Scrutable

johnjohn wrote: ↑

Thu May 28, 2020 10:09 am

what? You want the link as well?

https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5- ... 14942aa5b1

The transcript is now at that link too.

By coincidence I often find that when I'm innocently recounting my actions doing something legal, reasonable and with integrity, I often require a lawyer to spend a weekend painstakingly re-drafting every line of my statement to ensure I only say the bare minimum to explain away the known facts and not give away one iota more.

In much the same way that when Derek Acorah was definitely speaking to Michael Jackson from behind the veil (and beyond the vale) Michael only felt like discussing things which were already in the public domain.

Oh look, Durham Police have reason to believe there may have been a minor breech but it would have just resulted in him being told to bugger off home if they'd spotted him out and about...

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Thu May 28, 2020 2:58 pm

Oh look, Durham Police have reason to believe there may have been a minor breech but it would have just resulted in him being told to bugger off home if they'd spotted him out and about...

Now try and square that with our culture warrior AG's "Nothing to see here, move along".

Dominic Cumming’s Photo Casebook

Tom’s Eye Test Conundrum

https://twitter.com/DomCasebook/status/ ... 04416?s=20

June’s Unhelpful Attitude

https://twitter.com/DomCasebook/status/ ... 01441?s=20

Tara’s Toilet Trauma

https://twitter.com/DomCasebook/status/ ... 37863?s=20



These are excellent

Does anyone know what the implications of this might be? Or even if it’s accurate?
https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/ ... uncil-tax/

Looks well stood up to me. 2nd home angle may be most damaging as planning regs are fiddly, and even the council tax may be fudgeable (how many n'umberland farms won't have a bit of dodgy development? See the btl comments which are actually worth a look. Be good to see this surface in msm.

Yesterday afternoon I sent that link to Full Fact as a question for them to investigate. I don’t know whether they’ll pick it up or not. Perhaps the mainstream media will follow it up today, my instinct is that they won’t cover it until they’ve checked it out and they wouldn’t have done that over the weekend (tv/radio in particular)

individualmember wrote: ↑

Sun May 31, 2020 9:24 am

Does anyone know what the implications of this might be? Or even if it’s accurate?
https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/ ... uncil-tax/

We’d need to know a lot more. To start with, legally speaking, what counts as a separate property or dwelling? Would the Cummings need planning permission if the ‘cottage’ had been converted from a shed and was only used by the property owners and the exterior hadn’t been altered? Are there different planning rules for farms?

The author makes a big point about the ‘cottage’ not being on the deeds. But then neither are other large structures that look as if they have been there for a long time. So how accurate is that source anyway?

How far back does the Durham planning online database go? Unless they digitized old records I doubt it extends beyond the early 2000s. The ‘cottage’ could easily be older than that. How comprehensive is the online database?

Finally, Dominic Cummings is a liar. We can’t be sure that the ‘cottage’ even exists. Perhaps he stayed elsewhere.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:43 am

We’d need to know a lot more. To start with, legally speaking, what counts as a separate property or dwelling? Would the Cummings need planning permission if the ‘cottage’ had been converted from a shed and was only used by the property owners and the exterior hadn’t been altered? Are there different planning rules for farms?
...

I’m not in any way an expert, but a few years ago I covered a story for a current affairs show on tv where the kicking off point was a complaint by a farmer that he was told by the council that he would only be able to get planning permission to convert existing outbuildings on his land to human habitation but not to build new houses (so he sold a piece of land and lo and behold half a dozen new cottages were built on it in the following few weeks). The piece was embarrassing for a property developer and a politician and I have to say I never really understood the planning laws except to say it’s complicated and the situation seems to be very different if a building is farm storage as opposed to habitable.

Also, this is just an anecdote but some years ago an uncle of mine wanted to build a house where there was a bungalow on what had been a field (in rural Essex) and couldn’t get planning permission to demolish the bungalow and build on the plot, but submitting a plan to build an extension onto the bungalow which was effectively a four bedroom house went through without any trouble at all. Which just adds to my perception of it being complicated.

As I understand it, extensions below a certain size and some outbuildings count as permitted development. However, separate outbuildings don't count as permitted development unless they are incidental to the property. That means no plumbing, no habitable extra building. So I could build a garage on the curtillage of my dwellinghouse without planning permission, or a small extension, but not a small cottage.

individualmember wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:45 pm

Also, this is just an anecdote but some years ago an uncle of mine wanted to build a house where there was a bungalow on what had been a field (in rural Essex) and couldn’t get planning permission to demolish the bungalow and build on the plot, but submitting a plan to build an extension onto the bungalow which was effectively a four bedroom house went through without any trouble at all. Which just adds to my perception of it being complicated.

My friend's street is like this. It was a row of bungalows, but every one of them has had the loft converted to a full-height room with a flat roof, plus two storey extensions on 2-3 sides. He's been there for yonks, and I think is pretty relaxed about his retirement in a few years because his 2 bed bungalow is valued at half a million quid just so someone can build their dream house all around it.

I think it deserves more investigation as there are several layers of outcome that are significant.

1. The cottage is not registered for council tax
2. Planning permission for building or change of use was not sought, council tax assessment changes were not submitted
3. They haven't done the above because the cottage is uninhabitable

1 and 2 add fuel to one rule for them, one for us.
3 means Dom and family stayed in the main house and more questions are opened up.

Is there any evidence but his testimony, that Dom ever had coronavirus?

plebian wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:28 pm

Is there any evidence but his testimony, that Dom ever had coronavirus?

Testing was fairly frequent for that circle wasn’t it?

individualmember, EACLucifer

Yes it very complicated. Especially so as the relevant regulations may be those which were in force decades ago.

There might be something dodgy there, or the 'cottage' could be legit.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:33 pm

plebian wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:28 pm

Is there any evidence but his testimony, that Dom ever had coronavirus?

Testing was fairly frequent for that circle wasn’t it?

He stated he was never tested and nor was his wife. His son was tested when taken by ambulance to an overnight stay at a Durham hospital, but tested negative.

I also wonder whether the witness who saw them walking on the estate, noticed whether they were socially distancing.

Ministers need to rebuild public trust in their handling of the coronavirus outbreak and compensate people for lost earnings when asked to self-isolate to prevent a resurgence of the epidemic, leading scientists have warned.

Prof Susan Michie, a psychologist on a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage), said public confidence in the UK’s handling of the crisis had fallen in recent weeks and that repairing the damage was “central” to ensuring people followed advice to contain the epidemic as the country emerged from lockdown.

“There has been a dent in trust of the government to manage the pandemic over the last month, but especially over the last couple of weeks, and building that up is going to be central to managing a second wave,” Michie told the Lords science committee.

Whatever could she be referring to? And what possibly could the government do to regain trust?

Sounds like a job for some "weirdos and misfits" to me. I'm sure if they all put their massive bald heads together they could possibly come up with a way out of this conundrum.

From here

Looks like the ‘cottage’ hadn’t received the correct planning permission. But it’s been there too long for any enforcement action to be taken.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-53001428

The Council Tax issue is still pending.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:55 pm

Looks like the ‘cottage’ hadn’t received the correct planning permission. But it’s been there too long for any enforcement action to be taken.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-53001428

The Council Tax issue is still pending.

Google Earth imaging suggests they were built between 2001 and 2006, so too long ago.