|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Our Sacred Land |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 10:31
|
||
|
The craftiest tactic in all this is the wheeze of allowing local communities to share some of the profits from developments. Someone, somewhere, said to the Tory policy makers – we’re fed up with risking prison for handing out bribes, can you please find a way to legalise it? Prehistoric stuff is particularly at risk in all this, as “setting” is so important. There are going to be a lot of losses and the local communities will be fighting on the developers’ sides and against people like us... Sick or what? But very, very clever. Take Avebury. The UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention recommends a Buffer Zone to protect the immediate setting of each World Heritage Site, important views, and other areas or attributes which support and protect the Site. Despite that and despite EH’s opposition, Bond’s Garage got redeveloped and the Parish and District Councils voted yes. (Mainly on the promise of low cost housing being built). What are the chances of that not being just the first of many assaults on WHSs if there’s the added factor of hundreds of thousands of quid being available to the local and district councils if developments go through?
|
|||
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 11:10
|
||
|
So, have you demotorised yet? Has anybody? This next long link is OT but bears consideration ( http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/forecaster-predicts-brutal-uk-winter-weather-for-2011-2012/ ). Our local hedgerow birds - in the city - suffered a sharp decline with last year's freeze. There's few places to roost and usual food sources disappear. The herons were pitifully wasted by the time the thaw came. Conventional forecasters are suggesting a mild winter however ...
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 11:12
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: tjj wrote: Here's to the wrens, sparrows, blackbirds etc of our hedgerows - long may their song be heard. Well said. Exactly. :-)
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 11:14
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: nigelswift wrote: Rhiannon wrote: It made me laugh (bitterly) that on the radio this morning they said it was about 'young people's prosperity and future'. My arse it is, it's about relaxing planning permission so massively rich people can make lots of money by building crap houses on places where they weren't allowed to before. Besides, from my perspective as someone who earns a reasonable wage but can't see how they could ever buy a house, these new houses are either going to be pokey flimsy barely-affordable 'starter homes' or they're going to get rented out by rich buy-to-letters to mugs like me, while their so-called 'value' heads ever skywards. Yeah that's really helping young people. I'm not even a bloody young person. This Country Is Going To The Dogs. It makes me feel tired. Seacat, I agree with every syllable, and Rhiannon, the country makes me tired too. Every ten or fifteen years sufficient voters come to the fore who don't recall what these people are like and what their agenda is. The green belt may or may not be safe but there are vast tracts of non-green belt land of huge amenity value that's going to be pounced on. There are plenty of unattractive tracts that could be used for new housing, the government knows that perfectly well, but their mates want to get hold of the nice bits. Absolutely. If they put the cash into developing brown field sites then shortage of housing wouldn't be a problem. This is lazy greed and typical tory cow-towing to the rich property developers. why think of our heritage in the future if you can make a killing now? Nail on the head chaps.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 11:57
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: The craftiest tactic in all this is the wheeze of allowing local communities to share some of the profits from developments. Someone, somewhere, said to the Tory policy makers – we’re fed up with risking prison for handing out bribes, can you please find a way to legalise it? Prehistoric stuff is particularly at risk in all this, as “setting” is so important. There are going to be a lot of losses and the local communities will be fighting on the developers’ sides and against people like us... Sick or what? But very, very clever. Take Avebury. The UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention recommends a Buffer Zone to protect the immediate setting of each World Heritage Site, important views, and other areas or attributes which support and protect the Site. Despite that and despite EH’s opposition, Bond’s Garage got redeveloped and the Parish and District Councils voted yes. (Mainly on the promise of low cost housing being built). What are the chances of that not being just the first of many assaults on WHSs if there’s the added factor of hundreds of thousands of quid being available to the local and district councils if developments go through? Not everyone 'has their price', but unfortunately far too many do. My local Parish Council is as bent as they come. It's all self interest and back handers, and sadly, too many members of the general public are seduced by the lure of a little short term gain at a far greater long term expense. I remember all the greedy hand rubbing when Thatcher started her grand privitisations, and now look at the state we're in. Base nose-in-trough mentality will always be a major force for the worst, sadly.
|
|||
|
Gwass 193 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 14:51
|
||
|
It seems to me people are missing the major point here which is supply and demand. The biggest threat to our countryside is the unprecedented levels of demand. You can blame the developers and the tories but without the demand there isn't an issue. No one has mentioned the fact that a large proportion of this demand is extra housing for the hundreds of thousand s of extra people arriving here year on year. Sort out the immigration problem and you remove a large proportion of demand. It's not rocket science, if hundreds of thousands of people are arriving every year extra homes are needed. Last year the population swelled by something like 300,000, that's the equivalent of the population of a city the size of Stoke on Trent from immigration alone. Why this elephant in the room is ignored is beyond me, probably because of political correctness and people are afraid of raising perfectly reasonable concerns because they will be labelled a racist by far left idiots. Solve the immigration problem & you remove the most substantial threat to our 'sacred land'. It's what the vast majority of the population want anyway & this is supposed to be a democracy.
|
|||
|
Gwass 193 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 15:39
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Racist. Signed, A. Far Left-Idiot I'm deeply offended you would brand me a racist without knowing anything about me. You've demonstarted you're right about yourself but please explain why wanting to limit immigration and the problems it causes (housing crisis being only one) makes someone a racist? If you think that is racist then you must think the vast majority of the UK population are racist as the overwhelming majority want immigration cut. Thankfully your minority views are just that, in the minority. Unfortunately they are shared by our politicians which is what's caused the problems in the first place.
|
|||
|
Gwass 193 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 15:59
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: It's not immigration at all. That's complete nonsense. There's plenty of space for all. It's really about changing people's ie. the vast indigenous populations heads about consuming, sensible family sizes and all the rest. It could be done, but that's the exact opposite of what is desired by the System. Unhindered Population Growth = Spending = Economic Growth = More Filtered To The Top Few as the Countryside and any true Society is royally fucked as a means to achieve this. Thanks for responding sensibly and whilst I agree that consumption habits need changing. Im my opinion the chances of that happening are zero, because of the reasons you stated. One thing that can be done, which the govt have promised to do and which the vast majority of the public want them to do is to reduce immigration levels. I don't know how you can say immigration is nothing to do with it. Surely that's your political beliefs clouding the reality which is obvious to others. Surely it's the most relevant issue of all? More people = more houses needed = threat to our spaces where no houses currently exist. It really boils down to that basic fact and denying that seems to be denying the obvious cause. The 'indigenous' population you refer to (what ever that is) aren't producing large families, I thought that was known by everyone c1.6 children per couple, not even replacement levels for those dying. It is families from abroad who are migrating and have large families so that is another point chalked up against immigration. You didn't really think British people are having large families surely?
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Sep 05, 2011, 16:04
|
||
|
Racist. Signed, A. Far Left-Idiot
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Sep 05, 2011, 16:29
Sep 05, 2011, 16:23
|
||
It's not immigration at all. That's complete nonsense. There's plenty of space for all. It's really about changing people's ie. the vast indigenous populations heads about consuming, sensible family sizes and all the rest. It could be done, but that's the exact opposite of what is desired by the System. Unhindered Population Growth = Spending = Economic Growth = More Filtered To The Top Few as the Countryside and any true Society is royally fucked as a means to achieve this.
|
| Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
