BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land

Subject: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 07:54 AM

Green & Pleasant

I know we live in a beautiful country but was a little surprised at this survey.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 12:08 PM

Good stuff, and I was surprised too. Feel a tiny bit happier now. 🌳

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 01:26 PM

The use of the word "natural" in the study is ill-advised. The only truly natural vegetation in this country is found on some mountains above 3000 feet, some sea and mountain cliffs (ungrazed by sheep) and a very few relict patches of natural woodland, for example, at Wistman's Wood and Black Tor Copse on Dartmoor and Dizzard Wood on the cliffs a couple of miles from my house. Those are the ones I know because they're near me. One or two scraps of ashwood on limestone pavement come to mind - there's one at Colt Park Wood near Ribblehead. There's also Rassal ashwood in Wester Ross. Almost all moorland and uncultivated grasslands, woodland such as Epping Forest and all inland heathland, is at best semi-natural. None the worse for that, and I too was pleasantly surprised by the results of the survey. Next step is to stop farmers from using neonicotinoids. Come on, Gove, you can do it!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 01:27 PM

While that is indeed good to read, it underplays another important factor. I have always lived in very built up areas, but in every case you could get to a large scale green area by travelling just a few miles. For example, I was born in Middlesbrough which is about as urban as you could get outside London, but Eston Hills, Roseberry Topping, the moors and the dales are not far away at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 02:15 PM

It's Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than just England too.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 02:23 PM

Quite correct Stu, but I live in England, not Britain.










Apart from when I live in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 02:41 PM

Why only mad dogs and Englishmen, anyway?

Also, if you live in England, don't you also live in Britain, even though if you live in Britain you do not necessarily live in England?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 03:10 PM

Is it inhabited by people who pluck the feathers from pheasants?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 03:11 PM

I've never considered myself as British.

I was born in England, it says so on my Birth Certificate.

People born in Wales quite rightly consider themselves Welsh. People born in Scotland quite rightly consider themselves Scottish.

Good luck to them all.

I was born in England and I am English.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 09 Nov 17 - 04:44 PM

Yer, but yer a bleedin' Norvener, aint'cha, Raggy? Only 'arf Hinglish! ;-)

As Steve nearly says, there is very little "natural" in England or, indeed, in Britain. For better or worse, the landscape has been altered and / or 'managed' by us for more than a thousand years. There's very little 'ancient' left, the marks of human hands are all over. The landscape is still more rural than urban. There's still a lot of wilderness. But neither of those words are synonyms for 'natural'. If you see what I mean!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Nov 17 - 03:16 AM

If you take gardens & parks as green - then the figures look good.

But the trend is to build on low lying land, good for agriculture. Leaving the hills to livestock. And arable is diminishing faster.

We are a net importer of food. Were before WW2. A factor that will become clearer when the current political farrago reveals more of its unintended (ha!) consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Nov 17 - 05:54 PM

Do you have evidence for your claim of 'trend', Red? Forgive me if I am suspicious. Prime agricultural land is going for upwards of ?15K / acre these days. Which is not a lot if you can stick twenty shoeboxes on an acre, I grant you.

However, you have to apply for planning permission. And, I believe, not only is there a general category of 'use of land', there is also a reluctance to allow that use to change. It's not as simple as buying an acre of farmland & applying for planning permission for a house. The change of use of the land has to be approved from agricultural to residential. As far as I am aware, councils are rather reluctant to change the usage of agricultural land. You're right about net importer, though. In fact, we were a net importer before WWI never mind Mk II!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 17 - 01:33 PM

From: Mr Red - PM
Date: 11 Nov 17 - 03:16 AM
We are a net importer of food. Were before WW2. A factor that will become clearer when the current political farrago reveals more of its unintended (ha!) consequences.
I guess you're referring to Brexit, but what difference do you honestly think it will make. We may be a net importer of food, but not necessarily from the EU.
A quick check online will show that the EU (not just UK) relies heavily on the import of food to meet its demands. Here

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 17 - 01:55 PM

I was born in England
wasn't that a song by Elton John?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 12 Nov 17 - 05:05 PM

One of the major failings of the EU is the inability to rein in the CAP monster. Throughout the EU the food market is subjected to distortion.
https://www.economicshelp.org/europe/disadvantages-cap/
It is not just the UK dependent on food imports within the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Nov 17 - 06:01 PM

https://www.allposters.com/-sp/I-come-from-the-haunts-of-coot-and-hern-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Posters_i9172635_.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Nov 17 - 04:33 AM

Do you have evidence for your claim of 'trend',

now, let me see. The sizeable apple orchard scrubbed out 5 years ago in the hope of planning permission. Sits, not a 1/4 mile from me, already sold to the milk processing plant 300 yds further. Horses dispossessed.

5 minute walk the other direction Horsemarling Farm** now morphing into Standish Gate home to 10/15 houses though they don't call them that any more they are dwellings. 1 years ago it grazed horses and had extensive fields for cows. Adjacent to that is Arrowsmith drive, 15 years ago it was also a far bigger area of farm fields. And Grove Farm** 4/5 sizeable houses in what was the FarmYard behind the Farmhouse. 7 minutes.

Then there is Fox's Field** - 5 years ago that was an arable field + rushed archeological dig to get it ready to put 30 houses (and just 40 parking places on). 10 minutes.

Then there is the fields lain fallow for about 3 years while they re-submitted plans for gawd knows how many houses near Chipmans Platt (building now), a mere mile from me. And Dale Vince has been re-submitting plans on the other diagonal to build his football stadium stadium and commercial units in green fields - note the proximity to M5 J13.

And we are about to have a referendum in Stonehouse on the "Town Plan" - they will add 1000 houses to a town of 3500. And there ain't no industrial land to re-claim round here - PAL.

Stroud is 10 minute drive and here** they flattened a house and green garden to lay tarmac & concrete for 10 houses. Then there is the badger sets** they tried to uproot and in the centre of town, they built 20 5 bedroom houses - not yer artisan walk to the bus starter homes.

Slad valley, home of Laurie Lee, has fought endlessly to stop houses being built there. The fight continues, as it does Rodbourough fields.

** too recent to be included on maps, even Goggle maps. Quite literally concrete evidence, I see the lorries delivering it!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Nov 17 - 04:59 AM

I lied - new homes - 1,350 - and here is the map - quite an area of agricultural land - you could see maize from the A419 this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Nov 17 - 02:28 PM

Yep, that looks like evidence! It certainly seems to be a bit of an issue in what is presumably your neck of the woods, er, fields. That doesn't necessarily equate to a significant issue across the rest of the country, of course. I had a brief search, but couldn't turn up any useful national statistics.

The grubbing up of orchards has been going on for years, I'm afraid. Not always to move away from agriculture, or even from orchards, but farming is a business, and if an orchard can more profitably be turned to something else... And there has also been an issue with the profitability of farming for years, especially for smaller farmers. As for knocking down houses in large gardens, again, that's been known about for years. At least 15 years ago, I can remember reading about this happening on the South coast particularly, in places like Poole. Developer outbids everyone for house with large garden & sea views, knocks down house, builds 6 flats & sells each for the value of the original house & makes millions... Can't say as I like it much, but I can't see what you can do about it.

A similar thing happened on the A10 between Cambridge & Ely, at Waterbeach. One lone house set in a very large plot was allowed to fall into disrepair, presumably whilst planning permission was being sought. Eventually a tall fence was put up which more or less hid the house (I used to drive past it going to / from work), then it disappeared... I've no idea how many houses were put on it in the end. Google is out of date for this also, but if
this link works, it's the lone property where the bus stop is marked. If you go to Satellite, you can see there was a substantial amount of woodland; I don't know how much of that survives; and if you roll down to Streetview, you can see... actually, I think it might be a new property being built. It doesn't look like the old house, which, I'm sure, was further back from the road, and SV reckons that's Aug '16, which is well after the old house went. I have a feeling that this was actually bought up by travellers, which the buildings & caravans that can be seen tends to support.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 Nov 17 - 02:50 PM

Big Al Whittle, I like your taste in cartoons.

James Thurber!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Nov 17 - 01:40 PM

behind my house three years ago, Goggle shows the house being built. 5 minutes walk another house in the garden of "Triona", and about 20 seconds before that they ripped up a stone house and built a care home for special people, loadsa tarmac (this year). & the special needs school (no connection AFAIK) they are for ever adding bits like a swimming pool. And just across from there about 20 (min) houses on the site of a builders yard, knocking down yet another stone cottage 10 years ago. Then there is the Old Ship Inn site, lain fallow/green for years, but arguably reclaimed land, alongside the canal (add 25% to the value just for the amenity) - pegged-pout ready for the dull-bozers. And opposite that a huge accommodation block for the private school. True they knocked down a building, of much smaller size. They has laid artificial surface (ie impervious) tennis courts this year. And the Old Ryeford pub that was stripped and more floors put in with 10 or more sheltered housing behind - oh about 2 years ago. Plus a single house being built behind what was a police house.
All in a town of 3000 ish houses.

The real problem is that it is only a small increase, - yea small per year. And we can't properly house the people we have - modern culture and an addiction to house prices.

I remember in the 60's neighbours being three and four person households. One house was brothers and wives until they could afford to divide and move on, a not unknown practice then. People did without until they could afford.

That culture may well return, and may well not!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 17 - 07:53 PM

The population of Bude was 7000 when we came here 30 years ago. It's now in excess of 10000. The reason for the increase is a massive estate of soulless housing behind Morrisons and a massive development at Binhamy Farm, vehemently opposed by locals and Cornwall Council, but overridden by fatty Eric Pickles. There's another major scheme in the offing in Stratton, next door to Bude, that seems certain to go ahead. There are no plans for new schools and the local primaries and our one secondary are bursting at the seams. The next nearest secondary is ten miles away via a rotten bus service. The road infrastructure is a nightmare. The local sewage works can't cope, and it stinks to high heaven in summer during the tourist season. The medical centre is completely overrun. There is no way I can get an appointment to see my GP in less than six weeks unless I join the daily 8.30 am telephone treadmill, even then with little chance of success. The nearest main hospital is forty miles away and the nearest mainline station is an hour's drive at Bodmin Parkway. There are three or four buses a day to Exeter, a two-hour journey. Yet the powers that be seem determined to build hundreds of little boxes on prime agricultural land. The concept of affordable housing is paid minimal lip service. You wanna sell a few acres for building little boxes all the same? You've cracked it! You live in Tory England! Baksheesh is everything!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 17 - 09:08 PM

But I do live four miles out of town and it's lovely here. Damn!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Nov 17 - 05:09 AM

yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

meanwhile over at the seat of power - or did I mean throne?
theresa-may-to-take-personal-charge-of-government-response-to-housing-crisis-11364229301661

Now all that means is more houses. On what kind of land?
People seem hell bent on not wanting to live on hillsides, they prefer flat, fertile, alluvial land near rivers - until the river reminds them who's boss. And where were towns cities traditionally first set up? On the banks of the M1 of the day. Rivers.

The world-wide trend is for more and more people to live in cities (& towns). The only way is out onto farmland or up --- and after Grenfell? - Well - you work the double whammy numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 04:03 AM

Steve, those issues apply everywhere in England, not just Bude.
The population is growing by half a million every year and all those people have to be put somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 07:15 AM

I do know that, Keith, and as I live four miles out of town I don't have to do nimby. But Bude is one of the remotest towns of any size in the country. Look at your map if you don't believe me. We have one small medical centre (try parking anywhere near it!) apart from one, maybe two, small independent GP surgeries, two small dental surgeries, one of which does private only, an inadequate sewage works, one secondary school (the next nearest is ten miles away and it's full, and the next ones are over 18 miles away), two infant and two junior schools, no major hospital within an hour's drive and definitely no A&E, a skeletal bus service, no railway within an hour's drive and a road system that bursts at the seams, especially in summer. The tourist season triples the town's population. The facilities in town have to serve many surrounding villages, some of which have had their schools and post offices/village shops closed down. In a nutshell, Keith, the town is expanding rapidly into greenfield sites in spite of its inadequate infrastructure, which planning never seems to take into account (which is why I suspect corruption, and in these little rural communities we're all living in a goldfish bowl...)

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 09:09 AM

Apart from the tourism, towns all over England are suffering the same problems as Bude, and the cause is the impossibility of providing infrastructure for an extra 500 000 people each and every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 09:20 AM

Easy for you to churn out that same platitude. I've given you chapter and verse of an egregious example of what I consider to be be poor planning. Can you match it with other examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 10:15 AM

Truro in Cornwall is one I know of but I am sure it is the same all over Cornwall.
Every town here in the SE has overcrowded schools, hospitals, roads and everything else while building houses goes on apace.

We add the equivalent of Sheffield to our population every year but you can not build new schools and hospitals on that scale every year.

You will get no sympathy for the plight of Bude from any England dweller just now.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 12:27 PM

There's no 'impossibility' about providing the infrastructure to go with the housing.

Hospitals, schools, et al, aren't power stations, Keith. They don't take several years to come on stream. Infrastructure isn't profitable, houses are. We know how to build hospitals, blah, it's not like they need a new, innovative design every time. But there is no political, economic, or social will to do so, because they do not generate profits. The government doesn't want to build them, businesses do not want to build them, and the 'people' don't want to pay extra tax to build or run them. If they did, 'they' wouldn't keep voting the Tories in!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 12:42 PM

I don't want sympathy thank you. What I would like to see is local infrastructure to be addressed before large-scale planning applications are approved. In Bude we are seeing a town of less than ten thousand having to accommodate over a thousand new residents almost in one fell swoop, and not just the once, and most of the development is on greenfield sites. We are not protected by green belt legislation as you are in your leafy Hertford suburbs. The lack of public transport provision means that a population increase creates even more traffic congestion. Apart from a couple of new roundabouts, nothing has been done to address this and there is a chronic parking problem in the town that fills the letters pages every week in the local paper. I understand that locals will generally resist big changes and that they might not always be right. But we are seeing central government overriding not only local council decisions but also county council decisions. Coming from the alleged party of small government I find that to be very disturbing. Eric Pickles' name is poison around here. Now I happen to know Truro very well. I spend a day there at least every two weeks, out and about with my daughter who lives there, and have done for years. It is a much bigger town than Bude and it has a rather fine cathedral. It has the biggest hospital in Cornwall and has a number of secondary schools. It is on the main line to London and has a reasonable bus service. The town is a major regional shopping centre. A town of that size has an existing infrastructure that can far more easily adapt to a growing population. Try again, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 01:28 PM

You refer to the infrastructure that existed in Truro before the recent and current massive housing developments.
Any new schools? Any extension to the health care facilities? Ask your daughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 02:27 PM

There is a Truro and Kenwyn Neighbourhood Plan in operation which closely monitors new housing and education infrastructure, among other things. The two state secondary schools have scope for expansion and there was considerable redevelopment at Richard Lander School a few years ago. Post-16 and post-18 education is well provided for. The need for a new primary school was identified. The road from Carland Cross on the A30 into Truro, one of the two main routes into the city, underwent major improvement a couple of years ago. There is a long-term plan in place to dual the A30 between Carland Cross and Chiverton Cross at a cost of ?300 million that will expedite traffic that doesn't need to pass through the town and make the routes into town faster and more accessible (as long as unintended consequences don't kick in). The road at the major junction near the new Waitrose has been vastly ungraded during this year and last. The road running west from the city centre to Treliske is currently being upgraded. There is plenty of parking provision and there is a vast new park and ride near the Waitrose roundabout.

There is a plan and things happen in Truro (no doubt regularly shat on or diverted by the Tories). You won't find much of any of that going on in and around Bude.

As for healthcare provision in Truro and everywhere else, ask your Tory government. I know that my daughter would give you a more honest answer, of course, but one person living in one town is hardly your first port of call.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 17 - 03:08 PM

Vastly upgraded.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 17 - 03:01 AM

Every town here in the SE has overcrowded schools, hospitals, roads and everything else

the SE is overcrowded. It wants more water from the river Severn. If that were a bank account it would be bankrupt. It is the metrocentricity of it all - London has to have, and those that commute to there live around it. Money talks. In an ideal world the there would be a more equitable spread of opportunity. To a lesser degree it applies to other cities and thence to towns pro rata.

Let's face it homo sapiens is the pollution. There is little in the way of solution there, IMNSHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 17 - 04:11 AM

Steve, you have applauded the policies that have led to a massive and unsupportable population increase, and as soon as the effects are felt in Bude you whinge.
You want all those people to be housed somewhere else when everywhere else is already struggling to cope with the same problems, too many extra people to be accomodated.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 17 - 04:31 AM

"In Cornwall?we have?235 primary schools, of which 227 have reception classes (with the remaining 8 junior schools); of these, 104 are currently full.? This number is expected to increase as late applications for places are processed over the next few weeks.? The number of primary aged children in Cornwall requiring a school place continues to grow, this picture is mirrored nationally.
Among the areas in Cornwall which are experiencing particular pressures on reception age school places are St Austell, Saltash, Helston, Falmouth, Pool, Camelford, Truro and Newquay."

Note, not lucky old Bude Steve.

http://www.cllrandrewwallis.co.uk/category/school-places/

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 17 - 07:24 AM

I've got news for you, Keith. Reception age is one age-group out of 13. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 03:42 AM

And you think that is the only pressure on school places?
You have no idea.
And that was over two years ago. It has got much worse since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 04:25 AM

Alistair Currie, head of campaigns at Population Matters, a charity which campaigns about the impact of high population levels, said: "These figures for the year up to June 2016 reflect the situation as it has been for many years now, with net migration being the highest driver of population growth."

He added: "More people means more pressure on everything, from our food to our housing and from buses to butterflies."

He sums it all up perfectly!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 04:40 AM

And Steve was all in favour until even Bude felt a little pressure.
It is the people at the bottom of the pile who suffer most, having to compete for housing, employment and basic services.
The people Labour used to stand up for.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 06:38 AM

We are quite lucky where we are in that the government quotas for new housing have been exceeded and there is little effect on our village. Just down the road is different however and massive housing estates have been built with no thought for the underlying infrastructure. A little further afield, in Bradford for instance, there are swathes of derelict industrial land and massive empty mills surrounded by boarded up shops, empty health centres and closed schools. Why is this? Dare I say that the land is not profitable enough for the landowners to sell to housing companies yet? That they are sitting on areas perfect for urban redevelopment until they can make more money out of it?

Just my 2p

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 06:46 AM

I live near Bude, not in it, Keith. I live nearer to Widemouth Bay, Poundstock and Marhamchurch. I hope the bee in your bonnet about me and Bude isn't buzzing so loud that you can't take that in. My transactions with Bude are very limited (though I'm off to Lidl in a minute). It just happens to be the town I have a bit more experience of.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Jim Martin
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 08:19 AM

'Raggytash' I don't think my neighbours here in Ireland would be too happy with you saying it is Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 09:25 AM

Does Widemouth have a school?
I know where you live Steve, and I also know that those villages are centred on Bude. That is where the kids go to school and where you go for basic healthcare and shopping.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 10:56 AM

My children went to primary school in Marhamchurch. They had to go to the secondary school in Bude as there was no other school within practical reach. We do only basic shopping in Bude as we have to go to Truro very frequently. I told you that. Between the two of us we've had one GP visit in over two years. Our eye health is dealt with in Launceston and my hearing issues, bad back and any outpatient needs are dealt with in Barnstaple. Bude has a smallish Morrisons, a very small Sainsbury's and a small Coop (currently closed down). Oh, and a Lidl (sheesh). The small shops in the extremely congested town centre are dominated by charity shops and shops that cater for tourists. There is no greengrocer shop and just one half-decent butcher. The bakeries are basically pasty shops. Many of the people in those villages do what we do, most of their shopping in regional centres in Exeter, Plymouth, Barnstaple and Truro. The nearest ones are an hour's drive away. You may know where I live but you have to live here in order to understand how things are. There's no such thing as a rural idyll, though there is nice scenery and bad weather. I'll give you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 02:40 PM

You missed my point.

the local primaries and our one secondary are bursting at the seams

Welcome to our world. Same everywhere Steve. Bude is far from the worst in Cornwall never mind up-country!

The reason for the increase is a massive estate of soulless housing behind Morrisons and a massive development at Binhamy Farm

Like every other town in Southern England then.

The road infrastructure is a nightmare

Not just where you live Steve.

The medical centre is completely overrun.

Oh dear. Lucky you did not say "swarming."

There is no way I can get an appointment to see my GP in less than six weeks unless I join the daily 8.30 am telephone treadmill, even then with little chance of success.

You have been so lucky for so long!

The cause is the rapid and uncontrolled rise in population caused by policies that you celebrated.
When others made those same complaints you accused them of racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 05:17 PM

Sorry Jim, I don't follow you. Could you explain.

Ta

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 17 - 05:28 PM

Sorry, Keith, I don't follow you. Could you explain.

Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 04:32 AM

Certainly Steve.
You complain about the effect of a sudden large influx of people in Bude.
Your medical centre is "completely overrun."
You have to wait for a GP appointment.
Your schools are "bursting at the seams."
Your roads are crowded.

These are the symptoms of mass immigration that most of the country has been suffering for years.
When anyone else made those complaints you denounced them as racist.
You are a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 05:03 AM

What a load of codswallop. I described a particular situation in a small, remote town with limited infrastructure that appears to be the victim of very poor planning decisions involving the unwarranted intervention of central government (and not without suspicion of corruption). Bude town centre is becoming a hellhole of traffic congestion and woefully inadequate parking provision because the burgeoning population, by dint of an almost absent public transport system, has to pile into town by car, a situation exacerbated by the tourist season, and that's just one of the issues. My criticism has everything to do with haphazard, capricious planning decisions, in keeping with the sentiment of the thread, and nothing to do with the overall population increase in the country. Please take your silly xenophobic agenda elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 08:00 AM

nothing to do with the overall population increase in the country

It is. Most towns in England have the exact same problems. You can not plan for an extra 500 000 people every year, you just have to stack them in where you can.

How sad for you that now Bude is experiencing it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 09:39 AM

ww.gov.uk/government/news/housebuilding-soars-to-highest-levels-in-almost-a-decade

We must not forget that Labour started the stupid idea of selling off social housing.
And labour's idea of building replacement stock has an abysmal record.
The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510.) Whereas the Blessed Maggie never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.

Seems the years of Labour misrule, and unfettered immigration, created the shambles we now find ourselves in.


To blame it all on corruption and poor planning is risible even by the standards of our well educated scientist who knows nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: JHW
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 10:53 AM

A: 9.4%
Surprising though it may seem, there is almost 100 times as much peat bog in the UK as there is continuous urban fabric. Peat bog covers almost seven times as much land as all Britain's buildings.

Dreadful stuff for us walkers

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 11:11 AM

I have spent many a day up to my balls in peat.

A phrase that often got misconstrued later...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 11:49 AM

"To blame it all on corruption and poor planning is risible even by the standards of our well educated scientist who knows nothing."

I have not "blamed it all" on poor planning and corruption. I've described the true situation in the one town I know best (though I don't live in it, don't spend much time in it and have no particular axe to grind). Now try not to be so gratuitously bloody rude for a change and get someone to read this post aloud to you, as you clearly struggle in that regard, judging from your abysmal misunderstanding of what I've posted so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 02:24 PM

Steve,
I've described the true situation in the one town I know best

Do you deny that the things you complain of in Bude, overrun services, schools and infrastructure, can be found in just about every town in England?

Where do you imagine all those extra people came from Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 03:12 PM

Keith you know shaw does not let a little thing like facts interfere with a story. That is why he will not construct links. He prefers ro live in blunderland where the bible according to shaw brooks no opposition. Rather sad really!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 03:14 PM

You don't 'alf attract 'em don't you Keith...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 17 - 05:14 PM

The two posts before yours say it all, Dave. It's bloody tempting to stoop to riposte insults. Iains has spent all day gratuitously insulting anyone he sees as his "adversary" (what does that say about him? It says to me that he needs help, frankly) and Keith called me a hypocrite for honestly and dispassionately describing the unique position in the one town I know most about. These people are not children, Dave. I know some lovely children, as do you. But the word "puerile" fits them like a glove....

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 04:03 AM

Keith called me a hypocrite for honestly and dispassionately describing the unique position in the one town I know most about.

I did not.
The position in Bude is not at all unique. Services, schools and infrastructure are "overrun" everywhere.

The hypocrisy is that you have derided as racist anyone else who complains about it.

Where would you send all those extra people who have overrun Bude Steve?
It is not Bude that has failed to plan for the influx, it is Britain.
It would be impossible to accommodate those extra millions anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 04:47 AM

And would you care to give me the ethnic origin and nationalities of all those extra people in Bude, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 05:53 AM

"extra millions"

Hyperbole.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 06:15 AM

This is the time-honoured "we're being swamped by foreigners" syndrome, Stu. Keith thinks he can come here and say it in his own faux-gentle words and get away with it, whereas if the papers and politicians on his side even think of coming out with it they are, rightly, immediately shot down. The influx of people from overseas has helped to people our health service, tourism and care industries with willing hands. The rates of unemployment and benefits claiming by immigrants is far lower than in the population in general. People who come to live, work and contribute to our culture make an amazing contribution to this country, including via paying taxes. If there is a strain on housing and public services, it's due to the extreme short-sightedness and setting of wrong priorities by successive governments of all shades. One other thing, as Keith is presumably trying to cook up more stats on Bude at this very moment. I've seen the population of the town burgeoning in the last few years. Oddly, most, nearly all I'd say, of the incomers seem to be white working-class Brits. Hardly a dark-skinned face or foreign accent anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 08:11 AM

And would you care to give me the ethnic origin and nationalities of all those extra people in Bude, Keith?

How should I know? Why is that relevant Steve?

"extra millions"
Hyperbole.

In 2015 the population increased by 513,000 people (0.8%), and that is typical for recent years.

About half of the people coming to the UK in 2015 were from the European Union. Recent data indicates that there are approximately 3 million EU citizens living and working in the UK. This equates to 5% of the UK population. The other half came from non-EU countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 08:30 AM

There are all sorts of issues with those figures Keith, you don't even cite the source.

For something more up to date, with all sources cited, try this: Net migration to UK drops to lowest level for three years.

It won't change your mind of course being a fact-averse Brexiteer, but we have to fight the darkness where we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 08:39 AM

Net migration to UK drops to lowest level for three years.

They were at a record high 3 years ago, and every year since then.

Last year for instance,
"The population of the UK has increased by more than half a million - the biggest rise for 70 years - according to official figures.
There were 65,648,000 people in the UK in June 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The ONS said that was a rise of 538,000 on the figure in 2015, equivalent to a city the size of Bradford."

"Neil Park, head of the Population Estimates Unit at the ONS, said: "The population of the UK continued to grow in the year to mid-2016 at a similar rate to that seen over recent years.
"Net international migration continued to be the main driver, but there was also an increase in births and fewer deaths than last year."
The population of the UK has increased by just over five million in 11 years - previously it took 35 years, from 1970 to 2005, to make the same leap.
Population change in the UK has averaged 482,000 a year over the past decade."

The source is the ONS quoted here by BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40372533

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 08:42 AM

https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-bude-cornwall-5899.html
The data is very easy to find. But to expect shaw to provide facts amongst his incessant scribblings is is obviously a step too far and destroys his narrative. And of course he does not know how to contruct links. (how very convenient for him) He demands facts and figures off others but is too idle to back up his own babblings with evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 09:05 AM

Please remember that it was not me who complained of the problems caused by our ballooning population.
That was Steve.
I just pointed out his hypocrisy in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 09:17 AM

"Net international migration continued to be the main driver, but there was also an increase in births and fewer deaths than last year."

So this is what you need to think about. The figures I posted related to Net migration alone, not variations in the number of births and deaths. NOT separating these figures is and using them to support an argument about immigration is dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 10:23 AM

Well if that's the quality of links around here, Iains, I'm rather glad I don't bother with 'em. The item rattles on about the figures for Bude yet appears to give figures for Cornwall. News for you, Iains: Cornwall has half a million people, Bude has ten thousand and is on the very edge of Cornwall, two hours' drive from Land's End if you're lucky. Extrapolating Cornwall numbers to cover Bude is, to say the least, risky. We are not typical Cornwall round here. Incidentally, the piece confirms what I said, that the immigrant population of Bude is very low, which demolishes Keith's non-points. It's buried in there for your delectation (I tend to avoid quoting things that defeat my point, but then again I tend to actually read those things first, apparently unlike your good self 😂)

And, after your abysmal behaviour on this forum yesterday, I note that you still can't help being extremely rude. Just for once, put your point of view, if you have one, instead of trying to insult anyone who you think disagrees with you.

Keith, only half the immigration to this country, up to the referendum, came from the EU. Probably a lot less by now. Only half the population increase in this country can be attributed to net migration, the rest being mostly ascribed to increasing longevity. Considering that we actually desperately need EU immigration in order to keep our public services, etc., afloat, its hard to see why you insist on making this a brexit issue, or an issue at all.

"Why is that relevant Steve?"

Because you have persistently linked Bude's population increase to mass immigration, when in fact it has nothing to do with it. I wonder what that makes you. You've called ME names. I don't think I need to bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 10:40 AM

Oh, and by the way, Iain's link is not only out of date, which it admits to itself, but was written by "an anonymous visitor." Quality stuff, Iains! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 12:24 PM

The national census records quoted are however accurate. Try reading an understanding before gibbering, you stupid boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 12:28 PM

"Please remember that it was not me who complained of the problems caused by our ballooning population.
That was Steve.
I just pointed out his hypocrisy in doing so."

Please remember that I did no such thing. I commented about the rotten planning decisions in one small, remote seaside town that happens to contain very few recent immigrants, the latter, what's more, being completely irrelevant to my point about planning and infrastructure. We are in Keith's silly games territory again here, aren't we? It's no wonder, what with the Keith 'n' Iains comedy duo in full swing, that these threads turn sour.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 12:35 PM

And for the second time today let me request that you desist from being so gratuitously rude. Your link was extremely poor, unintelligible in fact as it stands and certainly not demonstrating whatever it was you were hoping it would, as well as being out of date and written by an anonymous someone who doesn't live in the area, and you didn't check before posting it. I'm sure that the others here won't find it too hard to decide which of the two of us is a better target for the nasty invective in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 02:11 PM

Stu,
The figures I posted related to Net migration alone, not variations in the number of births and deaths.

Most of the births were to mothers born elsewhere, but I was only posting about population growth, not specifically migration.

Steve,
Keith, only half the immigration to this country, up to the referendum, came from the EU.

I made no comment about origins. Why do you?

Because you have persistently linked Bude's population increase to mass immigration, when in fact it has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has. The population of the whole country is mushrooming and now the effects are being felt in Bude you don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 02:26 PM

" but I was only posting about population growth, not specifically migration"

This is why I don't debate with you Keith. It's like trying to herd cats as you twist and wriggle and leave crap all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 03:34 PM

Mmmm... I see that nothing's changed much in the years where I've been largely inactive. I look at this thread... No appearance in the first 24 posts, then 17 in the next 52. Yep. That seems about par for the course. Plus never conceding a point, admitting to an error... Gentles! We do not have an SI unit of internet forum debate! I think we should. The question is what we should call it. The Weasel seems very obvious - always wriggling & slippery, always trying to bite... But it's rather pejorative, never mind being unfair to weasels who are, after all, only trying to make a living.

I propose the KAH. In homage to our very own Keith Acheson, Hertford (of). Never wrong (not least because any point challenged that can't be refuted can be ignored). But not only that, the thread in question must also be flooded with responses from the same poster, thus demonstrating how inarguably right he is!!! How the heck you define that scientifically, I would not care to suggest, but it's the starting point for debate.

Yes, Keith, this is sarcasm. It also possibly amounts to a personal attack. But since it is also a statement of the blindingly obvious, I don't expect the mod's to take exception to it. If I did, I wouldn't waste their time in posting it. This is what you are. This is what you do. You will see no humour in it, but others will. Hard luck. I could compare you with one or two other 'Catters'. Roger springs to mind particularly. Do you never stop to wonder why so few people agree with you, whether it's you that's making a poor argument, rather than everyone else just being thick?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 05:07 PM

It is awful. It's impossible to try to make honest points without being rounded on by one or two people (it used to be three or four...) who are absolutely determined to score points by misrepresenting what you say.. For all my bloody flaws, it's ridiculous that I can be called a hypocrite for simply describing accurately the situation in my town and being told that I'm stupid and know nothing, etc., by someone who is scarcely capable of making a debating point, who is virtually illiterate and who posts completely inane links. But I'm not bitter (as the Murphy's ad used to say). I suppose most discussion forums are infested by people with agendas. We can be a bit too quick to react to these scumbags I suppose. I'm trying hard to not do things like calling people scumbags, but Jaysus it can be hard...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 07:41 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 05:07 PM
It is awful. It's impossible to try to make honest points without being rounded on by one or two people (it used to be three or four...) who are absolutely determined to score points by misrepresenting what you say..

People don't misrepresent what you say. They quote what you say. Then you claim that what you said was just "whimsy"

Trying to make a serious argument against what you say is like trying to knit fog!

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 17 - 08:52 PM

People don't misrepresent what you say. They quote what you say. Then you claim that what you said was just "whimsy"

Well, Nigel, you are one of the problem posters here. Why? Because you have little interest in arguing the toss (as a Tory, you secretly feel that you're on a hiding to nothing there, obviously, poor thing) and every interest in bitterly pursuing your perceived adversaries rather obsessively with a view to following Keith's "you lose" philosophy. Let's see if you can follow up the above quote from your post, in both its elements, with a chapter and verse example. And I'm not saying that to try to make a point. I'm saying it in order to keep you occupied for as long as possible so that the decent people here will have at least a few hours' respite from your rather snarky, stalking, distempered nastiness.

As I said to Iains, your partner in crime/soulmate/clone, just try to put your point of view without resort to personal attack. No need to presage it every time with a big quote from someone else. We'd love to hear from you. Just you.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 03:18 AM

"just try to put your point of view without resort to personal attack"

"Have another pint, Nige. Best leave it 'til morning, eh? ?????? "

" We can be a bit too quick to react to these scumbags I suppose"

you are leading by example I presume. You continue to treat Mudcat as your personal fiefdom. You try to dictate one standard of behaviour while your own falls woefully short of what a reasonable person would expect. You are a sad obsessive and need to find another pastime to see out your dotage. You have outstayed your welcome here.

Nigel."Trying to make a serious argument against what you say is like trying to knit fog!"

You summarize the problem the most eloquently.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 04:26 AM

I have made no point about immigration or ethnic origins.
That came entirely from Steve and Stu.

My only point is that Steve complained about the problems caused by an influx of people into his town, but when others have said exactly the same he accused them of xenophobia or worse.
He is a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 04:37 AM

Troll x2

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 05:20 AM

I have responded as best I can to every point put to me, and have been rebuked and attacked for doing so.

No-one has responded to the one single point that I have made.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 06:08 AM

Oh Keith mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 06:11 AM

Well here's one of your points that I'm responding to right now. Do not call me a hypocrite again.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 06:47 AM

Remind what the one single point that you made was, please, Keith? I must have missed it in the inordinate amount of waffle that occurs in every thread you decide to inhabit.

Shaw - reign in the vitriol please, sir (Please, Sir! ;-) ). I will happily state that my opinion of Keith is that he is a bloody idiot (ignored everything I said, I note, Keith; typical Keith, can't answer so pretend it doesn't exist, but everyone else can see you doing it, Mr Ostrich). A scumbag he is not.

As for Nigel... Nigel has his opinions, same as you do. Except, seemingly, he has opposite opinions. Unless Nigel has changed vastly in the last few years, he always used to make his point in a reasonable manner (plus he sets interesting quizzes!). Quite why you two feel the need to be at each other's throats... Agree to disagree & knock off the name-calling, chaps. You don't, either of you, smell of roses in exchanges of this sort. And no, I'm not immune from sinning occasionally either! ;-) But it is only occasionally in my case.

As for hypocrite, there are many words I might use to describe Steve. Manky Scouse git for a start.. ;-) Hypocrite would never be one of them. You'd have to be wilfully misunderstanding / cheap point-scoring to twist any two things he's said into hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 11:07 AM

Raed.
Remind what the one single point that you made was, please, Keith? I must have missed it in the inordinate amount of waffle that occurs in every thread you decide to inhabit.

The waffle came after I made my point, as I responded to all the points put to me.

My only point is that Steve complained about the problems caused by an influx of people into his town, but when others have said exactly the same he accused them of xenophobia or worse.

Steve, you could have silenced me at once had you said something along these lines,
"Of course it is legitimate and acceptable to discuss the deleterious effects as well as the benefits of a large influx of people into an area. I am sorry if I ever seemed to suggest otherwise."

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 11:16 AM

No Steve is not a manky scouce git. He may be a git, he is a Manky (ie comes from Manchester) but he is NOT a scouce.

I admit he's a bit odd supporting Liverpool FC who almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory last night. Woeful come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 12:04 PM

It was a bloody hard watch, I'll give you that.

Nigel has indulged in obsessive stalking behaviour, Raedwulf. He's toned it down following my very public accusations. I say "following" though I remain acutely conscious of the possibility of post hoc ergo propter hoc.. These threads are full of my carefully-constructed opinions and arguments. I only said carefully-constructed, not at all denying the possibility that they could be wrong-headed or biased or deluded. It would be very nice to get the same back from people like Keith and Nigel, whose main concern seems to be point-scoring. You will note that Keith is still at it. The people who have moved to Bude recently are not part of Keith's country-swamping hordes. They were already here. I do defend and celebrate immigration even at current levels. That is not at all incompatible with criticising some very poor planning decisions affecting the town I know best. He knows that but he is the dog with the bone. It's not good enough, old chap. It's demoralising, it's abject and its bloody dishonest. And it's bloody typical of him. I do my best. Only a scumbag would call me a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 12:31 PM

Raggy, he supports Liverpool. That's Scouse enough... ;-)

Keith, the waffle occurs every time you decide to inhabit because you feel the need to minutely adjust your position 46 times, whilst never conceding that you're wrong about anything... Anyway. Thank you for your clarification, but I don't see it. I've done you the courtesy of reading back through the thread. There is absolutely no xenophobia from Steve. Quite the reverse, if anything. In everything I've read from Steve, he is probably less that than I am, and I wouldn't consider myself xeno- at all! You complain that it is his support of immigration policies that lead to your allegations of "uncontrolled immigration", etcetera. But if he supports immigration policies more than you do, he can hardly be xenophobic, now can he! Unless, in fact, it is you that is the xenophobic one...

Keith, you are, as I have already said, a bloody idiot. I could dissect your utterings at greater length, but you wouldn't get it; you never have.

I can call Steve a fool (aren't we all, in some respects?), Raggy too, and several others. They'll accept it, even if they don't agree. They understand that it's an expression that ultimately means that they are being blinkered & narrow-minded about a particular point, rather than some random bunch of internet pixels (which is all we are to each other) being abusive. But you, Keith? I genuinely am sorry to say this, but repeatedly & repetitively, you are both stupid & ignorant. You are incapable of understanding that which you do not wish to understand, and you do not, or will not, listen to facts that contradict what you want to insist IS. I've seen you do it time and again. And again & again & again... It's a real shame. The care you take over making your arguments suggests you aren't actually stupid (incapable of understanding), but you remain wilfully ignorant (I'll ignore facts I don't like & comments I can't answer). I'm an old, old hand on t'internet, I'm afraid, never mind Mudcat. Life too, I suppose. I've run across the generic, cliched "you" many times. I've never found a way of making that 'you' understand what you're doing or how you are repeatedly undermining your own point of view. I really wish I could.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 12:40 PM

Steve - if you stop rubbing, maybe Nigel will too. And vice versa. *hurhurhur* As I've already said, I've not been here much in recent years. I had a quick squint at post history. Nigel turned up in Feb '02, me in Aug. You didn't till May '07. Yet your post count dwarfs both of us. Gobby bugger much? ;-) Maybe you & he have just got into the habit of reacting to the name a bit? I enjoy nattering with the both of yez. I am sorry to see yez miserable gits being so hostile to each other! ;-)

P.S. I fucking well hate playing Switzerland. Swallow yer bile, gentlemen! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 12:52 PM

It's a lot simpler than you think Raedwulf. Keith may or may not be some of the things you suggest but I am sure my repeating mantra about him explains most of them

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

He will also try to make you jump through hoops that are completely unnecessary and often not even part of the discussion in question if you let him. The trick is to not do it although I must admit it is difficult sometimes.

As for Steve and his alignment to the scousers. Well, we can allow people their foibles but just don't ask him about Lilo Lil and the bingo debacle.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:01 PM

I have it on very good authority that Betty Swollox conspired with you both about those missing bingo balls AND the photocopied bingo cards... Admit it. If only you hadn't tried to carry the balls across the car park in a wet and soggy shoe-box...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:03 PM

"Gobby bugger"

Never mind the width. Feel the quality...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:11 PM

Thread drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:14 PM

No, the normal evolution of mudchats :-)

Anyway, Steve, should it not be "conspired with you about both those missing bingo balls AND the photocopied bingo cards?

Call yourself a gobby bugger? Can't even talk proper like what I does.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:20 PM

At least I don't forget the closing speech marks! Heheh...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:29 PM

He din't call 'imself a gobby bugger, I did ! 17,000+ posts & a recent *cough* arrival, the puppy. 'E ought to shurrup in the presence of 'is betters (*ahem* given his own admissions, definitely not elders!).

Thread drift? Oh yes! The staple of below the line... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:32 PM

Raed,
There is absolutely no xenophobia from Steve.

I have never accused Steve of that.

Steve, I made no comment about the origins of your incomers. I did say that the rise in the population led to their arrival.

My point was that it was hypocritical of you to complain about the problems caused by an influx of people into your town, when you have accused others of xenophobia or worse for saying the same things.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:33 PM

It used to be considered a badge. It would appear that I, all unknowing, got post 100. Fuck nose wot it woz all abaht... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 02:48 PM

Xenophobia. Mmmmm... I'll give you love all on that one Keith. "Please take your silly xenophobic agenda elsewhere" Steve's words, not yourn. But you picked up on the word & repeated it. Silly from the both of you, yes?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 03:35 PM

So, Raedwulf, old chap, you don't think that a rather rabid anti-immigration stance (did you see all that pro-Farage stuff from him?) that ignores all the great things that immigration has brought to this country, blaming immigrants for driving down wages, putting a strain on housing and the NHS (stop me somebody...), overrunning our towns, not to speak of all that awful stuff about Pakistanis (maybe you missed it...) doesn't, er, betray just a hint of xenophobia? Still, I'm more than happy to think that you think we're both clots. As you seem to have adopted the stance, self-appointed it seems (unless you're a closet good-cop mod, of course), of arbiter of all that cometh to pass here, perhaps you'd like to put us in a league table of clottitudinessitude...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 03:55 PM

Like I said, Steve, one, I hate having to play Switzerland, and two, I haven't been here a lot in the last... 5 years or so. Which "him" are you referring to. Keith? Nigel / Iain? You seem to have a grouse against all. Him, he, etc is rather imprecise from a former teacher, innit? ;-)

No, I don't think you're a clot. I do think you could pick your fights better, and fight those fights better. If you see what I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 04:12 PM

And if "cometh to pass" is my lot (JoeO may be daft but he ain't daft enough to make me a mod!), then this.

And it came to pass that the Lord(-ish) R?dwulf saith... sedth... "Steve, be thou not a clot, but use thy brain, which I gaveth you, wisely" -ith. And seeing that it was not as he hath commandedeth, sedth (or whatever) "Sod that for a game of soldiers, mine's a pint".

You jump too much, Steve. I don't know whether at shadows or at substance. I'm not here enough, I don't look at enough threads. But those that I do look at... I think you snap at names, rather than content, too easily. That's just my random pixels opinion. But maybe one worth considering?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 06:15 PM

Seems to me that it's you doing the jumping this last couple of days. But I'll forgive anything as long as you can reassure me that you think that Keith is a bigger twat than me. You seem like a good old boy but with a bit too much haughtiness. I'll stick with naughtiness. Good night, Raedwulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 17 - 07:19 PM

Speaking of this green and pleasant land, and this is somewhat off-topic, there was a lovely programme on Beeb Four last night about Marianne North, a very feisty and independent-minded Victorian lady who travelled the world to paint in oils all the exotic and beautiful plants she could find. I've had a copy of a lovely book called Visions Of Eden, containing many of her paintings, for many years. Kew Gardens has a special little gallery in a detached building dedicated to her work, which contains, wall to wall, cheek by jowl, all her pictures. It's wonderful and overwhelming for a botanist such as meself and I've been several times. Marianne was a dear friend of Charles Darwin and he was a great fan of her work, and she was a great aficionado of his theory of evolution by natural selection (as indeed am I). I have in my possession a book published in 1875 written by Sir John Lubbock which deals with the relationship between flowering plants and insects. Inside the cover, written elegantly in pencil, is Marianne North's name. I'm generally not a sentimental chap, but owning a book that once belonged to a soulmate of Charles Darwin is summat else entirely! Oh, that golden chain...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 04:31 AM

I have a good onion... opinion of you & a low one of Keith (because you always meet it, Keith, before you bleat). Is that good enough? ;-)

Enjoyed the Marianne story. Lucky you...

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 05:31 AM

It would be an excellent idea to move on from that line of enquiry now.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 06:15 AM

Steve once again describes as xenophobic anyone who refers to the disadvantages as well as the advantages of an influx of people into an area.

When it came to his town he detailed only the disadvantages, but it is OK when he does it.

I think that makes him a hypocrite.

Steve, will you acknowledge that it is not xenophobic for others to make such observations too?

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 07:16 AM

". A little further afield, in Bradford for instance, there are swathes of derelict industrial land and massive empty mills surrounded by boarded up shops, empty health centres and closed schools. Why is this? Dare I say that the land is not profitable enough for the landowners to sell to housing companies yet? That they are sitting on areas perfect for urban redevelopment until they can make more money out of it?

Just my 2p"

Have you considered the fact that brownfield sites are likely contaminated, and that can extend to underlying aquifers. They require investigation, evaluation and probably remediation before any construction can occur. Greenfield sites present far less of a headache. Old gas works, chemical works and decommissioned power stations offer unique expensive remediation problems and any sort of 'made ground' can create subsidence problems. Having spent a period of time on such projects I know the solutions can come with a hefty price tag, and without government funding, it ain't going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 07:28 AM

Below is an example of a brownfield site that was remediated successfully. I had an extremely minor role in the orginal geotechnical investigation both on land and over water.

http://citiscope.org/story/2016/how-cardiff-turned-polluted-bay-one-europes-best-waterfronts

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 07:54 AM

Have you considered the fact that brownfield sites are likely contaminated

Yes. The ones I mentioned are not.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 17 - 08:30 AM

"Yes. The ones I mentioned are not"
You are uniquely qualified to know this for a fact are you?


From a recent government report:"A study of 5000 industrial constructi
on projects revealed that half were delayed by more than a
month, and all developments on redevelopment land had encountered unforeseen ground conditons although, only 2-3% of the total cost of a typical construction project is spent on site investigation to assess the geology and soil conditions

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 02:58 AM

You are uniquely qualified to know this for a fact are you?


Yes, I am.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 05:33 AM

No doubt time will tell if your supreme confidence is misplaced. Anyone that feels they have possession of all the facts on a brownfield site before any exploratory work begins is almost certainly heading for disappointment.Contamination would be only one of a number of potential concerns. Been a lot of coal mining in the area and maps of underground workings are not 100% accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 05:46 AM

You have no idea which sites I am referring to, not a clue whether any investigations have been carried out and not the faintest idea what my source of information is yet you still insist on arguing the toss.

Good to see that you have learned from others on this site and changed your argument from Have you considered the fact that brownfield sites are likely contaminated to Contamination would be only one of a number of potential concerns though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 06:04 AM

If you wish to maintain your arrogant posture and divulge no details what response do you expect. Having had a considerable period of time involved in geotechnical investigations on brownfield sites I know that desk studies and preliminary investigations do not necessarily uncover all the risks on a potential site. It is either a brave or foolhardy man says he holds all the answers.
Hubris could be an expensive character defect.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 07:05 AM

Nothing arrogant in stating facts. Your position of arguing from ignorance on the other hand is. I have never said hold all the answers. I merely stated that I know the sites I am referring to are not contaminated by anything that would prevent their redevelopment.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 07:28 AM

Even something as simple as a road realignment can give rise to contaminated ground due to the use of coal tar as a binder before bitumen. My sole point to make concerning brownfield sites is that until redevelopment is complete there is infinite scope for encountering nasty surprises that can add cost and time to a project. My mistake for simply highlighting contamination-many other potential headaches can be encountered as you are no doubt well aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Englands Green & Pleasant Land
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 17 - 07:33 AM

My sole point to make concerning brownfield sites is that until redevelopment is complete there is infinite scope for encountering nasty surprises that can add cost and time to a project.

There is indeed but that is not what you said. There is similar scope on any site, including greenfield. The nasty surprises may differ but the scope to encounter them is equal.

My mistake for simply highlighting contamination

Apology accepted.

DtG