Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
-
Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Post
by Little waster » Thu May 28, 2020 11:16 am
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.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
-
FlammableFlower
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1520
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm
Post
by FlammableFlower » 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...
-
Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Post
by Little waster » Thu May 28, 2020 3:03 pm
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".
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
-
Stranger Mouse
- After Pie
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm
Post
by Stranger Mouse » Thu May 28, 2020 7:15 pm
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works
-
johnjohn
- Gray Pubic
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:05 pm
Post
by johnjohn » Sun May 31, 2020 2:12 pm
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.
-
individualmember
- Catbabel
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm
Post
by individualmember » Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:43 am
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)
-
Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7163
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Post
by Woodchopper » 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?
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.
-
individualmember
- Catbabel
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm
Post
by individualmember » Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:45 pm
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.
-
EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Post
by EACLucifer » Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:54 pm
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.
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:39 pm
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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
plebian
Post
by plebian » Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:28 pm
I think it deserves more investigation as there are several layers of outcome that are significant.
- The cottage is not registered for council tax
- Planning permission for building or change of use was not sought, council tax assessment changes were not submitted
- 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?
-
Grumble
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4851
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Post
by Grumble » 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?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
-
Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7163
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Post
by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:45 pm
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.
-
lpm
- Junior Mod
- Posts: 6001
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Post
by lpm » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:39 pm
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.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
-
plebian
Post
by plebian » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:52 pm
I also wonder whether the witness who saw them walking on the estate, noticed whether they were socially distancing.
-
tenchboy
- After Pie
- Posts: 1937
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
- Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.
Post
by tenchboy » Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:54 pm
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...
-
Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Post
by Little waster » Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:38 pm
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
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
-
Gfamily
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 5300
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
- Location: NW England
Post
by Gfamily » Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:02 pm
Google Earth imaging suggests they were built between 2001 and 2006, so too long ago.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!