I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
I realised I was bisexual at high school as I had crushes on girls and boys. My dad was somewhat of a homophobe so I buried it. Went to uni and found the LGBsoc people thought B were not really a thing and not brave enough and actually a bit of a traitor to the cause actually. So I buried it so deep that I didn't come out for another 20 years.
As you say, it doesn't mean wanting to shag anything that walks...
If it's not too personal a question, does it actually have any impact on your life? Is it not - as an adult - just the same situation as mine i.e. there are lots of people I find physically attractive, of whom I am married to one and therefore all of the others are just people who brighten up the landscape. For me, all the first group are female whereas for yours they are a mix of male and female - but I would have thought it essentially the same outcome?
Its the exact same thing. I am a married man - I might look at other people and go phwoar, but I'm not about to jump them.
Sexuality is *attraction*. What you do with that attraction is not the same thing.
EDIT - I did tell my eldest that my dad is probably the reason he exists. Sexuality is a scale, and if you're somewhere in the middle then you may lean one way or the other. I lean straighter than I do gay. But growing up it was the opposite. Had my dad not made endless jokes about "poofters" and "shirtlifters" and "ooh hello" with the hand gesture about his colleagues then who knows who I could be with now.
I am very happy with my life. with my wife of 22 years, with my kids. But life sometimes offers alternatives where such outcomes are not yet forged...
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Which is actually rubbish advice. Voters in inner cities who want a left of Labour party are going Green or even Your Party they will NOT vote for ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Ed Davey's party. This is not Charles Kennedy's left of Labour LDs, most of them returned to Labour when Ed Miliband won the leadership.
The LD vote is now largely made up of those who voted LD even in 2015 for Clegg plus some former Tory Remainers mainly based in the South of England
On TWAO today they said that the Lib Dems only came 2nd in 27 seats at the GE. All 27 were Tory held. The carcase of the Tories remains the obvious target for them.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
No. Pre Trump Republicans normally picked the next in line eg Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain, Romney etc.
Democrats candidates often are fresh faced outsiders eg McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Obama
Reasonable look at the Corbyn Sultana Party and their chances of getting it off the ground. Ash Sarkar usually quite sound on left wing politics doesn't sound optimistic.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
Same thought had occurred to me, though I also detect a touch of @ydoethur every so often. In any event, I suspect he has a very good chance of getting the nomination, simply by being the most visible opposition to Trump.
It's probably a bit early to lay his chances.
If it was a nationwide primary he would but I can't see Iowa, NH or SC voting for Newsom and if he doesn't win any of those he will be out well before California votes
Reasonable look at the Corbyn Sultana Party and their chances of getting it off the ground. Ash Sarkar usually quite sound on left wing politics doesn't sound optimistic.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
The point is that the current state of the chalk grassland includes the annual mowing of a small piece of it.
You can’t just say “Stop that and it’ll all be wonderful”
You are changing the landscape.
See wildfires and First People’s traditional burn off.
So Natural England can be presumed to be destroying the SSI, unless they can show a better outcome from stopping the festival.
If Trump can sue Murdoch for $10bn for claiming (correctly) that a scribble in a book is his how much should Kenvue, the owner of Tylenol, be suing him for?
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I'll come back in a bit more detail later on, but for now EN is not an NGO - it is the national body with a statutory duty to protect SSSIs.
And all they have done here is exercise their legal duty in response to a Section 38 Application under the Commons Act.
I don't see how exercising a Stat Duty can be "overreach". They do not even make any decision - they are a Consultee, for a decision make by a Planning Inspector, on which anyone can make representations.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
I say we need to defend the current state of the common from the un-scientific, eco-terrorism of NE
They are modifying the seasonal structure of a SSSI, without evidence or even study. Just because "feels".
They are almost certainly MAGA. They probably recommend injecting bleach for COVID.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
Grass that has been cut in exactly the same way for many decades.
And yet it managed to become an SSI in the first place, mysteriously.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
It is also not particularly to MattW's credit that he has been found to be wrong, but not had the character to acknowledge it.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Harris lost because Americans became poorer under Biden*.
(There were other smaller contributory factors of course. I think trans played a small role, and what I would describe broadly as 'affirmative action' a small one too. In the states of Arizona and Nevadam, the Biden border mess no doubt moved the needle as well. A better candidate, and a proper nomination process might have helped. But America is so polarized, I doubt it would have made more than a percent or two of difference. In other words, it might have saved Wisconsin... and possibly Michigan.)
* And Americans became poorer under Biden mostly because energy prices rose as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Which is actually rubbish advice. Voters in inner cities who want a left of Labour party are going Green or even Your Party they will NOT vote for ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Ed Davey's party. This is not Charles Kennedy's left of Labour LDs, most of them returned to Labour when Ed Miliband won the leadership.
The LD vote is now largely made up of those who voted LD even in 2015 for Clegg plus some former Tory Remainers mainly based in the South of England
On TWAO today they said that the Lib Dems only came 2nd in 27 seats at the GE. All 27 were Tory held. The carcase of the Tories remains the obvious target for them.
That is simultaneously true and also completely wrong-headed.
Looking back over the last decade of British politics and it's clear that British voters are casting about for answers and haven't found any yet. Farage appears to hold the mantle of being the next, "least worst option we haven't tried yet."
This is a time of tremendous opportunity and change in British politics. There's potential for the Lib Dems to create a message that will appeal to an election-winning coalition of voters. Targeting 27 seats feels like an electoral strategy from the 1990s.
Did anyone take Trump's advice about taking oral Domestos to cure COVID? The man is clearly a medical genius. I assumed Republicans have unlimited faith?
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
According to the BBC article he also has 'a five-year sexual harm prevention order - which bans him from contacting any female not already known to him. He will be added to the sex offenders' register for 10 years, the force confirmed in a statement, adding that he would now be subject "to strict monitoring for the whole of that time".'
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
Usual pathetic molly coddling of these criminals getting special treatment and taken by the hand. He should have been deported long ago.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Which is actually rubbish advice. Voters in inner cities who want a left of Labour party are going Green or even Your Party they will NOT vote for ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Ed Davey's party. This is not Charles Kennedy's left of Labour LDs, most of them returned to Labour when Ed Miliband won the leadership.
The LD vote is now largely made up of those who voted LD even in 2015 for Clegg plus some former Tory Remainers mainly based in the South of England
On TWAO today they said that the Lib Dems only came 2nd in 27 seats at the GE. All 27 were Tory held. The carcase of the Tories remains the obvious target for them.
Speaking of which Ed Davey has just made a direct appeal to One Nation Tories 'who reject the divisive politics of Badenoch and Farage to come and win with us!' in his leadership speech at the LD conference now.
Davey also says Labour 'has no vision and no plan' and have hurt 'pensioners, farmers, disabled people and small businesses'.
He says neither of the 2 old parties can win back voters' trust and the battle of ideas for the future of the country, says the choice will be the LDs or Farage
I read that autism was first diagnosed in 1943; Tylenol was invented in 1955.
People died of road accidents before the automobile was invented - that hardly disproves a causal link.
Well, if there is a link, it's a very small one. The massive Swedish study had autism rates for kids whose parents who took paracetamol to be 1.3%, against 1.2% for those who didn't. And furthermore, there was no measurable increased risk for those whose parents were prescribed paracetamol rather than those who self reported using it. (Which means that incidence doesn't appear to scale with dosage.)
There's also the other issue: what if the factor is that sick parents are very slightly more likely to have kids with autism, and sick parents are more likely to take paracetamol? Without proper controls, you are potentially just picking up something that drives both autism and paracetamol use. (Which would be like noting that Australia has high skin cancer rates and some of the highest sales of sunscreen in the world, and therefore concluding it is the sunscreen causing the cancer.)
A possible causal link is that a sick parent is more likely to hand their child over to be parented by technology. (And there is some evidence that autism rates in the US track cable TV roll out. Less interaction with the parents/other kids and more with screens sounds like a perfectly plausible pathway, and also matches the data about falling family sizes.)
So, sick parents -> more likely to hand their kids over to Parenting by Disney and more likely to have taken paracetamol.
Davey also says Labour 'has no vision and no plan' and have hurt 'pensioners, farmers, disabled people and small businesses'.
He says neither of the 2 old parties can win back voters' trust and the battle of idea for the future of the country, says the choice will be the LDs or Farage
Ed Davey's address to his conference about to interrupted by Trump's address to UN
Ed Davey's conference speech derailed by some wood-stain drying on a picket fence in Orpington. Davey fuming about the lack of media coverage as outlets interrupted his speech to cross over live to the drying amidst ratings slump.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Trump's tariffs may not help Vance on that score in 2028
Davey also says Labour 'has no vision and no plan' and have hurt 'pensioners, farmers, disabled people and small businesses'.
He says neither of the 2 old parties can win back voters' trust and the battle of idea for the future of the country, says the choice will be the LDs or Farage
Going to be Farage then sadly
On a forced choice I would expect the LDs to beat Reform in a general election, I would not definitely expect Labour to beat Reform though
I read that autism was first diagnosed in 1943; Tylenol was invented in 1955.
People died of road accidents before the automobile was invented - that hardly disproves a causal link.
Well, if there is a link, it's a very small one. The massive Swedish study had autism rates for kids whose parents who took paracetamol to be 1.3%, against 1.2% for those who didn't. And furthermore, there was no measurable increased risk for those whose parents were prescribed paracetamol rather than those who self reported using it. (Which means that incidence doesn't appear to scale with dosage.)
There's also the other issue: what if the factor is that sick parents are very slightly more likely to have kids with autism, and sick parents are more likely to take paracetamol? Without proper controls, you are potentially just picking up something that drives both autism and paracetamol use. (Which would be like noting that Australia has high skin cancer rates and some of the highest sales of sunscreen in the world, and therefore concluding it is the sunscreen causing the cancer.)
A possible causal link is that a sick parent is more likely to hand their child over to be parented by technology. (And there is some evidence that autism rates in the US track cable TV roll out. Less interaction with the parents/other kids and more with screens sounds like a perfectly plausible pathway, and also matches the data about falling family sizes.)
So, sick parents -> more likely to hand their kids over to Parenting by Disney and more likely to have taken paracetamol.
Was that 1.3/1.2% difference even statistically significant?
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I'll come back in a bit more detail later on, but for now EN is not an NGO - it is the national body with a statutory duty to protect SSSIs.
And all they have done here is exercise their legal duty in response to a Section 38 Application under the Commons Act.
I don't see how exercising a Stat Duty can be "overreach". They do not even make any decision - they are a Consultee, for a decision make by a Planning Inspector, on which anyone can make representations.
I might suggest it is because of what 'protect' means. The easiest way to 'protect' an area from people is to prevent people from accessing it at all - at least, the 'wrong' people. In preventing people from accessing it for this festival, you could argue they are performing their duty. Except that obviously means that their duty is in direct conflict with public access. Something you usually care about.
It's about compromise. This was the only place the festival can be held, and AFAIAA nothing had changed since the last few festivals. It also takes up a very small percentage of the heath, and AFAIAA NE provided no evidence the flower was present on that part of the heath - just that it can be found somewhere on the heath. The report you linked to earlier acknowledged some of the benefits that the festival gives to the local area.
And NE did not make the decision; but they made an objection. Which means the festival could not go ahead.
I read that autism was first diagnosed in 1943; Tylenol was invented in 1955.
People died of road accidents before the automobile was invented - that hardly disproves a causal link.
Well, if there is a link, it's a very small one. The massive Swedish study had autism rates for kids whose parents who took paracetamol to be 1.3%, against 1.2% for those who didn't. And furthermore, there was no measurable increased risk for those whose parents were prescribed paracetamol rather than those who self reported using it. (Which means that incidence doesn't appear to scale with dosage.)
There's also the other issue: what if the factor is that sick parents are very slightly more likely to have kids with autism, and sick parents are more likely to take paracetamol? Without proper controls, you are potentially just picking up something that drives both autism and paracetamol use. (Which would be like noting that Australia has high skin cancer rates and some of the highest sales of sunscreen in the world, and therefore concluding it is the sunscreen causing the cancer.)
A possible causal link is that a sick parent is more likely to hand their child over to be parented by technology. (And there is some evidence that autism rates in the US track cable TV roll out. Less interaction with the parents/other kids and more with screens sounds like a perfectly plausible pathway, and also matches the data about falling family sizes.)
So, sick parents -> more likely to hand their kids over to Parenting by Disney and more likely to have taken paracetamol.
I agree with all of this.
However, wherever the hoo ha has come from, it seems to warrant further study. According to someone here yesterday, Paracetamol was originally thought not to permeate the placenta, but apparently it does. So let's make sure it's safe.
Biden seemed to recover somewhat when he was away with the Fairies, and the Government was being handled by someone else. Perhaps they were the best set to carry on. But lying about his mental issues was unforgivable.
Just caught a bit of Davey. He somehow looks like the love child of Tim Farron and Bob Mortimer.
Amusingly, the people behind him (why do they do that?) are unsure whether to nod in agreement or shake heads in sympathy, so between them they're doing both (those still awake) which looks odd.
I'm a habitual Lib Dem, but I can't say I've got any enthusiasm for the party at present, really. Not much enthusiasm for anyone else either, to be fair!
ETA: Ah, just seen Farron and Cooper behind him - are they all MPs? Who's the one with the permanently startled eyebrows?
E2TA: The guy with the beard and curtains looks kind of horrified, like he's just realised he's turned up at the wrong conference - maybe one on fridge widgets - and is disappointed.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
Some people also assume that Bi people must be promiscuous, because a single sexual partner cannot be both male or female, but you can be attracted to a variety of people and choose to remain faithful to one.
If you read any kind of fanfiction, bisexuals are fetishised. The assumption is that they are promiscuous, keen practisers of incest, and on the lookout for new experiences.
Fanfiction (esp. slash) is never a way of assessing attitudes towards people.
I read that autism was first diagnosed in 1943; Tylenol was invented in 1955.
People died of road accidents before the automobile was invented - that hardly disproves a causal link.
Well, if there is a link, it's a very small one. The massive Swedish study had autism rates for kids whose parents who took paracetamol to be 1.3%, against 1.2% for those who didn't. And furthermore, there was no measurable increased risk for those whose parents were prescribed paracetamol rather than those who self reported using it. (Which means that incidence doesn't appear to scale with dosage.)
There's also the other issue: what if the factor is that sick parents are very slightly more likely to have kids with autism, and sick parents are more likely to take paracetamol? Without proper controls, you are potentially just picking up something that drives both autism and paracetamol use. (Which would be like noting that Australia has high skin cancer rates and some of the highest sales of sunscreen in the world, and therefore concluding it is the sunscreen causing the cancer.)
A possible causal link is that a sick parent is more likely to hand their child over to be parented by technology. (And there is some evidence that autism rates in the US track cable TV roll out. Less interaction with the parents/other kids and more with screens sounds like a perfectly plausible pathway, and also matches the data about falling family sizes.)
So, sick parents -> more likely to hand their kids over to Parenting by Disney and more likely to have taken paracetamol.
Was that 1.3/1.2% difference even statistically significant?
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
Actually, I think I was the one who kicked off about it (And I believe I mentioned it on here when it originally happened a couple of year ago). I know the heath well, having walked, run and cycled along/around/through it, and have been to the kite festival - which was a great day out for kids and adults.
In this case, it is not an agency who needs protecting from 'vandals'. It is ordinary people who need protecting from a large organisation's overreach.
And yes, I'm glad we agree the festival has a value that can't just be seen on a spreadsheet...
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
Some people also assume that Bi people must be promiscuous, because a single sexual partner cannot be both male or female, but you can be attracted to a variety of people and choose to remain faithful to one.
If you read any kind of fanfiction, bisexuals are fetishised. The assumption is that they are promiscuous, keen practisers of incest, and on the lookout for new experiences.
Fanfiction (esp. slash) is never a way of assessing attitudes towards people.
I think you now get a fair number of middle class young bisexuals, who are bi in their 20s after uni and having lots of fun before settling down with one long term partner in their 30s and normally becoming heterosexual and having a baby and sometimes getting married too
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
I'm keen on process protecting relevant interests, and that requires good law and ways to make sure it is enforced. And that requires attention to detail. If we do not have good process and law, then it goes to pot over time.
Here we have a law protecting SSSIs, and also Commons (which is not at issue, as that would be about access - and is why the Open Spaces Society did not object AIUI *).
The process here is that we have an applicant wanting to do a development (Rotary Club and their kite festival, stuff like marquees and car parking, the land management regime to support the current dates), English Nature who manage the SSSI and can object if it may damage, and the Planning Inspectorate who make a decision on a balance of interests and weighted criteria defined in the Commons Act 2006 S38. It is open to challenge via the Courts if desired.
There are reasons why it came up for review - an existing agreement expiring, and a suggestion that a Section 38 application being the correct way to consider all interests. It's not "this year", since the decision was 2023 and the report I linked was July 2024. There's also stuff in there about management under a Sustainable Farming Scheme.
That's a good balanced process. And I don't think we can overthrow it for a single decision not being what we like.
Here as I see it NE made suggested mitigations that would make continuance on the site possible, but Rotary don't like it. I think the ball is in their court - they have options to make some changes, or apply for something different.
(And somehow it has been tied into this bizarre "Fun Police" and "Abolish EN" nonsense.)
A problem with "approve as default" is that it makes it easier for things to go wrong, and that's a serious risk when we are dealing with spaces that have existed for centuries. We also need to think about our grand children as well as what we want now; that sounds precious, but it matters. This is an arena for small-c conservatism.
In my bit of Ashfield we lost our Lammas Field which was next to a 13C church around 2007, right in the middle of town, and it turned out later that the District had acted unlawfully - something to do with them messing up between a role as the Local Authority, and as a Trustee for a Charity holding the land. But it is now gone, and can't come back because they built on it, and people living near there now have to walk half a mile for green open space.
(* If it had been eg half a mile of fence between the Common and an adjacent road, they *would* object for access reasons.)
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had supported Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Wow, US Secret Service have taken down a warehouse near the UN with a server farm containing 100,000 SIM cards, seemingly intended to overwhelm the mobile networks in New York.
Sky just left Davey and now has Trump live to give one of his biggest speeches on international matters apparently
BBC2 hasn't and has about ten times the viewers of Sky news
GB news has it live
In least surprising news ever, I doubt any GB news viewer would ever vote LD anyway
Trump's ravings are the catnip for the media and certainly what he says today will have important ramifications for the UN
90% of UN countries have voted to recognise a Palestinian state, Trump just saying he won't and will veto it at the Security Council just reinforces the largely powerless nature of the General Assembly
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Sky just left Davey and now has Trump live to give one of his biggest speeches on international matters apparently
BBC2 hasn't and has about ten times the viewers of Sky news
GB news has it live
That probably tells you more about Sky News (infotainment desperately scrabbling for viewers) and GB News (propogandist infotainment) than it does about the news importance of the two speeches.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
Actually, I think I was the one who kicked off about it (And I believe I mentioned it on here when it originally happened a couple of year ago). I know the heath well, having walked, run and cycled along/around/through it, and have been to the kite festival - which was a great day out for kids and adults.
In this case, it is not an agency who needs protecting from 'vandals'. It is ordinary people who need protecting from a large organisation's overreach.
And yes, I'm glad we agree the festival has a value that can't just be seen on a spreadsheet...
It's a balance as always. I think access has gone too far in some places in Scotland; not far enough in others. I'm always going to react badly to people who are just so obnoxiously single-minded and unthinking about an issue though, as those two PBers tend to be.
Wow, US Secret Service have taken down a warehouse near the UN with a server farm containing 100,000 SIM cards, seemingly intended to overwhelm the mobile networks in New York.
Trump trashing the UN, says all he has got from the UN is a bad escalator which the First Lady nearly fell off and a bad teleprompter. Says it is not even living up to its potential, just writes badly worded letters with no action to end wars unlike his success with the Abraham Accords etc
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
Trump trashing the UN, says all he has got from the UN is a bad escalator which the First Lady nearly fell off and a bad teleprompter. Says it is not even living up to its potential, just writes badly worded letters with no action to end wars unlike his success with the Abraham Accords etc
Talk of Dickie Bird has reminded me of the valediction to his career as described in Simon Armitage’s ‘All Points North’:
“Five days ago he fought his way through the upstanding members of the MCC and walked to the middle, dabbing at the tears behind his glasses. It’s no secret that Mr. Bird is a man who live sin very close proximity to his emotions, a characteristic first revealed on ‘This is Your Life’, when he greeted every Freeman, Hardy and Willis who walked on stage as a twin brother, separated at birth. At the end of his final test match, umpire Harold Bird is led from the field by half a dozen shirt-sleeved policemen like a runaway boy after a lifetime’s adventure.”
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
Sky just left Davey and now has Trump live to give one of his biggest speeches on international matters apparently
BBC2 hasn't and has about ten times the viewers of Sky news
GB news has it live
In least surprising news ever, I doubt any GB news viewer would ever vote LD anyway
Trump's ravings are the catnip for the media and certainly what he says today will have important ramifications for the UN
Trump sounds very tired. Bored and boring.
Trump has a problem. For all that he is all-powerful, he has a problem. He has fought, lied and cheated his way back into the gilded cage. But he has all this work to do now. And as soon as he leaves, this legal problems begin again, don't they?
He got the thrill of victory and revenge, sure. But now the cosmos is getting its revenge. It often does.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
Just caught a bit of Davey. He somehow looks like the love child of Tim Farron and Bob Mortimer.
Amusingly, the people behind him (why do they do that?) are unsure whether to nod in agreement or shake heads in sympathy, so between them they're doing both (those still awake) which looks odd.
I'm a habitual Lib Dem, but I can't say I've got any enthusiasm for the party at present, really. Not much enthusiasm for anyone else either, to be fair!
ETA: Ah, just seen Farron and Cooper behind him - are they all MPs? Who's the one with the permanently startled eyebrows?
E2TA: The guy with the beard and curtains looks kind of horrified, like he's just realised he's turned up at the wrong conference - maybe one on fridge widgets - and is disappointed.
Perhaps he was expecting to see Ed do something fun as he usually does. Looking out for a trap door mechanism to plunge Ed into a vat of custard and gradually realising that no, he's just going to make a speech, must be a crushing blow.
Wow, US Secret Service have taken down a warehouse near the UN with a server farm containing 100,000 SIM cards, seemingly intended to overwhelm the mobile networks in New York.
Trump trashing the UN, says all he has got from the UN is a bad escalator which the First Lady nearly fell off and a bad teleprompter. Says it is not even living up to its potential, just writes badly worded letters with no action to end wars unlike his success with the Abraham Accords etc
Sky just left Davey and now has Trump live to give one of his biggest speeches on international matters apparently
BBC2 hasn't and has about ten times the viewers of Sky news
GB news has it live
In least surprising news ever, I doubt any GB news viewer would ever vote LD anyway
Trump's ravings are the catnip for the media and certainly what he says today will have important ramifications for the UN
Trump sounds very tired. Bored and boring.
Trump has a problem. For all that he is all-powerful, he has a problem. He has fought, lied and cheated his way back into the gilded cage. But he has all this work to do now. And as soon as he leaves, this legal problems begin again, don't they?
He got the thrill of victory and revenge, sure. But now the cosmos is getting its revenge. It often does.
He will die in office, like many of the dictators he so admires.
And so every day we check for the obituary on the front pages.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
Sky just left Davey and now has Trump live to give one of his biggest speeches on international matters apparently
BBC2 hasn't and has about ten times the viewers of Sky news
GB news has it live
In least surprising news ever, I doubt any GB news viewer would ever vote LD anyway
Trump's ravings are the catnip for the media and certainly what he says today will have important ramifications for the UN
Trump sounds very tired. Bored and boring.
Trump has a problem. For all that he is all-powerful, he has a problem. He has fought, lied and cheated his way back into the gilded cage. But he has all this work to do now. And as soon as he leaves, this legal problems begin again, don't they?
He got the thrill of victory and revenge, sure. But now the cosmos is getting its revenge. It often does.
He does look tired but is also a real and present danger
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
You cannot march on Moscow with the aim of overthrowing the regime and forcing an unconditional surrender, but you can defend the territorial integrity of an independent country.
No-one is going to use nuclear weapons to defend territorial gains from a war of choice. There's always an alternative action that comes with a better chance of survival.
Caught because he was not making enough expenses claims.
The issue that I have with this judgement is not the conclusion that process wasn’t followed but the severity of the punishment. Surely there should be a graduation of the penalty depending on whether the outcome was justified vs unfair?
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
How
As we did by supplying weapons in advance to the nation being invaded
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
Actually, I think I was the one who kicked off about it (And I believe I mentioned it on here when it originally happened a couple of year ago). I know the heath well, having walked, run and cycled along/around/through it, and have been to the kite festival - which was a great day out for kids and adults.
In this case, it is not an agency who needs protecting from 'vandals'. It is ordinary people who need protecting from a large organisation's overreach.
And yes, I'm glad we agree the festival has a value that can't just be seen on a spreadsheet...
It's a balance as always. I think access has gone too far in some places in Scotland; not far enough in others. I'm always going to react badly to people who are just so obnoxiously single-minded and unthinking about an issue though, as those two PBers tend to be.
Perhaps, just perhaps, in this case they're in the right?
I agree it is a compromise - and access can be particularly thorny given how poorly many people can behave when given access. But every case should be judged on its own merits, and in this case it seems pretty clear that NE are being utter sh*ts.
*) It is a festival that has gone on for decades, with no significant issues or harm to the heath. *) The festival does good for the local community. *) The festival raises money for charity. *) The festival is on land the public has usual access to - it is not being opened up especially for the festival. *) It is a one-day, limited-scope festival. *) It only uses a tiny fraction of the land. *) It publicises and promotes the heath. *) It is fun. And Heaven forfend we are allowed to have fun!
Against this, you have the presence, perhaps, somewhere, of a rare-ish flower. One that must have been there during the past runnings of the festival and, because it is still apparently present, was probably not significantly harmed by the festival.
TBH, you will find other cases where I strongly access *against* access. But in this case, it is clear that the festival should have been allowed.
And the worst thing is; when this sort of thing is cancelled, it often does not restart. NE should hang their heads in shame.
Comments
Sexuality is *attraction*. What you do with that attraction is not the same thing.
EDIT - I did tell my eldest that my dad is probably the reason he exists. Sexuality is a scale, and if you're somewhere in the middle then you may lean one way or the other. I lean straighter than I do gay. But growing up it was the opposite. Had my dad not made endless jokes about "poofters" and "shirtlifters" and "ooh hello" with the hand gesture about his colleagues then who knows who I could be with now.
I am very happy with my life. with my wife of 22 years, with my kids. But life sometimes offers alternatives where such outcomes are not yet forged...
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Democrats candidates often are fresh faced outsiders eg McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtIS3uaSihk
You can’t just say “Stop that and it’ll all be wonderful”
You are changing the landscape.
See wildfires and First People’s traditional burn off.
So Natural England can be presumed to be destroying the SSI, unless they can show a better outcome from stopping the festival.
@Nigela
@Nigelc
@Nigeld
etc
?
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/23/all-amazon-fresh-stores-in-uk-to-close-whole-foods
Amazon Fresh are the shops where you don't have to pay, although that's all shops now so there is no edge for Jeff Bezos.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
And all they have done here is exercise their legal duty in response to a Section 38 Application under the Commons Act.
I don't see how exercising a Stat Duty can be "overreach". They do not even make any decision - they are a Consultee, for a decision make by a Planning Inspector, on which anyone can make representations.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
They are modifying the seasonal structure of a SSSI, without evidence or even study. Just because "feels".
They are almost certainly MAGA. They probably recommend injecting bleach for COVID.
(There were other smaller contributory factors of course. I think trans played a small role, and what I would describe broadly as 'affirmative action' a small one too. In the states of Arizona and Nevadam, the Biden border mess no doubt moved the needle as well. A better candidate, and a proper nomination process might have helped. But America is so polarized, I doubt it would have made more than a percent or two of difference. In other words, it might have saved Wisconsin... and possibly Michigan.)
* And Americans became poorer under Biden mostly because energy prices rose as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.
Looking back over the last decade of British politics and it's clear that British voters are casting about for answers and haven't found any yet. Farage appears to hold the mantle of being the next, "least worst option we haven't tried yet."
This is a time of tremendous opportunity and change in British politics. There's potential for the Lib Dems to create a message that will appeal to an election-winning coalition of voters. Targeting 27 seats feels like an electoral strategy from the 1990s.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-sales-boss-sacked-remote-work-egypt-b2831359.html
Caught because he was not making enough expenses claims.
...
Leucovorin is a form of folic acid, a B vitamin our bodies usually get from foods such as legumes, citrus fruits and fortified grains.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-autism-treatment-leucovorin-b2831863.html
He says neither of the 2 old parties can win back voters' trust and the battle of ideas for the future of the country, says the choice will be the LDs or Farage
There's also the other issue: what if the factor is that sick parents are very slightly more likely to have kids with autism, and sick parents are more likely to take paracetamol? Without proper controls, you are potentially just picking up something that drives both autism and paracetamol use. (Which would be like noting that Australia has high skin cancer rates and some of the highest sales of sunscreen in the world, and therefore concluding it is the sunscreen causing the cancer.)
A possible causal link is that a sick parent is more likely to hand their child over to be parented by technology. (And there is some evidence that autism rates in the US track cable TV roll out. Less interaction with the parents/other kids and more with screens sounds like a perfectly plausible pathway, and also matches the data about falling family sizes.)
So, sick parents -> more likely to hand their kids over to Parenting by Disney and more likely to have taken paracetamol.
He was due to speak at 3.00 but is running late
Sky said they would move to Trump's address as soon as he was called
It's about compromise. This was the only place the festival can be held, and AFAIAA nothing had changed since the last few festivals. It also takes up a very small percentage of the heath, and AFAIAA NE provided no evidence the flower was present on that part of the heath - just that it can be found somewhere on the heath. The report you linked to earlier acknowledged some of the benefits that the festival gives to the local area.
And NE did not make the decision; but they made an objection. Which means the festival could not go ahead.
However, wherever the hoo ha has come from, it seems to warrant further study. According to someone here yesterday, Paracetamol was originally thought not to permeate the placenta, but apparently it does. So let's make sure it's safe.
Amusingly, the people behind him (why do they do that?) are unsure whether to nod in agreement or shake heads in sympathy, so between them they're doing both (those still awake) which looks odd.
I'm a habitual Lib Dem, but I can't say I've got any enthusiasm for the party at present, really. Not much enthusiasm for anyone else either, to be fair!
ETA: Ah, just seen Farron and Cooper behind him - are they all MPs? Who's the one with the permanently startled eyebrows?
E2TA: The guy with the beard and curtains looks kind of horrified, like he's just realised he's turned up at the wrong conference - maybe one on fridge widgets - and is disappointed.
In this case, it is not an agency who needs protecting from 'vandals'. It is ordinary people who need protecting from a large organisation's overreach.
And yes, I'm glad we agree the festival has a value that can't just be seen on a spreadsheet...
Here we have a law protecting SSSIs, and also Commons (which is not at issue, as that would be about access - and is why the Open Spaces Society did not object AIUI *).
The process here is that we have an applicant wanting to do a development (Rotary Club and their kite festival, stuff like marquees and car parking, the land management regime to support the current dates), English Nature who manage the SSSI and can object if it may damage, and the Planning Inspectorate who make a decision on a balance of interests and weighted criteria defined in the Commons Act 2006 S38. It is open to challenge via the Courts if desired.
There are reasons why it came up for review - an existing agreement expiring, and a suggestion that a Section 38 application being the correct way to consider all interests. It's not "this year", since the decision was 2023 and the report I linked was July 2024. There's also stuff in there about management under a Sustainable Farming Scheme.
That's a good balanced process. And I don't think we can overthrow it for a single decision not being what we like.
Here as I see it NE made suggested mitigations that would make continuance on the site possible, but Rotary don't like it. I think the ball is in their court - they have options to make some changes, or apply for something different.
(And somehow it has been tied into this bizarre "Fun Police" and "Abolish EN" nonsense.)
A problem with "approve as default" is that it makes it easier for things to go wrong, and that's a serious risk when we are dealing with spaces that have existed for centuries. We also need to think about our grand children as well as what we want now; that sounds precious, but it matters. This is an arena for small-c conservatism.
In my bit of Ashfield we lost our Lammas Field which was next to a 13C church around 2007, right in the middle of town, and it turned out later that the District had acted unlawfully - something to do with them messing up between a role as the Local Authority, and as a Trustee for a Charity holding the land. But it is now gone, and can't come back because they built on it, and people living near there now have to walk half a mile for green open space.
(* If it had been eg half a mile of fence between the Common and an adjacent road, they *would* object for access reasons.)
https://x.com/secretservice/status/1970445933667082482
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
“Five days ago he fought his way through the upstanding members of the MCC and walked to the middle, dabbing at the tears behind his glasses. It’s no secret that Mr. Bird is a man who live sin very close proximity to his emotions, a characteristic first revealed on ‘This is Your Life’, when he greeted every Freeman, Hardy and Willis who walked on stage as a twin brother, separated at birth.
At the end of his final test match, umpire Harold Bird is led from the field by half a dozen shirt-sleeved policemen like a runaway boy after a lifetime’s adventure.”
He got the thrill of victory and revenge, sure. But now the cosmos is getting its revenge. It often does.
Apparently the 100k SIM cards were spread across several locations, likely to be the work of a state actor.
First guess China?
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/2p-switch-from-national-insurance-to-income-tax-could-raise-6-billion-while-protecting-workers-pay-packets/
Not sure it would fly given her previous promises....
NEW THREAD
And so every day we check for the obituary on the front pages.
No-one is going to use nuclear weapons to defend territorial gains from a war of choice. There's always an alternative action that comes with a better chance of survival.
£60k for someone taking the piss seems high
Merging Employee NI into Income Tax is something many of us have advocated for over the years.
We'll have to disagree on that.
I agree it is a compromise - and access can be particularly thorny given how poorly many people can behave when given access. But every case should be judged on its own merits, and in this case it seems pretty clear that NE are being utter sh*ts.
*) It is a festival that has gone on for decades, with no significant issues or harm to the heath.
*) The festival does good for the local community.
*) The festival raises money for charity.
*) The festival is on land the public has usual access to - it is not being opened up especially for the festival.
*) It is a one-day, limited-scope festival.
*) It only uses a tiny fraction of the land.
*) It publicises and promotes the heath.
*) It is fun. And Heaven forfend we are allowed to have fun!
Against this, you have the presence, perhaps, somewhere, of a rare-ish flower. One that must have been there during the past runnings of the festival and, because it is still apparently present, was probably not significantly harmed by the festival.
TBH, you will find other cases where I strongly access *against* access.
And the worst thing is; when this sort of thing is cancelled, it often does not restart. NE should hang their heads in shame.
I love it.
(For those unfamiliar with Ramirez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ramirez )