Finally confirmed the genocide was real. Several apologies owed starting with Starmer to several of his backbenchers. The list is huge but I hope action is taken.......
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
I've only ever seen less than a handful of party candidates on parish councils, even when the person is a party candidate elsewhere.
Where they are called a parish council at any rate. Parties do often now dominate on town councils I find, even if legally there's no difference.
I don't think it needs banning, but it's very unecessary.
Their finances got leaked, which deprived OpenAI of the opportunity to put a positive spin on them before the IPO. The numbers are so horrible the market is starting to realise there is no path to profitability.
And if OpenAI can't IPO it dies, because there is no other way to raise enough money to pay for all the commitments they've made for purchasing hardware and renting compute capacity.
Why would bad numbers surprise anyone?
Because they're really quite horrible, a $33bn yearly loss with $20bn of that coming from operations.
It's costing OpenAI $20bn to run a service that brings in $13bn from customers. They are also spending north of $5bn on marketing to get those customers. This does not include the very significant costs of developing the models, or the enormous spending commitments.
If my back of an envelope maths are correct, OpenAI needs to either IPO or roughly triple their customer base in a year or they will run out of money around Q3 or Q4 next year.
The initial funders were hoping being the first major player would lead to a winner takes all scenario, but the big tech companies today weren't the first to get big in their respective specialties, it might be the same with AI.
It's quite funny to watch. Sam Altman seems to have the weirdness of Musk without prior achievements to back up any belief in him.
Now it makes sense why Whitehall has seized control over planning at Cherwell District Council. They can force through the Bicester plans irrespective of local views.
They could anyway, but it's easier if taking over at the first stage.
Of course, many more councils will face the scenario as they'd probably prefer it to approving things they don't like. Always has been a careful dance of course, but a lot of councils are feeling more bullish that there's no benefit to trying to mitigate national policy.
Finally confirmed the genocide was real. Several apologies owed starting with Starmer to several of his backbenchers. The list is huge but I hope action is taken.......
I might be turning right wing in my old age but this is an absurdity. Back at Tanks and Drums in Bradford complaining about the heat would get one escorted out of the factory.
It was a very matter of fact kind of a place. At a Management meeting the MD, a heavy set bluff Yorkshireman from Queensbury, explained; "salesmen? If it were up to me I wouldn't pay you bastards in washers".
Imagine working in a foundry or a trade moulder in the middle of summer with that sort of law !!
Or working all day in PPE with an FP3 mask.
The issue is more subtle. The problem is not so much temperature, as temprature combined with humidity. The same temperatures that we have had today would be fine with a humidity like that in Phoenix or Marrakesh. It is 72% humidity today here.
I thought the Australian attitude to this was quite sensible when I was working there - employers take skin cancer and heat stroke seriously and will either reduce work during hot periods or provide the clothing and shelter required.
The cultural shift required in the UK is going to be difficult to achieve. You’re going to have feeble managers posturing rather than taking a rational approach - can’t imagine ever being given 12-3 off to sit in the shade, or being forced to wear an enormous hat.
That’s what they do out here in the Middle East. No working in the sun 12:30-15:00, mid-June to mid-September. Either work in the shade in the middle of the day, or split the shift and take a siesta. Bosses have to provide water for workers too.
It’s obviously easier to organise when it’s predictable that summer’s always going to be hot, as opposed to only a week of it every few years. Same reason Heathrow airport never used to have enough snowploughs!
Their finances got leaked, which deprived OpenAI of the opportunity to put a positive spin on them before the IPO. The numbers are so horrible the market is starting to realise there is no path to profitability.
And if OpenAI can't IPO it dies, because there is no other way to raise enough money to pay for all the commitments they've made for purchasing hardware and renting compute capacity.
All Good points. I am merely a layman but I cannot see anything other than a business burning through cash with no viable plan to make money.
At least SpaceX makes money. Even if IPO at 100x earnings was challenging.
OpenAI is burning through money at an incredible rate of knots, and doesn’t have anything like the required revenue to match the spend. They’re very close to being a zombie company, just as many of the original dot.coms of the late ‘90s never made it.
At least with SpaceX you can see a number of different revenue streams showing significant growth, including Starlink and orbital launches for which there’s currently little competition, even if the IPO price might turn out to have been a little optimistic.
Their finances got leaked, which deprived OpenAI of the opportunity to put a positive spin on them before the IPO. The numbers are so horrible the market is starting to realise there is no path to profitability.
And if OpenAI can't IPO it dies, because there is no other way to raise enough money to pay for all the commitments they've made for purchasing hardware and renting compute capacity.
All Good points. I am merely a layman but I cannot see anything other than a business burning through cash with no viable plan to make money.
At least SpaceX makes money. Even if IPO at 100x earnings was challenging.
OpenAI is burning through money at an incredible rate of knots, and doesn’t have anything like the required revenue to match the spend. They’re very close to being a zombie company, just as many of the original dot.coms of the late ‘90s never made it.
At least with SpaceX you can see a number of different revenue streams showing significant growth, including Starlink and orbital launches for which there’s currently little competition, even if the IPO price might turn out to have been a little optimistic.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
I might be turning right wing in my old age but this is an absurdity. Back at Tanks and Drums in Bradford complaining about the heat would get one escorted out of the factory.
It was a very matter of fact kind of a place. At a Management meeting the MD, a heavy set bluff Yorkshireman from Queensbury, explained; "salesmen? If it were up to me I wouldn't pay you bastards in washers".
He doesn't need to now. According to Companies House it closed so he got his wish.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
Interesting discovery list. It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
Thus making the sale fall through.
Also finding out who holds the restrictive covenants now for houses built many years ago.
People don’t realise just because it’s a permitted development you also may need covenant consent. I’m sure most people don’t know what restrictive covenants apply to their homes. I do because I had a good read when I bought.
Heh. A fun little video. Groundhog day for an SUV driver hitting a motorcycle by cutting the same corner as 3 days previously, when she nearly hit him before.
That will give a belly laugh to the copper on Operation SNAP.
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
What happened to PB support for free speech?
It's nothing to do with free speech. It's to do with what goes on official election ballots.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
What happened to PB support for free speech?
It's nothing to do with free speech. It's to do with what goes on official election ballots.
You are restricting what people are allowed to say about themselves.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
Thus making the sale fall through.
Also finding out who holds the restrictive covenants now for houses built many years ago.
People don’t realise just because it’s a permitted development you also may need covenant consent. I’m sure most people don’t know what restrictive covenants apply to their homes. I do because I had a good read when I bought.
Our solicitor made them clear to us.
The vendors of our current plot tried to put quite a few covenants on because they plan to live in the neighbouring house. We told them we weren’t buying unless they remove them, which eventually they did.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
So, could a restrictive covenant apply to retrofitted air on. I presume so.
In the case of an older house how would you find who you need to ask ?
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
So, could a restrictive covenant apply to retrofitted air on. I presume so.
In the case of an older house how would you find who you need to ask ?
A covenant would normally be noted on the house deed or lease agreement, and should have come up in searches.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
Thus making the sale fall through.
Also finding out who holds the restrictive covenants now for houses built many years ago.
People don’t realise just because it’s a permitted development you also may need covenant consent. I’m sure most people don’t know what restrictive covenants apply to their homes. I do because I had a good read when I bought.
Our solicitor made them clear to us.
The vendors of our current plot tried to put quite a few covenants on because they plan to live in the neighbouring house. We told them we weren’t buying unless they remove them, which eventually they did.
IIRC my house has covenants related to when it was built in the 1940s, to protect the developer. They are now dead, so it is effectively unenforcible.
My neighbour probably has covenants of some sort in my house's favour, because it was built in 1988 on a sie of my garden.
There will also be something somewhere relating to his drains which run under my back garden.
I think I also have a covenant to maintain a 5ft wall along my southern boundary, which will be to do with the farmer who sold the original plot back in the mists of time wanting to put the work no somebody else.
Their finances got leaked, which deprived OpenAI of the opportunity to put a positive spin on them before the IPO. The numbers are so horrible the market is starting to realise there is no path to profitability.
And if OpenAI can't IPO it dies, because there is no other way to raise enough money to pay for all the commitments they've made for purchasing hardware and renting compute capacity.
AI is a massive bubble of overhyped nonsense.
Google is fortunate in that they have a sufficient business that isn’t AI, so when this all bursts they’ll still be around.
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
What happened to PB support for free speech?
It's nothing to do with free speech. It's to do with what goes on official election ballots.
You are restricting what people are allowed to say about themselves.
No you are restricting what officials are allowed to write about them on official documents.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
A lot of housing estates around Newark when they were built in the 1960s had covenants put on them by the developer. Things like people not being allowed to have walls, fences or hedges around their back gardens - which had shared back paths.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
Heh. A fun little video. Groundhog day for an SUV driver hitting a motorcycle by cutting the same corner as 3 days previously, when she nearly hit him before.
That will give a belly laugh to the copper on Operation SNAP.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
You’d need insurance, or your solicitor would,advice you got it before purchasing, if proof could not be offered of covenant consent
We should ban party affiliations on parish councils. It is completely unnecessary and is only a fairly recent development. In 1991 only 10% of Parish and Town councillors had a declared party affiliation and only 4% of councils were run on political lines.
What happened to PB support for free speech?
It's nothing to do with free speech. It's to do with what goes on official election ballots.
The other consideration is that, unlike for parliaments and principal councils, where deploying say a third of their numbers to the job of 'opposing' arguably serves a worthwhile purpose in terms of governance and utilisation of resources (not everyone can be a decision-maker), in the small-team environment of a parish council, things work better when all the councillors contribute, as and where they can, to running the council. It's not really optimal when you only have say eight people to begin with to tag five of them as the administration and the other three as the opposition.
That said, due to personalities and indeed often political differences, it can often work out like that - and people on the inside typically know the political allegiances of the various parish councillors; it's just that with non-political elections these are hidden from the voters.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
A lot of housing estates around Newark when they were built in the 1960s had covenants put on them by the developer. Things like people not being allowed to have walls, fences or hedges around their back gardens - which had shared back paths.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
Presumably as this had been in place for so long the chances of any covenant being enforced, assuming they could find the right people to approach, would be nil due to longevity with no complaint.
Don’t see much of Russia on fire this morning, so instead have the 15km queue of thousands of vehicles waiting to get over the Kerch Bridge out of Crimea.
Ukraine is telling everyone on the peninsula, civilian and military, to leave as soon as possible, and the Kerch Bridge is now the only reliable way out still left, for light vehicles only.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
A lot of housing estates around Newark when they were built in the 1960s had covenants put on them by the developer. Things like people not being allowed to have walls, fences or hedges around their back gardens - which had shared back paths.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
Similarly here on many estates.
My dad laid out some of the local estates in that time as a Council Architect, including serviced plots. One thing he did on the serviced plots known to me was to make all householders agree to plant a tree on their serviced plot, which I would expect to be in a covenant.
it is still quite green. It's fascinating how accepting British people can be of initial conventions that can set cultural DNA, and how they persist. That is something to do with living under common law, perhaps.
That can work the other way too. If there is no "Motorbike ASB" problem (usually the case), but "anti motorbike" obstructions are put in which exclude wheelchairs etc, 10 or 30 years later there will quite possibly be a local cultural belief that there was a problem, and that making the pathways accessible will cause it to come straight back.
There's a similar thing with pavement parking or other ASB on unadopted estates. The developer may be responsible until the Council adopts, and will not spend money preventing the habit and Councils cannot (aiui) enforce. Then by the time it becomes a council managed set of roads 3 or 10 years later, it is very difficult to fix, as it is now a qeustion of culture change.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
A lot of housing estates around Newark when they were built in the 1960s had covenants put on them by the developer. Things like people not being allowed to have walls, fences or hedges around their back gardens - which had shared back paths.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
Presumably as this had been in place for so long the chances of any covenant being enforced, assuming they could find the right people to approach, would be nil due to longevity with no complaint.
Very probably. It needs the body or person that has the "benefit" of the covenant still to be extant.
There are some bodies that stay around for longer. A different situation may exist, for example, on the Bournville Estate or in Hampstead Garden Suburb, or perhaps Bedford Park in Chiswick or The Park Estate in Nottingham, depending on how it is managed. For those it may well be done via Conservation Area or listing of properties.
Funny when I said about how stupid planning rules are here you said I was stupid
It’s a question. Answered by Malmesbury.
I’m also unsure if, even if it’s a permitted development, you’d need covenant consent.
Utter gibberish
Covenant consent is where, even if you are the freeholder, you have to ask for permission if you have restrictive covenants on your property. I own the freehold on my house but there are restrictive covenants. Height of fences etc etc.
My wife had to do so when she put a porch on her house, it was a permitted development but still needed covenant consent.
She did obtain it, from Yuill.
However it can be a problem selling homes and there is specialised insurance where people haven’t got it as neighbours can complain and it fall foul of that.
No, my personal experience. I dealt with the sale of my wife’s house last year. I don’t even use ChatGPt 👍 if it’s gibberish why were we asked for it by the vendors solicitor. In fact I won’t waste any more time on this with you.
My own home has restrictive covenants. For example no fence can be erected above 2 metres.
You’ll find I’m right. Ask one of those experts you humblebrag about knowing while vagueposting some worthless shite anyone could have got on Twitter. “I have it on good authority ……” 😂😂😂😂
When’s your next flounce due ?
Restrictive covenant insurance is fun. If you go to the trouble to find out what the situation actually is, the risk is no longer a known unknown so insurance may become impossible.
But if you know what the restrictive covenant situation is why would you need insurance ? The buyers can decide if they are happy with the covenant or not.
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
It could be something like someone selling off their back garden for a plot, who was concerned about noise so restricted any mechanical devices installed on their side of any new house.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
A lot of housing estates around Newark when they were built in the 1960s had covenants put on them by the developer. Things like people not being allowed to have walls, fences or hedges around their back gardens - which had shared back paths.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
Presumably as this had been in place for so long the chances of any covenant being enforced, assuming they could find the right people to approach, would be nil due to longevity with no complaint.
Very probably. It needs the body or person that has the "benefit" of the covenant still to be extant.
There are some bodies that stay around for longer. A different situation may exist, for example, on the Bournville Estate or in Hampstead Garden Suburb, or perhaps Bedford Park in Chiswick or The Park Estate in Nottingham, depending on how it is managed. For those it may well be done via Conservation Area or listing of properties.
Comments
Finally confirmed the genocide was real. Several apologies owed starting with Starmer to several of his backbenchers. The list is huge but I hope action is taken.......
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-genocide-children-palestine-un-report-b3001474.html
“I am not saying my wife is rough but on our wedding day she walked down the Aisle to March of the Gladiators!”
Peter.
Where they are called a parish council at any rate. Parties do often now dominate on town councils I find, even if legally there's no difference.
I don't think it needs banning, but it's very unecessary.
It's quite funny to watch. Sam Altman seems to have the weirdness of Musk without prior achievements to back up any belief in him.
Of course, many more councils will face the scenario as they'd probably prefer it to approving things they don't like. Always has been a careful dance of course, but a lot of councils are feeling more bullish that there's no benefit to trying to mitigate national policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvEgX2COdA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMfgZviw4HA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=248th7HR2nE
It’s obviously easier to organise when it’s predictable that summer’s always going to be hot, as opposed to only a week of it every few years. Same reason Heathrow airport never used to have enough snowploughs!
At least with SpaceX you can see a number of different revenue streams showing significant growth, including Starlink and orbital launches for which there’s currently little competition, even if the IPO price might turn out to have been a little optimistic.
😁
It would be the BBC's biggest scoop in years, though I think the chances of Trump complying are extremely low.
Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for $10 Billion for “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.
In court, the BBC asked Trump’s lawyers for the following:
https://x.com/Stornoway_Cove/status/2070249135035257121
If that's your room temperature, I'm envious. If it's the general temperature (ours is 19) you have my sympathy.
Quelle surprise.
I do wonder if this'll affect overall reliability and Mercedes worst of all. We shall see.
Trump will run away, as always.
(Sorry - no new information there.)
*does not include victory. May well not contain “deal”. Contains nutters.
They do say a joke isn’t funny if you have to explain it but that doesn’t allow for the recipient being very dumb!
Also finding out who holds the restrictive covenants now for houses built many years ago.
People don’t realise just because it’s a permitted development you also may need covenant consent. I’m sure most people don’t know what restrictive covenants apply to their homes. I do because I had a good read when I bought.
That will give a belly laugh to the copper on Operation SNAP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAUjKS77T6M
What would you be insuring against?
The idea that you might need ‘covenants consent’ to fit air con seems very unlikely to me - only if a previous owner has slapped on a covenant not to allow it. I’d be surprised if there’s ever been an example of that.
So the insurance could be against someone attempting to enforce that covenant, rather than risking asking for permission and dealing with the consequences of being told "no".
The vendors of our current plot tried to put quite a few covenants on because they plan to live in the neighbouring house. We told them we weren’t buying unless they remove them, which eventually they did.
In the case of an older house how would you find who you need to ask ?
My neighbour probably has covenants of some sort in my house's favour, because it was built in 1988 on a sie of my garden.
There will also be something somewhere relating to his drains which run under my back garden.
I think I also have a covenant to maintain a 5ft wall along my southern boundary, which will be to do with the farmer who sold the original plot back in the mists of time wanting to put the work no somebody else.
Again I don't like and even actively fear Burnham's policies and politics. But that video shows he is human which could take him a very long way.
Starmer would simply never have thought of making that sort of response. And you cam see very few PMs from the last few decades having done it.
Credit where its due.
NEW THREAD
Google is fortunate in that they have a sufficient business that isn’t AI, so when this all bursts they’ll still be around.
By the time we moved into one of those houses in the 90s most people were simply ignoring the covenants
That said, due to personalities and indeed often political differences, it can often work out like that - and people on the inside typically know the political allegiances of the various parish councillors; it's just that with non-political elections these are hidden from the voters.
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/2070403688372269522
Ukraine is telling everyone on the peninsula, civilian and military, to leave as soon as possible, and the Kerch Bridge is now the only reliable way out still left, for light vehicles only.
My dad laid out some of the local estates in that time as a Council Architect, including serviced plots. One thing he did on the serviced plots known to me was to make all householders agree to plant a tree on their serviced plot, which I would expect to be in a covenant.
it is still quite green. It's fascinating how accepting British people can be of initial conventions that can set cultural DNA, and how they persist. That is something to do with living under common law, perhaps.
That can work the other way too. If there is no "Motorbike ASB" problem (usually the case), but "anti motorbike" obstructions are put in which exclude wheelchairs etc, 10 or 30 years later there will quite possibly be a local cultural belief that there was a problem, and that making the pathways accessible will cause it to come straight back.
There's a similar thing with pavement parking or other ASB on unadopted estates. The developer may be responsible until the Council adopts, and will not spend money preventing the habit and Councils cannot (aiui) enforce. Then by the time it becomes a council managed set of roads 3 or 10 years later, it is very difficult to fix, as it is now a qeustion of culture change.
There are some bodies that stay around for longer. A different situation may exist, for example, on the Bournville Estate or in Hampstead Garden Suburb, or perhaps Bedford Park in Chiswick or The Park Estate in Nottingham, depending on how it is managed. For those it may well be done via Conservation Area or listing of properties.
Former Russian Defense Minister, Security Council Secretary, and Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Sergei Ivanov has died.