen whoever is in power, and some in their own groups get screwed.
Just political reality, in my experience LDs tend to want most development in Tory rural areas, while Tories tend to want most development in parts of towns with LD councillors.
Of course no one wants development in their own patch at all, but in my experience party label doesnt affect that - it unites Tory LD and labour councillors in a town for instance, or indeed any candidates.
My town has gone from LD to Con to LD, and things have changed in many areas, but the views on development have been pretty uniform the whole time.
That's the thing - the options are usually reduced to 1 before you even begin. Say you need to build 1700 homes well the only choices are (at best) a choice of 2 possible directions in which you can expand the town. The other area will be built on the only thing the decision is making is delaying it 5 years.
Round here this local plan expends the town to the A1M. The next will expand it towards Staindrop / Barnard Castle (as that's the remaining site). Then in 10 years time once the new bypass is built it will expand to the North for the following 15 years.
Literally the only decision to be made was which fields would be built on in which order (and as the council owned the fields by the A1 that prioritised that work)
LDs prefer garden cities in currently rural areas, Tories prefer to expand existing towns.
It is no surprise that we are falling off a cliff. In fact it's to be welcomed so we can start mending fences as quickly as possible..
Apart from the headline stuff Cummings explained in some detail how the UK was manipulated into leaving the EU when even he (as chief manipulator) doubted it was in our best interest. When Laura K asked him why he and his (imbecile) front man told so many lies ie.Turkey were poised to join the EU he glibly replied that it wasn't his job to explain the small print.
It was chilling. Ruthless ambition by the puppet and puppet master meant no holes were barred. From an advertising perspective the technique was as simple as it was wretched as he couldn't resist explaining......
People with a slight prejudice had it aroused until it became a fear which as the campaign wore on became an all consuming fear. The reasons for choosing Turkey were as calculated as they were insidious
It was impossible to refute because Cameron in the past had said Turkey joining was 'a long term aspiration' and he didn't wish to offend the Turks by resiling from it. They also had an irresistable number of Muslims living there....
'if we remained in the EU 70 million Turks could be on our doorstep within a year and we could do nothing to stop them' became a virtual slogan..... Cummings in front of Lara K could hardly hide his gloat
No need to explain why this wouldn't have passed any advertising code known to man. Only the dimmest wouldn't know and they don't post here. But those now in power and those who put them there have shown how easily a country-even a reasonably civilised one-can be manipulated when there are no rules. And even questioning is severely restricted
The disappointing part is that in many ways it's the fault of the advertising industry. We've become accustomed to believing what advertisers tell us because they are obliged not only to tell the truth but to be able to substantiate all claims. There is no such thing as 'small print'
PS. I saw a 60's press ad for a Porsche 911 yesterday. Above a photo of the car were two lines
'Small Penis?
Have we got the car for you!'
Catchy post with a strong central point. Here's OJ musing on similar lines but in more of an OJ than a Roger way -
One thing I've picked up over the years, (from Cummings, Trump and elsewhere) is if you are going to make stuff up in an ad / post leave other things to argue about.
Turkey joining the EU and the £350m a week are great examples of this. There is enough element of truth in it that even if they argue the point (it's £350m total but we get £200m back) it just re-enforces the core message.
Yep. Although I'm not as livid about those 2 examples as many of my Remainer compadres are. Brexit is an act of economic and cultural vandalism. It's being done for reasons that are the opposite of noble. The better side of our nature lost to its darker twin. But Leave won fair and square as far as I'm concerned. I actually think the 52/48 understates the mood of the country. Makes it appear a finer judgment than it really was. In FPTP terms it was a landslide. Almost anywhere you go in England outside London, a majority wanted out of the EU. So out we have come. Democracy.
Trump, different story. Everything that issues forth from his odd pouting mouth is both nasty and a lie. I both disagree with what he says and would totally NOT defend to the death his right to say it. Deplatform and cancel is the way forward there, for me. Preferably written into law. A bespoke and carefully worded piece of legislation applying purely to him, hence dealing with the 'slippery slope' objection.
But this is not the case
I despise Trump, and loathe his malign influence on US politics, but he said some sane, truthful stuff amidst the weird gibberish
eg he was the first big global politician to say the virus probably came from a lab. God knows why he said it. The week before he was praising Xi. A week later he was on to something else. Likely it just jumped out of his crazy head, after an intelligence briefing
But what he said was true and important. Unfortunately the fact that HE said it meant the lab leak hypothesis then became toxic and was effectively suppressed for a year
I note that today China has outright refused to co-operate with the next stage of WHO’s investigation of coronavirus and its origins
So just another lie because the virus POSSIBLY came from a lab and is today still 2nd favourite to natural. I've done the legwork now. The lab thesis cannot - must not - be mocked but to rank it as the most likely scenario is a bridge too far.
It also ticks the "nasty" box in his case. His motives for pushing the lab - and in fact bioweapon - notion were 100% sordid.
So there we go - another nasty lie sliding from the mean little mouth of Donald J Trump to join the 156,648 others. And counting if he ever gets his platform back.
It probably came from the lab
If it did not, all China has to do is publish all the Wuhan laboratory data it mysteriously ‘deleted’ in late 2019. Why did they delete it? Why will they not reveal it? They have everything to gain by exonerating themselves, yet they won’t, because, I suspect, they can’t
It amazes me how bien pensants like yourself are still so reluctant to go near this theory, even when they are quite happy to believe other unsavoury things about the Xi regime. eg the Uighur ‘genocide’. I am sure it is a mixture of anti-Trump hysteria (‘everything he said was a vile lie!) mixed with class-anxious bourgeois distaste for plebeian ‘conspiracy theories’ - you hate to be associated with anything working class, as you spent your life escaping it
Ditto Brexit
The assessment of most experts is not probable but distinctly possible. I have to go with that. It's not about being a bien peasant it's just my standard technique for assessing things I have no clue about - ie almost everything. It's the only rational way.
And please remember my point from before. Evidence that fits both Lab and Natural does not increase the probability of Lab. Natural is the default. You need evidence condradicting it. And animal zero - or whatever - not yet being found is not sufficient. It can take ages, that, and might never happen. Sorry for trite chestnut but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Hate that one but it has some relevance here.
Private Eye Magazine @PrivateEyeNews · 3h Andrew Neill's Great Brillo News, now firmly embracing cancel culture when it comes to its own presenters, is getting less than a sixth of the viewers of a Quest channel show about sheds. All the latest on GB News in the new Private Eye, out now.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Labour MP Khalid Mahmood tells Julia the Labour Party will vote against Boris Johnson’s plans for vaccine passports and guarantees Keir Starmer "will absolutely stick to his position because it's based on principle."
Yeh, right.
There's plenty to unpack here. i) Starmer's opposition was based off the fact the gov't wasn't going far enough. ii) To vote against something because it doesn't do all you'd like would be daftness of the highest order, last time I remember it happening was err... the EU votes in parliament. Look how that turned out. iii) His sentence is therefore a nonsense. iv) Mahmood is the MP of Perry barr. Birmingham, the largest LTLA in the country has a vaccination rate of 63.9% (1st dose, adults). I expect given the demographics Perry Barr is even lower. Should he really be shitting on vaxports at this point ? Might encourage take up if they're threatened even if not formally introduced.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Labour MP Khalid Mahmood tells Julia the Labour Party will vote against Boris Johnson’s plans for vaccine passports and guarantees Keir Starmer "will absolutely stick to his position because it's based on principle."
Yeh, right.
There's plenty to unpack here. i) Starmer's opposition was based off the fact the gov't wasn't going far enough. ii) To vote against something because it doesn't do all you'd like would be daftness of the highest order, last time I remember it happening was err... the EU votes in parliament. Look how that turned out. iii) His sentence is therefore a nonsense. iv) Mahmood is the MP of Perry barr. Birmingham, the largest LTLA in the country has a vaccination rate of 63.9% (1st dose, adults). I expect given the demographics Perry Barr is even lower. Should he really be shitting on vaxports at this point ? Might encourage take up if they're threatened even if not formally introduced.
WGAF. SKS needs to start opposing. Here is as good a place as any to do so.
I didn't know she even drank the stuff, but good on her for being an expert! Mrs T used to like the odd tipple.
Oh, hang on...I get it, English haters think all English people call the Scots "Scotch"!! It is an attempt at humour! Nationalists should stay away from humour; stick to strutting about wrapped up in flags and generally looking and sounding fecking stupid is the closest you get to being funny.
No food shortages No driver shortages No face masks (or rather extremely rare) Kids thoroughly enjoying relaxing laziness after a year of normal, undisrupted schooling Young adults partying just as hard as usual Summer Sweden as fantastic as ever Off to plunge off a 7m diving platform into the sea (water temp 22 degrees) Glorious suntans and happy faces abound Royal Norwegian and Danish yachts are docked down by the pulsing jetty
How’s your Summer of Discontent going?
Devon is identical, but with affordable drink and the SailGP circuit racing to watch in Plymouth over the w/e
How's that £11.50 for a small tin of lager thing working out?
I think the more interesting thing is the general mindset. It could be that Sweden doesn't have a "lockdown" mindset so that any stage of freedom in their minds is freedom. Perhaps the UK does have a "lockdown" mindset and hence any stage of freedom is in their minds still locked down.
IOW the UK has to a large extent fucked with the heads of its citizenry to the extent that significant psychological damage has been done.
Perhaps.
Not sure about the last bit, but the first bit is definitely correct. If we'd put in place the restrictions which were still in place last month, from scratch - masks, nightclubs, large events - I don't think we would have called that a lockdown. Schools and businesses open. Public transport usable.
As I have noted on here before, "lockdown" has become shorthand for extraordinary restrictions on liberty, not actual you must not leave the house instructions.
It's inaccurate and used to irritate me but on reflection I think it's ok. Lockdown = restrictions due to Covid. That's fair enough use of language.
But what I'm still not having is the phrase "we are locked down". This has a different feel. An OTT 'complete lack of perspective' feel. When someone comes out with that I mark them down as not someone to take seriously on this topic.
Good point. Please keep an eye out for it and send the usage report over at the end of each day.
I think you have to figure in the cost of a winter lockdown in the 90% double jabbed scenario vs no chance of one in the 98% double jabbed scenario which means even at a pretty high cost it's still worth doing.
Surely someone in government has a forecast of what might happen if we hit 90%, 95% and so on for vaccine take-up. If at the low end it says "lockdown likely" and at the high end it says "remain unlocked" then it would almost certainly be worth looking at even quiet expensive measures to push vaccination rates up.
Yes, I think this is the logic behind vaccine passports. If that gets us from ~90% to ~93% the chance of a winger lockdown goes from likely to unlikely IMO and if it gets us to ~95% it goes to very unlikely. I think the limit is probably 98% which is 51.8m people and if we get there there is no way we'd have a winter lockdown.
Personally I wouldn't have one in any scenario people who have chosen not to get the vaccine are only putting themselves at risk but the government is run by pansies who won't say that.
I didn't know she even drank the stuff, but good on her for being an expert! Mrs T used to like the odd tipple.
Oh, hang on...I get it, English haters think all English people call the Scots "Scotch"!! It is an attempt at humour! Nationalists should stay away from humour; stick to strutting about wrapped up in flags and generally looking and sounding fecking stupid is the closest you get to being funny.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
Taking the Knee is another tool for Middle Class urban football fans to demonstrate their superiority over their poorer football-supporting brethren. It is the Middle Class types who get to frame the debate and say what is and what is not acceptable, and those who disagree are labelled as bigots by these very types. The FA panders to it because they know that these types also set the public agenda.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
What crap. Taking the knee was initiated not by demand from fans, middle class or otherwise, but by the players themselves. Most of them come from working class backgrounds and are actually doing it because they are either subject to racist abuse themselves or have solidarity with their mates who are.
The Nazi comparison is completely crass as Nazi Germany was a major industrial nation, not a tinpot outfit dwarfed by a much bigger, more moderate movement. Everyone knew who Hitler was in the 1930s. I bet 5% of Brits could name anyone in the actual BLM organization. It is amazing how many right wingers love footballers wearing poppies etc, but oppose symbols against racism as "virtue signalling".
No food shortages No driver shortages No face masks (or rather extremely rare) Kids thoroughly enjoying relaxing laziness after a year of normal, undisrupted schooling Young adults partying just as hard as usual Summer Sweden as fantastic as ever Off to plunge off a 7m diving platform into the sea (water temp 22 degrees) Glorious suntans and happy faces abound Royal Norwegian and Danish yachts are docked down by the pulsing jetty
How’s your Summer of Discontent going?
Devon is identical, but with affordable drink and the SailGP circuit racing to watch in Plymouth over the w/e
How's that £11.50 for a small tin of lager thing working out?
I think the more interesting thing is the general mindset. It could be that Sweden doesn't have a "lockdown" mindset so that any stage of freedom in their minds is freedom. Perhaps the UK does have a "lockdown" mindset and hence any stage of freedom is in their minds still locked down.
IOW the UK has to a large extent fucked with the heads of its citizenry to the extent that significant psychological damage has been done.
Perhaps.
Not sure about the last bit, but the first bit is definitely correct. If we'd put in place the restrictions which were still in place last month, from scratch - masks, nightclubs, large events - I don't think we would have called that a lockdown. Schools and businesses open. Public transport usable.
As I have noted on here before, "lockdown" has become shorthand for extraordinary restrictions on liberty, not actual you must not leave the house instructions.
It's inaccurate and used to irritate me but on reflection I think it's ok. Lockdown = restrictions due to Covid. That's fair enough use of language.
But what I'm still not having is the phrase "we are locked down". This has a different feel. An OTT 'complete lack of perspective' feel. When someone comes out with that I mark them down as not someone to take seriously on this topic.
Good point. Please keep an eye out for it and send the usage report over at the end of each day.
No we'll do it real time. Beats batch any day.
How will you be able to do it in real time as you are locked down.
A friend reports a new hazard on the roads – inexperienced lorry drivers.
The hazards I am seeing are drivers lacking sleep.
Yesterday on my route home I saw two crashes at junctions within five miles - clearly caused by people pulling out without looking.
I was nearly involved in a third when somebody pulled out straight in front of me without looking and straddled the middle of a wide, straight road. I was doing 55 at the time and had no room to stop. Fortunately, there was no traffic coming and when I beeped the horn they pulled to the side so I was able to miss them.
I’m guessing heat, leading to lack of sleep, leading to lack of concentration.
I’m glad I don’t have to drive anywhere for the next few days.
I believe the driver charged with Dangerous driving after closing the A1M for 24 hours was down to lack of concentration due to additional hours.
It is no surprise that we are falling off a cliff. In fact it's to be welcomed so we can start mending fences as quickly as possible..
Apart from the headline stuff Cummings explained in some detail how the UK was manipulated into leaving the EU when even he (as chief manipulator) doubted it was in our best interest. When Laura K asked him why he and his (imbecile) front man told so many lies ie.Turkey were poised to join the EU he glibly replied that it wasn't his job to explain the small print.
It was chilling. Ruthless ambition by the puppet and puppet master meant no holes were barred. From an advertising perspective the technique was as simple as it was wretched as he couldn't resist explaining......
People with a slight prejudice had it aroused until it became a fear which as the campaign wore on became an all consuming fear. The reasons for choosing Turkey were as calculated as they were insidious
It was impossible to refute because Cameron in the past had said Turkey joining was 'a long term aspiration' and he didn't wish to offend the Turks by resiling from it. They also had an irresistable number of Muslims living there....
'if we remained in the EU 70 million Turks could be on our doorstep within a year and we could do nothing to stop them' became a virtual slogan..... Cummings in front of Lara K could hardly hide his gloat
No need to explain why this wouldn't have passed any advertising code known to man. Only the dimmest wouldn't know and they don't post here. But those now in power and those who put them there have shown how easily a country-even a reasonably civilised one-can be manipulated when there are no rules. And even questioning is severely restricted
The disappointing part is that in many ways it's the fault of the advertising industry. We've become accustomed to believing what advertisers tell us because they are obliged not only to tell the truth but to be able to substantiate all claims. There is no such thing as 'small print'
PS. I saw a 60's press ad for a Porsche 911 yesterday. Above a photo of the car were two lines
'Small Penis?
Have we got the car for you!'
Catchy post with a strong central point. Here's OJ musing on similar lines but in more of an OJ than a Roger way -
One thing I've picked up over the years, (from Cummings, Trump and elsewhere) is if you are going to make stuff up in an ad / post leave other things to argue about.
Turkey joining the EU and the £350m a week are great examples of this. There is enough element of truth in it that even if they argue the point (it's £350m total but we get £200m back) it just re-enforces the core message.
Yep. Although I'm not as livid about those 2 examples as many of my Remainer compadres are. Brexit is an act of economic and cultural vandalism. It's being done for reasons that are the opposite of noble. The better side of our nature lost to its darker twin. But Leave won fair and square as far as I'm concerned. I actually think the 52/48 understates the mood of the country. Makes it appear a finer judgment than it really was. In FPTP terms it was a landslide. Almost anywhere you go in England outside London, a majority wanted out of the EU. So out we have come. Democracy.
Trump, different story. Everything that issues forth from his odd pouting mouth is both nasty and a lie. I both disagree with what he says and would totally NOT defend to the death his right to say it. Deplatform and cancel is the way forward there, for me. Preferably written into law. A bespoke and carefully worded piece of legislation applying purely to him, hence dealing with the 'slippery slope' objection.
But this is not the case
I despise Trump, and loathe his malign influence on US politics, but he said some sane, truthful stuff amidst the weird gibberish
eg he was the first big global politician to say the virus probably came from a lab. God knows why he said it. The week before he was praising Xi. A week later he was on to something else. Likely it just jumped out of his crazy head, after an intelligence briefing
But what he said was true and important. Unfortunately the fact that HE said it meant the lab leak hypothesis then became toxic and was effectively suppressed for a year
I note that today China has outright refused to co-operate with the next stage of WHO’s investigation of coronavirus and its origins
So just another lie because the virus POSSIBLY came from a lab and is today still 2nd favourite to natural. I've done the legwork now. The lab thesis cannot - must not - be mocked but to rank it as the most likely scenario is a bridge too far.
It also ticks the "nasty" box in his case. His motives for pushing the lab - and in fact bioweapon - notion were 100% sordid.
So there we go - another nasty lie sliding from the mean little mouth of Donald J Trump to join the 156,648 others. And counting if he ever gets his platform back.
It probably came from the lab
If it did not, all China has to do is publish all the Wuhan laboratory data it mysteriously ‘deleted’ in late 2019. Why did they delete it? Why will they not reveal it? They have everything to gain by exonerating themselves, yet they won’t, because, I suspect, they can’t
It amazes me how bien pensants like yourself are still so reluctant to go near this theory, even when they are quite happy to believe other unsavoury things about the Xi regime. eg the Uighur ‘genocide’. I am sure it is a mixture of anti-Trump hysteria (‘everything he said was a vile lie!) mixed with class-anxious bourgeois distaste for plebeian ‘conspiracy theories’ - you hate to be associated with anything working class, as you spent your life escaping it
Ditto Brexit
The assessment of most experts is not probable but distinctly possible. I have to go with that. It's not about being a bien peasant it's just my standard technique for assessing things I have no clue about - ie almost everything. It's the only rational way.
And please remember my point from before. Evidence that fits both Lab and Natural does not increase the probability of Lab. Natural is the default. You need evidence condradicting it. And animal zero - or whatever - not yet being found is not sufficient. It can take ages, that, and might never happen. Sorry for trite chestnut but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Hate that one but it has some relevance here.
Are you sure about experts still favouring natural zoonosis?
Washington (CNN)Senior Biden administration officials overseeing an intelligence review into the origins of the coronavirus now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild -- a dramatic shift from a year ago, when Democrats publicly downplayed the so-called lab leak theory.
Five members of a Hong Kong union behind a series of children’s books about sheep trying to hold back wolves from their village have been arrested for sedition.
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
Don't we need to vaccinate under 12s to get to that level of coverage?
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
Payable on the second dose, sure why not. £500 worth of booze, weed and coke would probably work even better.
My less than cheerful and back of a fag packet computations this morning is that there are still roughly 7m unvaccinated. If we assume that they are pretty much all going to get this wretched virus eventually (as will the rest of us, apparently) then all other things being equal roughly 1% of them are going to die, that is about 70k. As they seem to trend much younger than the population as a whole that is probably at least twice the expected death rate for the cohort so we may be talking another 30k deaths.
This seems unfortunate and it is worth some government time and money to prevent this, even if the average IQ might well get a modest boost. Even more serious multiples of that number are going to fill our hospitals and displace sensible, vaccinated people with other issues. This will have significant costs for the tax payer both directly and indirectly. Oh, and some of those sensible people will die waiting for treatment.
So incentivising vaccination seems a good idea. I am relaxed about how to do this. Vaccination certificates for nightclubs, foreign holidays etc may be one way. Cold hard cash may be another. But we all have a vested interest in getting the stupid vaccinated, even, for our own sakes.
It is no surprise that we are falling off a cliff. In fact it's to be welcomed so we can start mending fences as quickly as possible..
Apart from the headline stuff Cummings explained in some detail how the UK was manipulated into leaving the EU when even he (as chief manipulator) doubted it was in our best interest. When Laura K asked him why he and his (imbecile) front man told so many lies ie.Turkey were poised to join the EU he glibly replied that it wasn't his job to explain the small print.
It was chilling. Ruthless ambition by the puppet and puppet master meant no holes were barred. From an advertising perspective the technique was as simple as it was wretched as he couldn't resist explaining......
People with a slight prejudice had it aroused until it became a fear which as the campaign wore on became an all consuming fear. The reasons for choosing Turkey were as calculated as they were insidious
It was impossible to refute because Cameron in the past had said Turkey joining was 'a long term aspiration' and he didn't wish to offend the Turks by resiling from it. They also had an irresistable number of Muslims living there....
'if we remained in the EU 70 million Turks could be on our doorstep within a year and we could do nothing to stop them' became a virtual slogan..... Cummings in front of Lara K could hardly hide his gloat
No need to explain why this wouldn't have passed any advertising code known to man. Only the dimmest wouldn't know and they don't post here. But those now in power and those who put them there have shown how easily a country-even a reasonably civilised one-can be manipulated when there are no rules. And even questioning is severely restricted
The disappointing part is that in many ways it's the fault of the advertising industry. We've become accustomed to believing what advertisers tell us because they are obliged not only to tell the truth but to be able to substantiate all claims. There is no such thing as 'small print'
PS. I saw a 60's press ad for a Porsche 911 yesterday. Above a photo of the car were two lines
'Small Penis?
Have we got the car for you!'
Catchy post with a strong central point. Here's OJ musing on similar lines but in more of an OJ than a Roger way -
One thing I've picked up over the years, (from Cummings, Trump and elsewhere) is if you are going to make stuff up in an ad / post leave other things to argue about.
Turkey joining the EU and the £350m a week are great examples of this. There is enough element of truth in it that even if they argue the point (it's £350m total but we get £200m back) it just re-enforces the core message.
Yep. Although I'm not as livid about those 2 examples as many of my Remainer compadres are. Brexit is an act of economic and cultural vandalism. It's being done for reasons that are the opposite of noble. The better side of our nature lost to its darker twin. But Leave won fair and square as far as I'm concerned. I actually think the 52/48 understates the mood of the country. Makes it appear a finer judgment than it really was. In FPTP terms it was a landslide. Almost anywhere you go in England outside London, a majority wanted out of the EU. So out we have come. Democracy.
Trump, different story. Everything that issues forth from his odd pouting mouth is both nasty and a lie. I both disagree with what he says and would totally NOT defend to the death his right to say it. Deplatform and cancel is the way forward there, for me. Preferably written into law. A bespoke and carefully worded piece of legislation applying purely to him, hence dealing with the 'slippery slope' objection.
But this is not the case
I despise Trump, and loathe his malign influence on US politics, but he said some sane, truthful stuff amidst the weird gibberish
eg he was the first big global politician to say the virus probably came from a lab. God knows why he said it. The week before he was praising Xi. A week later he was on to something else. Likely it just jumped out of his crazy head, after an intelligence briefing
But what he said was true and important. Unfortunately the fact that HE said it meant the lab leak hypothesis then became toxic and was effectively suppressed for a year
I note that today China has outright refused to co-operate with the next stage of WHO’s investigation of coronavirus and its origins
So just another lie because the virus POSSIBLY came from a lab and is today still 2nd favourite to natural. I've done the legwork now. The lab thesis cannot - must not - be mocked but to rank it as the most likely scenario is a bridge too far.
It also ticks the "nasty" box in his case. His motives for pushing the lab - and in fact bioweapon - notion were 100% sordid.
So there we go - another nasty lie sliding from the mean little mouth of Donald J Trump to join the 156,648 others. And counting if he ever gets his platform back.
It probably came from the lab
If it did not, all China has to do is publish all the Wuhan laboratory data it mysteriously ‘deleted’ in late 2019. Why did they delete it? Why will they not reveal it? They have everything to gain by exonerating themselves, yet they won’t, because, I suspect, they can’t
It amazes me how bien pensants like yourself are still so reluctant to go near this theory, even when they are quite happy to believe other unsavoury things about the Xi regime. eg the Uighur ‘genocide’. I am sure it is a mixture of anti-Trump hysteria (‘everything he said was a vile lie!) mixed with class-anxious bourgeois distaste for plebeian ‘conspiracy theories’ - you hate to be associated with anything working class, as you spent your life escaping it
Ditto Brexit
The assessment of most experts is not probable but distinctly possible. I have to go with that. It's not about being a bien peasant it's just my standard technique for assessing things I have no clue about - ie almost everything. It's the only rational way.
And please remember my point from before. Evidence that fits both Lab and Natural does not increase the probability of Lab. Natural is the default. You need evidence condradicting it. And animal zero - or whatever - not yet being found is not sufficient. It can take ages, that, and might never happen. Sorry for trite chestnut but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Hate that one but it has some relevance here.
Are you sure about experts still favouring natural zoonosis?
Washington (CNN)Senior Biden administration officials overseeing an intelligence review into the origins of the coronavirus now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild -- a dramatic shift from a year ago, when Democrats publicly downplayed the so-called lab leak theory.
Remember, ‘lab leak’ as a theory was literally banned by Facebook, for a year. You weren’t even allowed to mention it
The social media companies are the new big oil and banking trusts of the 21st century. We are in a second gilded age. Break them up, tax the billionaires.
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
Comments at parish level = input to planner (note I say comments pointing out it would impact xyz would actually be way more useful than a yes or no without reasoning).
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
Eek has it.
Where is this country where Planning Apps have to be submitted to a Parish Council?
Similar others are Rail Network Operators, Historic England and the Canal and Rivers Trust.
Quite how the Gardens Trust made it onto that list is baffling.
On the wider issue, Unitary Councils will work in some places, not in others - as @Cyclefree was pointing out wrt Cumbria.
I was working for a small LA in Shropshire when the awful Hazel Blears pithed localisation in England's most spread-out county.
Here in Notts there is Nottingham and a collection of towns nearly as big Nottingham together 20 miles North. The idea that the latter should be run from a Southern Suburb of the former is insane.
Two unitaries for Nottinghamshire -
Newark, Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop could work as a unitary (HQ Mansfield) "North Notts", and Nottingham council simply expand to pick up the rest of the county (Rushcliffe/Broxtowe), "Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire" (South Nottinghamshire outside Nottingham doesn't have any massive population centres)
That would work I think. Would also largely fit the topographical differences on the West side - the difference in snowfall between say N Ashfield and Nottingham can be startling, since much of the N is at 500-650 ft and Nottingham is around 150ft.
Slight boundary debate needed as to what happens to bits of the Trent Valley between Newark and Nottingham, and perhaps also Eastwood (which is in Ashfield Constituency).
Both would be approx half a million people, as the existing Districts are quite even.
West Bridgford would insist on "Nottingham, South Nottinghamshire and West Bridgford", though.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 2h Labour MP Khalid Mahmood tells Julia the Labour Party will vote against Boris Johnson’s plans for vaccine passports and guarantees Keir Starmer "will absolutely stick to his position because it's based on principle."
Yeh, right.
There's plenty to unpack here. i) Starmer's opposition was based off the fact the gov't wasn't going far enough. ii) To vote against something because it doesn't do all you'd like would be daftness of the highest order, last time I remember it happening was err... the EU votes in parliament. Look how that turned out. iii) His sentence is therefore a nonsense. iv) Mahmood is the MP of Perry barr. Birmingham, the largest LTLA in the country has a vaccination rate of 63.9% (1st dose, adults). I expect given the demographics Perry Barr is even lower. Should he really be shitting on vaxports at this point ? Might encourage take up if they're threatened even if not formally introduced.
Good point. Remember what happened last time Labour aligned with the ERG. We got Johnson and C80 and Hard Brexit. Brilliant.
That said, I do want Labour to start opposing and roughing up this dreadful government. The intrinsic merits of the actual position are secondary to me.
But THAT said, this is a phoney debate. Domestic vaxports for eg nightclubs is not a serious proposal or prospect. It's a ploy to drive young people to do the right thing - get their jabs.
I didn't know she even drank the stuff, but good on her for being an expert! Mrs T used to like the odd tipple.
Oh, hang on...I get it, English haters think all English people call the Scots "Scotch"!! It is an attempt at humour! Nationalists should stay away from humour; stick to strutting about wrapped up in flags and generally looking and sounding fecking stupid is the closest you get to being funny.
It's like shooting triggerfish in a barrel..
Not really, it just further points out your prejudice every time you do it. "I don't hate the English but..." was a phrase I heard from more than one Galswegian taxi driver , and was the preamble to a justification to his prejudice .
Anti-English racism is something you Nats revel in, combined with an unnecessary and historically unsupportable inferiority complex. Come to think of it, it would be a fascinating exercise to do some psychometric profiling on a load of nationalists, both English and Scottish. I imagine the profiles would be very similar.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
Taking the Knee is another tool for Middle Class urban football fans to demonstrate their superiority over their poorer football-supporting brethren. It is the Middle Class types who get to frame the debate and say what is and what is not acceptable, and those who disagree are labelled as bigots by these very types. The FA panders to it because they know that these types also set the public agenda.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
It's a strange world you live in, Ed. I truly don't recognize it outside the arena of right wing digitalis.
Vaccine passports remain the work of Satan by which ID cards will be imposed.
What is your issue with ID cards?
Being asked for ID itself or the original plan that went with it of an all singing and dancing database hanging off it that virtually everyone could access?
Is true. As I noted above. At least bribe people. £100 (£500?) to get a vax if you are 18-25.
We should maybe consider a vaccine status based helicopter drop for the entire population.
£300 for all double vaxxed people on September 30th and vaccine passport on that day too. I think we'd get to something like 95-98% coverage if we did that.
Don't we need to vaccinate under 12s to get to that level of coverage?
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
Comments at parish level = input to planner (note I say comments pointing out it would impact xyz would actually be way more useful than a yes or no without reasoning).
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
Eek has it.
Where is this country where Planning Apps have to be submitted to a Parish Council?
Similar others are Rail Network Operators, Historic England and the Canal and Rivers Trust.
Quite how the Gardens Trust made it onto that list is baffling.
On the wider issue, Unitary Councils will work in some places, not in others - as @Cyclefree was pointing out wrt Cumbria.
I was working for a small LA in Shropshire when the awful Hazel Blears pithed localisation in England's most spread-out county.
Here in Notts there is Nottingham and a collection of towns nearly as big Nottingham together 20 miles North. The idea that the latter should be run from a Southern Suburb of the former is insane.
Two unitaries for Nottinghamshire -
Newark, Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop could work as a unitary (HQ Mansfield) "North Notts", and Nottingham council simply expand to pick up the rest of the county (Rushcliffe/Broxtowe), "Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire" (South Nottinghamshire outside Nottingham doesn't have any massive population centres)
That would work I think. Would also largely fit the topographical differences on the West side - the difference in snowfall between say N Ashfield and Nottingham can be startling, since much of the N is at 500-650 ft and Nottingham is around 150ft.
Slight boundary debate needed as to what happens to bits of the Trent Valley between Newark and Nottingham, and perhaps also Eastwood (which is in Ashfield Constituency).
Both would be approx half a million people, as the existing Districts are quite even.
West Bridgford would insist on "Nottingham, South Nottinghamshire and West Bridgford", though.
I hate "Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire" - it's a tautology. Nottingham is in South Nottinghamshire. It's like "Cheshire West and Chester."
Vaccine passports remain the work of Satan by which ID cards will be imposed.
What is your issue with ID cards?
Being asked for ID itself or the original plan that went with it of an all singing and dancing database hanging off it that virtually everyone could access?
A reminder for everyone that the vaxports are already out. Just not publicised.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
Taking the Knee is another tool for Middle Class urban football fans to demonstrate their superiority over their poorer football-supporting brethren. It is the Middle Class types who get to frame the debate and say what is and what is not acceptable, and those who disagree are labelled as bigots by these very types. The FA panders to it because they know that these types also set the public agenda.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
It's a strange world you live in, Ed. I truly don't recognize it outside the arena of right wing digitalis.
I agree, but interesting use of the word "digitalis"; a drug obtained from Digitalis purpurea, or the foxglove plant. It can be used to treat congestive heart failure, or used to poison people, I think, by inducing arrhythmia if administered to an excessive dose....be very worried if your spouse suddenly starts growing large quantities!
Two-tier is just daft. This is the right way to go.
Though in reality it is really moving from 3-tier, county, district and town/parish councils to 2-tier, ie just unitary and town/parish
parish don't do anything and have zero real say in things (unless strangely you are within a National Park, where they have representation)..
They do if you live in a village, they run the cemeteries, village fete, manage war memorials, public toilets, greens and playing fields, village halls, rights of way, allotments, planning permission etc ie many of the key aspects of village life.
Plus they do neighbourhood plans now too.
Under unitary authorities parish and town councils will become more important as district councils and county councils are scrapped as the only layer of local government under unitaries in rural areas and market towns
I don't think Parish Councils decide on planning applications (which is the responsibility of the Borough/District) though they are an important consultee. In areas where the Community Infrastructure Levy has been adopted, the Parish should receive quite a chunk of cash.
All planning applications have to go to Parish or Town committee first, though the district (or unitary increasingly) can overturn their decision.
Parish and Towns also get a precept of the council tax as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy
Once again you haven't a clue what you are talking about but are posting as if you did.
Parish and Town councils are asked to comment on applications - that's it.
The final decision will then be made by the council or planners depending on delegation rights (the absolute most an parish council objection will do is route the case from delegated to a planning committee decision).
Yes I do, I am a town councillor and now on the planning committee.
All applications have to go to the planning committee first, then go to district.
However the chair of our planning committee is also a district councillor
And you don't because you are looking at the process from how you view it rather than what the process actually is.
Applications have to be processed within 12 weeks, so if a parish council doesn't respond to a planning application within the consultation period that doesn't stop it moving to the next step..
And a rejection at parish council level doesn't result in an application being refused - it's merely an input into the planners final decision.
Now that decision may be delegated refusal - in which case you seem to assuming that the parish council had final say in the matter, but that really isn't the case.
Yes but all applications still have to be submitted to the parish council.
A rejection at parish council level if upheld by district does lead to an application being refused unless the developer wins on appeal at the Inspector
Let's try that again shall we
Comments at parish level = input to planner (note I say comments pointing out it would impact xyz would actually be way more useful than a yes or no without reasoning).
Planner makes decision with documentation - if delegated decision sent and made.
- if not delegated then passed to committee for decision.
If appealed by developer - off to the inspectorate.
There are very important nuances you are missing here - because as I've stated above you are observing a black box (based on your experiences) and using that as the basis of your knowledge instead of looking at the real processes as set out by law.
Eek has it.
Where is this country where Planning Apps have to be submitted to a Parish Council?
Similar others are Rail Network Operators, Historic England and the Canal and Rivers Trust.
Quite how the Gardens Trust made it onto that list is baffling.
On the wider issue, Unitary Councils will work in some places, not in others - as @Cyclefree was pointing out wrt Cumbria.
I was working for a small LA in Shropshire when the awful Hazel Blears pithed localisation in England's most spread-out county.
Here in Notts there is Nottingham and a collection of towns nearly as big Nottingham together 20 miles North. The idea that the latter should be run from a Southern Suburb of the former is insane.
Two unitaries for Nottinghamshire -
Newark, Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop could work as a unitary (HQ Mansfield) "North Notts", and Nottingham council simply expand to pick up the rest of the county (Rushcliffe/Broxtowe), "Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire" (South Nottinghamshire outside Nottingham doesn't have any massive population centres)
That would work I think. Would also largely fit the topographical differences on the West side - the difference in snowfall between say N Ashfield and Nottingham can be startling, since much of the N is at 500-650 ft and Nottingham is around 150ft.
Slight boundary debate needed as to what happens to bits of the Trent Valley between Newark and Nottingham, and perhaps also Eastwood (which is in Ashfield Constituency).
Both would be approx half a million people, as the existing Districts are quite even.
West Bridgford would insist on "Nottingham, South Nottinghamshire and West Bridgford", though.
I hate "Nottingham and South Nottinghamshire" - it's a tautology. Nottingham is in South Nottinghamshire. It's like "Cheshire West and Chester."
Just "South Nottinghamshire" then. It's not a hill I'm going to climb, let alone consider dieing on.
The Spectator @spectator 'I now accept that when players start taking the knee again in a few weeks’ time it will not be because they’re rabid neo-Marxists.' Toby Young
Good morning fellow PBers. Your resident "soft-headed bigot" (copyright kinabalu) signing in for another day of robust debate about the issues of the day.
No-one thinks footballers "are" neo-Marxists - that would be absurd. Presumably, the reason some people do not support the taking of the knee at sporting events is because it adopts the symbolism of the BLM movement, which is, openly, a neo-Marxist organization. If one adopts the symbolism of an organization then it's reasonable to assume support for it.
Trying to explain that away by saying "no, no, we're not supporting the organization; we're just saying we're against racism" is problematic when there are perfectly good campaigns, such as "Kick It Out" and "Show Racism the Red Card", out there and doing a good job of highlighting the issue.
It's interesting that the FA and others have doubled down on the "taking of the knee" when they could have just as easily supported "taking a stand" or "turning a back" - which do not have divisive political overtones - instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of using sport for any political purpose but that's by the by - it seems it's here to stay.
Anyway, it sounds as if the likes of Topy Young are admitting defeat on this one, which is a notable development given that the underlying concerns about the association with BLM and it's objectives have not gone away.
Don't start thinking you're something special. SHBs are ten a penny. But ok, objection noted, let's see how we get on from here. I've been known to revise assessments based on evolving info. This latest offering of yours leaves us with status quo, sadly, but life is long.
Taking the Knee is another tool for Middle Class urban football fans to demonstrate their superiority over their poorer football-supporting brethren. It is the Middle Class types who get to frame the debate and say what is and what is not acceptable, and those who disagree are labelled as bigots by these very types. The FA panders to it because they know that these types also set the public agenda.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
It's a strange world you live in, Ed. I truly don't recognize it outside the arena of right wing digitalis.
Maybe. People are never the best judge of themselves. But it may be the lack of recognition is because you live in the left-wing equivalent of mine. I truly don't understand how somebody with a pen1s can just turn up and say "I'm a woman" but many progressives take that view.
Comments
But what I'm still not having is the phrase "we are locked down". This has a different feel. An OTT 'complete lack of perspective' feel. When someone comes out with that I mark them down as not someone to take seriously on this topic.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19446617.ministers-fire-mismanagement-calmac-ferry-cancellations-continue/
Not, I'm afraid, the SNP's finest hour.
Australia and NZ fucked up on procurement.
Denmark and Canada doing well tbh.
That is the trend across the South East
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/06/nick-clegg-promises-10-garden-cities-built-train-line-oxford-cambridge
The whole global logistics system is a finely balanced operation, i.e. how that one container ship getting stuck in suez canal for a few days had significant knock on effects, which is small beer compared to all the massive and on going disruptions from covid.
Egan Bernal was 23 when that photo was taken. That's real cyclisme.
The young aren't hesitant, or massively libertarian. They're just lazy for the main part.
Do you know what your Government's policy is?
It's Garden Villages on the edge of towns (which at least means the builders need to pay some attention to facilities rather than filling the site with as many houses as possible).
We should really be high up in government.
I thought they just got drunk, stood up in Parliament and hoped for the best.
But the chateaux are sublime. Also gorgeous gardens. And the abbey at fontevrauld is magnifique. You can sleep in a nice hotel inside the abbey and they let you wander at will.
Happening upon the moonlit grave of Richard I of England at midnight, blind drunk, is quite the experience
We're off to Co. Kildare in two weeks for the niece's wedding. I went through the ritual of phoning the Irish Embassy but as usual, they didn't answer. However, they did refer me to the relevant part of their website.
It was actually there. No PCR test required for us Golden Oldies. A locator form but they only ask about our first location in Athy, not about our extended family, or the visit to Glenbeigh, the jewel of the Kerry coastline.
I might even manage to return with a suntan, or at least some rust.
We only needed a few top ups.
I may have mentioned that it has been bloody warm this week in Brighton, in fact it is hotter than the Devil's arsehole.
I detest the heat as much as I detest pineapple on pizza.
https://www.udg.org.uk/directory/projects/garden-village-handforth
Jenrick's policy is for 'beautiful' houses on tree lined streets, not for building vast garden towns across the rural Home Counties like the LDs
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/robert-jenrick-says-all-new-houses-must-be-beautiful-and-built-on-tree-lined-streets-1112430
@talkRADIO
·
2h
Labour MP Khalid Mahmood tells Julia the Labour Party will vote against Boris Johnson’s plans for vaccine passports and guarantees Keir Starmer "will absolutely stick to his position because it's based on principle."
Yeh, right.
Although how a project can go 100% over budget is an interesting question that does need answers.
And while these ships are 25 years old the SNP have only been in power for the last 15 of them - which means the issue is that the British Government didn't build them with longer lasting engines.
Yesterday on my route home I saw two crashes at junctions within five miles - clearly caused by people pulling out without looking.
I was nearly involved in a third when somebody pulled out straight in front of me without looking and straddled the middle of a wide, straight road. I was doing 55 at the time and had no room to stop. Fortunately, there was no traffic coming and when I beeped the horn they pulled to the side so I was able to miss them.
I’m guessing heat, leading to lack of sleep, leading to lack of concentration.
I’m glad I don’t have to drive anywhere for the next few days.
As was said on this site, last week, if somebody was giving a Nazi / Fascist salute, you wouldn't be thinking of the nuances such as "that person in giving the salute is really expressing support for Germany's Autobahn plans in the 1930s", you would be assuming they support the organisation of which that is a symbol.
You should be attacking BLM for appropriating a symbol that could have been seen as a non-political way of opposing racism, instead of which BLM decided to adopt it for itself so it could further its own cause.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1418156353785409536?s=20
Just kidding.....
And please remember my point from before. Evidence that fits both Lab and Natural does not increase the probability of Lab. Natural is the default. You need evidence condradicting it. And animal zero - or whatever - not yet being found is not sufficient. It can take ages, that, and might never happen. Sorry for trite chestnut but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Hate that one but it has some relevance here.
@PrivateEyeNews
·
3h
Andrew Neill's Great Brillo News, now firmly embracing cancel culture when it comes to its own presenters, is getting less than a sixth of the viewers of a Quest channel show about sheds. All the latest on GB News in the new Private Eye, out now.
i) Starmer's opposition was based off the fact the gov't wasn't going far enough.
ii) To vote against something because it doesn't do all you'd like would be daftness of the highest order, last time I remember it happening was err... the EU votes in parliament. Look how that turned out.
iii) His sentence is therefore a nonsense.
iv) Mahmood is the MP of Perry barr. Birmingham, the largest LTLA in the country has a vaccination rate of 63.9% (1st dose, adults). I expect given the demographics Perry Barr is even lower. Should he really be shitting on vaxports at this point ? Might encourage take up if they're threatened even if not formally introduced.
Oh, hang on...I get it, English haters think all English people call the Scots "Scotch"!! It is an attempt at humour! Nationalists should stay away from humour; stick to strutting about wrapped up in flags and generally looking and sounding fecking stupid is the closest you get to being funny.
Personally I wouldn't have one in any scenario people who have chosen not to get the vaccine are only putting themselves at risk but the government is run by pansies who won't say that.
Side effects including a high fever today, took lateral flow test we had at home so be safe - come back positive.
Lots of Covid exposure for my body to get used to!
The Nazi comparison is completely crass as Nazi Germany was a major industrial nation, not a tinpot outfit dwarfed by a much bigger, more moderate movement. Everyone knew who Hitler was in the 1930s. I bet 5% of Brits could name anyone in the actual BLM organization. It is amazing how many right wingers love footballers wearing poppies etc, but oppose symbols against racism as "virtue signalling".
There is no news beyond his arrest though...
Washington (CNN)Senior Biden administration officials overseeing an intelligence review into the origins of the coronavirus now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild -- a dramatic shift from a year ago, when Democrats publicly downplayed the so-called lab leak theory.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/16/politics/biden-intel-review-covid-origins/index.html
Remember, ‘lab leak’ as a theory was literally banned by Facebook, for a year. You weren’t even allowed to mention it
Five members of a Hong Kong union behind a series of children’s books about sheep trying to hold back wolves from their village have been arrested for sedition.
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/1418165900734341120?s=20
This seems unfortunate and it is worth some government time and money to prevent this, even if the average IQ might well get a modest boost. Even more serious multiples of that number are going to fill our hospitals and displace sensible, vaccinated people with other issues. This will have significant costs for the tax payer both directly and indirectly. Oh, and some of those sensible people will die waiting for treatment.
So incentivising vaccination seems a good idea. I am relaxed about how to do this. Vaccination certificates for nightclubs, foreign holidays etc may be one way. Cold hard cash may be another. But we all have a vested interest in getting the stupid vaccinated, even, for our own sakes.
Slight boundary debate needed as to what happens to bits of the Trent Valley between Newark and Nottingham, and perhaps also Eastwood (which is in Ashfield Constituency).
Both would be approx half a million people, as the existing Districts are quite even.
West Bridgford would insist on "Nottingham, South Nottinghamshire and West Bridgford", though.
That said, I do want Labour to start opposing and roughing up this dreadful government. The intrinsic merits of the actual position are secondary to me.
But THAT said, this is a phoney debate. Domestic vaxports for eg nightclubs is not a serious proposal or prospect. It's a ploy to drive young people to do the right thing - get their jabs.
Anti-English racism is something you Nats revel in, combined with an unnecessary and historically unsupportable inferiority complex. Come to think of it, it would be a fascinating exercise to do some psychometric profiling on a load of nationalists, both English and Scottish. I imagine the profiles would be very similar.
Loganair are axing their Aberdeen Newcastle flights https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/1417900368273477633
Given the multiple flights a day that used to go on that route - it shows the state of the oil industry in Aberdeen.
Being asked for ID itself or the original plan that went with it of an all singing and dancing database hanging off it that virtually everyone could access?
Ursula von der Leyen @vonderleyen
PM @BorisJohnson called to present the UK Command paper on the Irish/Northern Irish Protocol.
The EU will continue to be creative and flexible within the Protocol framework. But we will not renegotiate.
We must jointly ensure stability and predictability in Northern Ireland.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1418170779888496645?s=20
Hey PB! "Scotch experts"! After all this time, if we look very hard we may be able to find the joke TUD has been making a few times a day for forever!