Making the news today....

[coppice cutter]

On 04/11/2022 at 13:31, GarethM said:

I really want to see how quickly Elon ruins their lefty echo chamber.

Going to be really interesting to see how this plays out as Musk is going to have to ride two horses here, and that seldom ends well.

 

He's part of the establishment, he didn't get to be the richest man in the world by being anything else. "Green agenda", "new world order", "build back better", deals with the Chinese, etc, etc, he ticks all those boxes and more, the epitome of the modern day "globalist".

 

Yet here he is now owning and threatening to shake up one of the establishments main propaganda tools. Is he really going to do what people are expecting and allow the 'progressive' agenda to be challenged, even sometimes exposed for what it is?

 

The thing is, we will see the headlines of some of the big companies as they make a big visual out of withdrawing their twitter funding (they call it "advertising"!), but you can be darned sure there'll be a lot of big money pulled out of twitter which we'll never know about because we were never supposed to know about it being there in the first place!

 

Given the false nature of so much of today's 'wealth', will he be able to hack it, or is he actually a wolf in sheep's clothing who has pulled a master stroke to simply tighten his grip over the society that he claims he wants to liberate.

 

Let's see. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by coppice cutter

[Big J]

8 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

And on a more ‘local’ theme, did you ever meet this bloke in yr light touch forestry role @Big J, his approach to planning law might appeal?  What troubles me though is that he may sit in judgement of others planning applications as a parish councillor, but thought he himself was somehow ‘above’ it…

 

 A strangely sympathetic article which only just about manages to mention the fundamental details that a parish councillor ignored the requirement to submit a planning application / abide by building regs for a business (air B&B) new build in ancient woodland. 

 

Rather than focus upon the fundamental failure to abide by the very rules & regs he applies when he sits in judgement of other peoples’ dreams and aspirations (planning applications) when his PC comments on the applications of others, he chose to ignore that requirement in pursuit of his own financial gain. 

 

OK, so he was unwell.  I understand and empathise with that more than most having been through similar myself recently but at no point would I ever have thought to completely ignore the most basic planning requirements on the basis of being unwell.  

 

This is WRONG on so many levels. 

 

He should be required to remove the structure (legally achievable) and resign as a parish councillor (not legally achievable.)  This behaviour shames all parish councillors since it reenforces through very tangible example - one rule for us another for them  

 

The planning application is open to view on Cornwall councils planning page and currently displays what appears to be his Facebook friends list of gushing comments of support with only 1 or 2 comments in opposition and noting the fundamental failure of character, integrity and professionalism of a parish councillor. 

 

What a disgrace.  It has made national media but here is a local media link:

 

https://www.cornish-times.co.uk/news/father-with-cancer-builds-dream-project-without-permission-569779

 

I haven't come across him myself.

 

I don't see what the problem is personally. It's his land and it's a modest structure. It's providing holiday let rental without taking a home for locals out of circulation.

 

Us Brits spend far too much time worrying about what other people are doing rather than focusing on being happy in ourselves. 

[Mick Dempsey]

33 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

I haven't come across him myself.

 

I don't see what the problem is personally. It's his land and it's a modest structure. It's providing holiday let rental without taking a home for locals out of circulation.

 

Us Brits spend far too much time worrying about what other people are doing rather than focusing on being happy in ourselves. 

It’s a small overpopulated island (at least down south) rules exist to stop people ruining other peoples lives.

I didn’t read it all but the cancer thing is irrelevant, it’s not the X-Factor.

[Big J]

45 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

It’s a small overpopulated island (at least down south) rules exist to stop people ruining other peoples lives.

I didn’t read it all but the cancer thing is irrelevant, it’s not the X-Factor.

 

I know. But the vast majority of England isn't built upon. It's not a population density issue. It's a land inequality and awful infrastructure issue. 

 

Planning laws are anachronistic and promote cronyism. Councils are in the pockets of a few big developers. Land owners drip feed land into the market in order to keep prices sky high. House buyers have got almost no choice when it comes to purchasing new homes. Can a few people that choose not to follow these conventions really be blamed, given the often negative outcomes? 

[Mick Dempsey]

12 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

I know. But the vast majority of England isn't built upon. It's not a population density issue. It's a land inequality and awful infrastructure issue. 

 

Planning laws are anachronistic and promote cronyism. Councils are in the pockets of a few big developers. Land owners drip feed land into the market in order to keep prices sky high. House buyers have got almost no choice when it comes to purchasing new homes. Can a few people that choose not to follow these conventions really be blamed, given the often negative outcomes? 

I know it’s your thing J, but open the door to this and it’s a free for all.

 

 

[Big J]

28 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I know it’s your thing J, but open the door to this and it’s a free for all.

 

 

 

I agree, to an extent. 

 

It's a depressing situation where the agencies meant to be providing checks and balances are utterly corrupt, devoid of architectural or planning skills and allow 95% of all new building to be objectively substandard. 

 

How do we get from this state of affairs to one where responsible, environmentally friendly and socially acceptable building is promoted?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

 

I agree, to an extent. 

 

It's a depressing situation where the agencies meant to be providing checks and balances are utterly corrupt, devoid of architectural or planning skills and allow 95% of all new building to be objectively substandard. 

 

How do we get from this state of affairs to one where responsible, environmentally friendly and socially acceptable building is promoted?

Certainly not by turning a blind eye to self entitled cnuts sitting in judgement of others’ hopes and dreams whilst considering themselves above the rules. 
 

Did you miss the point that he is a parish Cllr himself?  
 

Surely this blatant class based arrogance and disregard for simple process offends you J?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I know it’s your thing J, but open the door to this and it’s a free for all.

 

 

It ought’ to be an open / closed case. 
 

Couldn’t be simpler. 

 

Anything other than an absolute refusal and requirement to remove would set a precedent that would see every swinging dick with a parcel of woodland building a log cabin and setting up a Robin Hood lifestyle. 

 

Might be tolerable for the travelling fraternity but anyone else is required to abide by the rules. 

[Johnsond]

Hunter Biden's ex business partner is set to testify with explosive trove of documents

WWW-DAILYMAIL-CO-UK.CDN.AMPPROJECT.ORG

---

Tony Bobulinski was Hunter Biden's business partner and had a front-row seat to the Biden family's...

Rather like another momentous event of the past two years the truth seems to be slowly coming out. Maybe old Trump was right after all. 

[Conor Wright]

11 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It ought’ to be an open / closed case. 
 

Couldn’t be simpler. 

 

Anything other than an absolute refusal and requirement to remove would set a precedent that would see every swinging dick with a parcel of woodland building a log cabin and setting up a Robin Hood lifestyle. 

 

Might be tolerable for the travelling fraternity but anyone else is required to abide by the rules. 

I've used a combination of loopholes, exemptions and a healthy dose of **************** you towards the system to happily purchase and build on my own property without the interference of any government regulators.

Planning rules in many countries are outdated and work against the ordinary person just trying to get on in life. Do you really think everyone would build garish mansions without such ridiculous restrictions in place or would it create an environment of more comfortable, stylish and more efficient homes? As opposed to numbered boxes?

The fact its a rental does change things a little. If he lived in it full time I'd fully support him. I find it a little harder to support his actions as its obviously a profitable endeavour for him. Still, have to admire his position. Its a high quality, unique build with a high amenity value and will generate some local business. If the planners eventually accepted that place with the sharks tail sticking out of the roof (wherever it was, can't remember) then this surely must be of greater benefit and build quality. My money says it'll be there 20 years from now.