Steven P

Mentioned above that population trends are more single person households, and a population predicted to fall in the next 20 to 30 years. Young people are the ones who cannot find a suitably priced house to buy. The housing we need are not executive houses, 5 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms, but smaller 1 or 2 person flats that are affordable for young people to but, and cheaper to run than taking 90% of a 25 year olds salary. Don't need to be ripping up all the spare green space, but to replace, refurbish, upgrade the towns that we have - there is enough brownfield sites to do this.... however brownfield sites cost more to develop which the big political backers don't like, far cheaper to give an annual £11 million bung and rip up the countryside, join u pall the towns so we don't see any green on our commutes. I think you missed sime42s point being more worried with semantics rather than understanding what he was actually saying - fewer en-suits, home cinemas, garages, all come down to smaller houses (more flats for single occupancy, and terraces)(which is what the housing need actually is), built where we have previously built and to allow more green stuff to grow. Semantics... but you are focussing on toilets rather than what he actually means. Flooding for example is increased the more we pave over, build on and mess with flood plains (next to rivers as in the article for example) Edit... If you think that the way to go is executive houses, would you be prepared to pay your young staff enough to afford a £1k+ monthly mortgage? -EDIT = just checked the new house prices around me, make that £2500 a month for the mortgage

However... don't need 5 bedrooms, 6 toilets and 5 car spaces next to a leafy riverside setting. Larger than average flat, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, car parking round the back and a few communal visitors spots, that would do me

The predictions are that in Scotland the population will decrease in the mid 2030s, about 10 years time, and in England 2045 to 2050 the prediction is a declining population. Population growth at the moment is fuelled by immigration, which if the Torys ever get their way will be stopped within a few weeks. No problem building houses, I think the article is more to do with relaxing the environmental standards then the numbers of houses being built. Perhaps however we don't need to build houses so close to rivers for this to be a problem (I always thought that a house near a river is a flood risk? Maybe I am wrong). Personal view here is that instead of ripping up all the green spaces, pave paradise and put up a parking lot, that the existing housing stock should be replaced and refurbished... but this is too expensive for those that make big political donations..... The young, those that struggle to get on the housing ladder don't necessarily need an executive home, 3 car drive, a double garage and more toilets than bedrooms. To get the young on the housing ladder they want smaller places - flats maybe - near stuff rather than lifeless estates filled with executives and BMWs

this link is a few years old but I am sure £11 million 3 years ago (and the rest before and since) has nothing to do with this then? Exclusive: Property tycoons gave Tories more than £11m in less than a year WWW.OPENDEMOCRACY.NET Conservatives accused of being ‘in hock’ to developers as donations from property and construction soars amid ‘cash for access’ accusations against housing secretary Robert Jenrick. ..looking forward to the day when I don't see a tree on my commute, just flats, sorry apartments

Might have a look on Google maps? Google earth does an old map function (not the internet browser version) - my area has a couple of maps from 1930s, which might give a clue? I wonder, the white house in the background - is that a similar age to the terrace? Where the car park has had some of the wall removed. I might guess a pedestrian gateway to a posh house in the street? Carriage gate was removed with more of the wall? Just a guess for now, but don't know if there is anything built behind that door

The idea is the same, a stick to one side of the saw?

Classic line on the news the UK's security services "thought that it was shot down on purpose"... no shit!

Falling out of the plane window mid air?

a bit of a slow burner but worth it.

Heretic!! Are you suggesting that there is some sort of common ground between some religions? Not sure if you are quite mad or just plain off the wall.

I'd go the other way, bring them out and if they cause a disturbance back into a solitary cell..... for as long as it takes, and if they miss a meal time, bed time, wake up call then so be it. Reading court reports Judges have a way of telling the guilty what and why, where the solicitor, paid by the guilty, might not put it quite so blunt.

If I popped over to your house to celebrate your birthday, that would not make me your brother.

That's what I think.. which is what the question is about isn't it.....

Might be if you met her face to face you'd say she's not the type to be a mass murderer either.

Yes, they should be there to be told face to face what the punishment is. From above, they can rant, rave, shout all they like, the viewing gallery can do the same, but if they do clear the court, take the guilty back to the holding cell till all is calm, bring them back and then tell them. Clear and concise, the punishment and why they are getting that punishment. Capital punishment? No. If their crimes are so bad, let them sit out their days in jail, in the knowledge that they will eventually die alone.

Feed a troll and they get hungry for more. Ban him and we loose any pearls of wisdom, react and he will write more rubbish. So just don't react,

Maybe a Sunday afternoon thing, too far from Friday and not close enough to Monday to get wound up. The thread worked but like a lot of attention seekers, trolls, or whatever you want to call them, keep feeding them attention and they will keep coming back for more. Valid posts and comments for sure, but those that are written just to be controversial and to feed a need perhaps don't need a reply?

Sometimes saying nothing at all is a good option..... Only words, not worth it perhaps?

So if he doesn't care, who will? Tree will be gone. Sometimes worth taking note of things away from your own front door.

So the members with 1000+ posts are saying leave them be, those with under 20 are saying take them out - I reckon that's your answer then, leave them be, tidy and let them mature

Reading the reports here and there, psychopath and not necessarily set out to murder: The first baby dies by accident, the doctor she likes gives her attention, link made in her head. Then more babies die, she gets more attention from the doctor... Psychopath traits.

If you speak to the owner of the mast they will no doubt say that outside of a fenced boundary they are safe. I used to climb them and from what I remember standing behind the transmitter - phone masts anyway - was OK, but if we had to go around the front they would be turned off. We were up each one for maybe half hour at a time. Where are you working on the trees? From ground level or climbing them? Might have a small effect. Each one has different kinds of transmitters too and different power levels, though the higher powers tend to be taller. Each enclosure should have the owner and operators details - it might be worth giving them a call if you have a concern, quoting the transmitter number which should also be there - and their office should be able to confirm However outside the enclosure and at ground level you should be OK (remembering years ago when mobiles first became a thing, we were all due to be dead by brain cancer by now)

Ahhh, the Hitler argument.......

I reckon if you asked the same question regarding adult you will probably get the same answer that the Covid lockdowns also had an effect on adults too, not something we disagree about. To my original point about the resilience of Children, I'll stand by what I think that they are more robust than you give them credit for. Unfortunately for the sake of this part of this discussion we won't know exactly how much so until they become parents and raise their own children in accordance with their own childhood experiences (other half is a child psychologist, explains these things to me in too much detail). For r the rest of the world, their scientists were giving the same advice and despite all the other pressures (finances, mental health, society changing) all but about 10 countries in the world did the same thing - so there must have been something in it. government often has details that we don't. In other countries a lot of their leaders followed the rules that were set, we had a leader who has never followed rules. As you say though, this has been gone through many times before here and on other forums and it is a polarising subject, very little middle ground, and as I suggest above the real long term effects won't be known for many years.

It is probably something we aren't going to agree fully on, and like a lot of stuff isn't clear cut, black and white "Keep the kids at home" (or any of us), but the other choice might have been to watch a load of their parents die (OK I am being extreme here). Within the rules of the time there was still plenty of scope to get out and about as a family and explore - just not with their friends. Can't deny that the mental stuff was tough.... but equally tough for all ages. One last thought I have on world wide issues is "What did the Russians do", a big country with perhaps being the least influenced by US money, and a complete nutter in charge, who also had lockdowns.... so whatever hindsight tells us, the scientists worldwide were saying the same thing. But... not sure we will agree on this one