Today's most viewed
| COWBOYS WANTED |  | | | YOUR THOUGHTS: | | | | VIEW FROM THE HILL | | | | WHEELS NEWS | | |
|
|
|
A month to save Dorset!
 |
| GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND: Bournemouth's green belt is part of the plan for new homes |
THERE is less than a month to save the unique character of South East Dorset.
That's the stark warning being issued as local councils launch a last-ditch bid to fight the government's controversial house-building plans.
With Secretary of State Hazel Blears expected to announce house-building targets next month, politicians and pressure groups face a race against time to campaign for lower numbers.
Today, councillors from all parties and all areas of South East Dorset will meet in Bournemouth to draw up a battle plan for the next few weeks.
And one of their first steps will be to try and enlist the support of Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, when they visit Bournemouth for the Local Government Association's conference next week.
Councillors hope Mr Cameron will pledge to scrap the controversial targets and give local councils the power to set their own figures if the Conservatives win the next general election.
Currently, the draft Regional Spatial Strategy going before the Secretary of State for communities and local government states that a total of 48,100 new dwellings will be built in the region between now and 2026.
The target would already mean the disappearance of most of Bournemouth's remaining green belt and thousands more homes on countryside and other controversial sites.
 |
| REVIEW: Hazel Blears |
But there are real fears that Ms Blears could decide to increase the figure - a move that campaigners claim would ruin South East Dorset.
Once Ms Blears has issued the numbers, they will be subject to a further period of consultation. But with that scheduled for the summer, when Parliament is in recess, councillors believe this next month is absolutely vital.
Cllr Nick King, Bournemouth's cabinet member for communications, said: "We've got lots of different types of communities in South East Dorset that are quite unique in their characteristics.
"But much of what is being proposed here is trying to turn the whole of South East Dorset into one big homogenous suburbia, without any infrastructure or resources."
And Bournemouth Cllr Ron Whittaker, who represents Throop and Muscliff ward where a further 1,500 homes are earmarked, said: "Life is going to be made a misery if we don't get this development right. I know each individual local authority will have its own specific arguments but it is vital we join together to fight for proper funding from government."
A spokesperson for the Department of Communities and Local Government said: "No final decisions have been taken yet. Despite current short-term housing market conditions, our population is ageing and more people are living alone, which means new households are growing faster than new homes.
"If more homes are not built, house prices will get worse and the next generation will have nowhere to live."
5:58am Friday 27th June 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Tricky Dicky, twixt here and there on 7:26am Fri 27 Jun 08
Who is going to have any money left to be able to afford a home of their own?
Dorset should tell Blears to clear off, mind her own business,and stop messing around with the green belt- I would say to people , turn your land over for agriculture/allotmen
ts/chicken farms/anything that feeds the nation efficiently and more besides!
Who is going to have any money left to be able to afford a home of their own?
Dorset should tell Blears to clear off, mind her own business,and stop messing around with the green belt- I would say to people , turn your land over for agriculture/allotmen
ts/chicken farms/anything that feeds the nation efficiently and more besides!
Posted by: crane, Ferndown on 8:18am Fri 27 Jun 08
If nobody's going to buy them, then nobody's going to build them - as recent events demonstrate. More meaningless targets from the government.
If nobody's going to buy them, then nobody's going to build them - as recent events demonstrate. More meaningless targets from the government.
Posted by: JayDee, Hamworthy on 8:43am Fri 27 Jun 08
This arrogant bunch ruining, oops sorry! 'running' the country won't give a fig about concreting over the landscape. Once it's gone it's lost forever. Kick 'em out!
This arrogant bunch ruining, oops sorry! 'running' the country won't give a fig about concreting over the landscape. Once it's gone it's lost forever. Kick 'em out!
Posted by: adrian fudge, boscombe east on 8:50am Fri 27 Jun 08
Whilst there is a short term blip because mortgages are not available which has stalled building more dwellings the demand for housing continues to rise and all that will happen is that when the financial marked turns round this pent up demand will force prices up
This has all been seen before in the 80's and 90's
As I have said many times in the past if you want family houses with gardens in this conerbation the only land available is what is currently green belt
You have to be realistic and accept that people want to live in the South and not in the Midlands or the North
the only way to hold down prices and house people is to revert to building more social housing either through Council Housing or Housing Associations with affordable rents but these should be allocated , in my opinion , to local people first.
The population is increasing with people living longer and therefore more housing is neccessary
Whilst there is a short term blip because mortgages are not available which has stalled building more dwellings the demand for housing continues to rise and all that will happen is that when the financial marked turns round this pent up demand will force prices up
This has all been seen before in the 80's and 90's
As I have said many times in the past if you want family houses with gardens in this conerbation the only land available is what is currently green belt
You have to be realistic and accept that people want to live in the South and not in the Midlands or the North
the only way to hold down prices and house people is to revert to building more social housing either through Council Housing or Housing Associations with affordable rents but these should be allocated , in my opinion , to local people first.
The population is increasing with people living longer and therefore more housing is neccessary
Posted by: FletcherTheCat, The Sexy Beast on 9:15am Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote]You have to be realistic and accept that people want to live in the South and not in the Midlands or the North[/quote]
If you don't build the houses then people won't be able to move here. Simple as that. You can't go on expanding ad infinitum or there will be no countryside or villages left..
These unelected regional assemblies must be disestablished asap.
You have to be realistic and accept that people want to live in the South and not in the Midlands or the North
If you don't build the houses then people won't be able to move here. Simple as that. You can't go on expanding ad infinitum or there will be no countryside or villages left..
These unelected regional assemblies must be disestablished asap.
Posted by: Jason Lawford, Ferndown on 9:21am Fri 27 Jun 08
I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.
The only sticking point for me is that this increase in accommodation is not backed-up / supported by infrastructure.
The road system in Dorset is diabolical and is suffering from decades of no great investment.
No new homes should be built until provision is made!
I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.
The only sticking point for me is that this increase in accommodation is not backed-up / supported by infrastructure.
The road system in Dorset is diabolical and is suffering from decades of no great investment.
No new homes should be built until provision is made!
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 9:24am Fri 27 Jun 08
[bold]Over-development by building[/bold] as close as one can, often eventually leads to a breakdown in community welfare with conflicts [bold]leading to serious breakdowns in Law and Order.[/bold] Parking and noise being the most common.
[bold]As I have said before:[/bold]
Such [bold]problems[/bold] would not arise [bold]if Britain were to follow the example of the Hong Kong and China Government.[/bold]
There they have built an Internationally famous Airport off of Hong Kong's coast line on rubbish waste from main land China.
[bold]We have a waste disposal problem so we are all told,[/bold] so why not combine the two and [bold]Turn Junk into Billion Pound land Space?
[/bold]
Instead of [bold]wasting good arable farming land[/bold] for landfill sites and gravel extraction [bold]Use the waste to shore up our sea defences[/bold] which are eroding fast.
[bold]Don't waste rubbish use it[/bold] for good intent.
Also excessive building and Gravel Extraction from good arable farming land [bold]is often irreversible destruction.[/bold] Thus making the UK become more and [bold]more reliant on foreign imported foods [/bold] which is an extremely bad policy. [bold]Labours continuous disregard for our countryside is very concerning.[/bold]
Over-development by building as close as one can, often eventually leads to a breakdown in community welfare with conflicts
leading to serious breakdowns in Law and Order. Parking and noise being the most common.
As I have said before:
Such
problems would not arise
if Britain were to follow the example of the Hong Kong and China Government.
There they have built an Internationally famous Airport off of Hong Kong's coast line on rubbish waste from main land China.
We have a waste disposal problem so we are all told, so why not combine the two and
Turn Junk into Billion Pound land Space?
Instead of
wasting good arable farming land for landfill sites and gravel extraction
Use the waste to shore up our sea defences which are eroding fast.
Don't waste rubbish use it for good intent.
Also excessive building and Gravel Extraction from good arable farming land
is often irreversible destruction. Thus making the UK become more and
more reliant on foreign imported foods which is an extremely bad policy.
Labours continuous disregard for our countryside is very concerning.
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 9:34am Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote]I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.[/quote] No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them before building more houses, particularly on green belt land.
And Adrian Fudge is wrong about having to build more houses here just because people "only want to live in the South"! So what's wrong with the North and Midlands, Mr Fudge? And if it's lack of highly paid jobs, perhaps it'd be better to try and revitalise their local economies than trying to cram everyone into the South and Southeast of the country?
I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.
No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them before building more houses, particularly on green belt land.
And Adrian Fudge is wrong about having to build more houses here just because people "only want to live in the South"! So what's wrong with the North and Midlands, Mr Fudge? And if it's lack of highly paid jobs, perhaps it'd be better to try and revitalise their local economies than trying to cram everyone into the South and Southeast of the country?
Posted by: dragonm8, new Zealand on 9:43am Fri 27 Jun 08
The only reason the green belt needs destroying is to house all the degenerate immigrant welfare bludging nobodies that the UK is quite happy to house just to satisfy the PC brigade.
The only reason the green belt needs destroying is to house all the degenerate immigrant welfare bludging nobodies that the UK is quite happy to house just to satisfy the PC brigade.
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 9:58am Fri 27 Jun 08
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 9:34am today
[bold]Quote [/bold] No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them.
[bold]Reply [/bold] Very good point you have made here [bold]Phil[/bold] .
Only a short time ago we read in the [bold]Echo[/bold] as to a great number of flats in Bournemouth and Poole [bold]remaining empty,[/bold] [italic]did we not?[/italic]
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 9:34am today
Quote No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them.
Reply Very good point you have made here
Phil .
Only a short time ago we read in the
Echo as to a great number of flats in Bournemouth and Poole
remaining empty, did we not?
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 9:58am Fri 27 Jun 08
So far none of you have come up with an idea to save Dorset , have you?-- and you are all mostly in Tory held seats- shame on you all-
How about an action committee and big signs, and a fighting fund? Petitions- Downing street on line petition? Cmon get your act together and do it!!
So far none of you have come up with an idea to save Dorset , have you?-- and you are all mostly in Tory held seats- shame on you all-
How about an action committee and big signs, and a fighting fund? Petitions- Downing street on line petition? Cmon get your act together and do it!!
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 10:11am Fri 27 Jun 08
[bold]http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/[/bold]
Create your own -Okay
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/
Create your own -Okay
Posted by: bosmike, Boscombe on 10:24am Fri 27 Jun 08
More concrete more flooding, brainless.Stop and think.[bold]bold[/bold]
More concrete more flooding, brainless.Stop and think.
Posted by: Ian, Bournemouth on 10:27am Fri 27 Jun 08
http://petitions.
pm.gov.uk/
DorsetGreenBelt/
http://petitions.
pm.gov.uk/
DorsetGreenBelt/
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 10:29am Fri 27 Jun 08
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 9:58am today
[bold]Quote [/bold] So far none of you have come up with an idea to save Dorset , have you?-- and you are all mostly in Tory held seats- shame on you all-
[bold]Reply [/bold] Not so [bold]Tru Belle.[/bold]
If you had read and digested the content of my first post in this thread, you would see that [bold]you have no justification to have said[/bold] what you have.
[bold]I do admire[/bold] your fighting spirit it's [bold]very rare[/bold] , from what I have seen [bold]you Girls have more courage and than the Lads[/bold] and you also [bold]stick together[/bold] and support one another.
I see you state you are from Purbeck, so at the bottom of this thread do go to the link thread titled [bold]'Tax cash should boost bus routes'[/bold]
Here's the an extract do read below:
Here you will see my posting as to'
[bold]New Labours regime is technically illegal under English Law.[/bold]
[bold]As I have said before:[/bold]
Such problems would not arise if Britain were to follow the example of the Hong Kong and China Government.
There they have built an Internationally famous Airport off of Hong Kong's coast line on rubbish waste from main land China.
We have a waste disposal problem so we are all told, so why not combine the two and Turn Junk into Billion Pound land Space?
Link to:
[bold]labours regime is technically illegal under English Law.[/bold]
http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/pu
rbeck/display.var.23
53279.0.tax_cash_sho
uld_boost_bus_routes
.php
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 9:58am today
Quote So far none of you have come up with an idea to save Dorset , have you?-- and you are all mostly in Tory held seats- shame on you all-
Reply Not so
Tru Belle.
If you had read and digested the content of my first post in this thread, you would see that
you have no justification to have said what you have.
I do admire your fighting spirit it's
very rare , from what I have seen
you Girls have more courage and than the Lads and you also
stick together and support one another.
I see you state you are from Purbeck, so at the bottom of this thread do go to the link thread titled
'Tax cash should boost bus routes'
Here's the an extract do read below:
Here you will see my posting as to'
New Labours regime is technically illegal under English Law.
As I have said before:
Such problems would not arise if Britain were to follow the example of the Hong Kong and China Government.
There they have built an Internationally famous Airport off of Hong Kong's coast line on rubbish waste from main land China.
We have a waste disposal problem so we are all told, so why not combine the two and Turn Junk into Billion Pound land Space?
Link to:
labours regime is technically illegal under English Law.
http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/pu
rbeck/display.var.23
53279.0.tax_cash_sho
uld_boost_bus_routes
.php
Posted by: Hugh, Bournemouth on 11:01am Fri 27 Jun 08
Perhaps if the expectations of young people were lower, flats (with covered parking) could be made greater use of. Not many of todays youth (or oldth) seem very interested in gardening anyway.
Perhaps if the expectations of young people were lower, flats (with covered parking) could be made greater use of. Not many of todays youth (or oldth) seem very interested in gardening anyway.
Posted by: In Absentia, Bournemouth on 11:24am Fri 27 Jun 08
We have travelled back to the 1950's & 60's when the majority of the working population had no chance of buying their own home. Unless a Government is brave enough to allow local authorities to return to building social housing, the situation will only get worse.
At least the myth of Labour's management of the economy has now been blown. People have blindly ridden on the wave of booming prices and easy credit, now the pain is going to be felt and hard.
We have travelled back to the 1950's & 60's when the majority of the working population had no chance of buying their own home. Unless a Government is brave enough to allow local authorities to return to building social housing, the situation will only get worse.
At least the myth of Labour's management of the economy has now been blown. People have blindly ridden on the wave of booming prices and easy credit, now the pain is going to be felt and hard.
Posted by: dragonm8, new Zealand on 11:48am Fri 27 Jun 08
Is the pain of economic mismanagement, easy credit and the buy now pay later ethos really going to come back and bite anyone?
The government can not afford for Generation X to pay for their own excess. Expect legislation, the cutting of interest rates and financial handouts aplenty as the governement attempts to prop up a flagging economy supported by people who spend more than they earn. The bubble wil get bigger before it bursts.
Is the pain of economic mismanagement, easy credit and the buy now pay later ethos really going to come back and bite anyone?
The government can not afford for Generation X to pay for their own excess. Expect legislation, the cutting of interest rates and financial handouts aplenty as the governement attempts to prop up a flagging economy supported by people who spend more than they earn. The bubble wil get bigger before it bursts.
Posted by: laurie marsh, australia on 11:50am Fri 27 Jun 08
THE POPULATION IS AGEING BUT NOT GROWING.
IF IT IS SPREADING OUT (E.G. LIVING ALONE) IT WILL CHANGE BACK AFTER THE "BABY BOOMERS" TIME HAS PASSED.
ANY RASH MOVE NOW WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THE POPULATION IN THE FUTURE.
HANG ON TO THE "GREEN STUFF".
FUTURE GENERATIONS DESERVE WHAT YOU HAVE!
THE POPULATION IS AGEING BUT NOT GROWING.
IF IT IS SPREADING OUT (E.G. LIVING ALONE) IT WILL CHANGE BACK AFTER THE "BABY BOOMERS" TIME HAS PASSED.
ANY RASH MOVE NOW WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THE POPULATION IN THE FUTURE.
HANG ON TO THE "GREEN STUFF".
FUTURE GENERATIONS DESERVE WHAT YOU HAVE!
Posted by: Miketheplumb, Poole on 12:45pm Fri 27 Jun 08
So let me get this right. More homes, means more people. More people means more jobs needed to sustain an economy. So how does the government propose to balance an economy with little localised large industry, add to that increased congestion, as one county with NO motorway. So lets add more houses, more people, more concrete, fewer jobs to go round, a plan in line with most of the insane nonsense this government has promoted during it's tenure. Let's hope the local councils win this fight, and show sanity in this.
So let me get this right. More homes, means more people. More people means more jobs needed to sustain an economy. So how does the government propose to balance an economy with little localised large industry, add to that increased congestion, as one county with NO motorway. So lets add more houses, more people, more concrete, fewer jobs to go round, a plan in line with most of the insane nonsense this government has promoted during it's tenure. Let's hope the local councils win this fight, and show sanity in this.
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 12:54pm Fri 27 Jun 08
The councils do not stand a hope in hells chance against government decisions.There is an unelected regional government now-- but all is not lost because we can all raise hell on this by really making a huge fuss just like the north east did with their un elected assembly.
The councils do not stand a hope in hells chance against government decisions.There is an unelected regional government now-- but all is not lost because we can all raise hell on this by really making a huge fuss just like the north east did with their un elected assembly.
Posted by: adrian fudge, boscombe east on 12:59pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Phil[/bold] wrote:
[quote]I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.[/quote] No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them before building more houses, particularly on green belt land. And Adrian Fudge is wrong about having to build more houses here just because people "only want to live in the South"! So what's wrong with the North and Midlands, Mr Fudge? And if it's lack of highly paid jobs, perhaps it'd be better to try and revitalise their local economies than trying to cram everyone into the South and Southeast of the country?[/quote] Contrary to your posting I did not say that people "ONLY" wanted to live in the South please do not put a diffrent emphasis on what is said
Nothings wrong with the Midlands or the North .
i visit my daughter who lives in Derbyshire frequently and its a beautiful area but I , and presumably you, prefer to live in the South and so do a lot of other people
The demand for housing is , as I said already there and increasing and it will be extreamly difficult if not impossable for the youngsters of this area to find affordable accomodation when they grow up
Who is going to tell them hard luck move North
Phil wrote:
I totally agree with Adrian Fudge, as we all complain about back garden developments, a gentle sprawl into the green stuff is the only answer.
No it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying empty in the UK. We should use them before building more houses, particularly on green belt land. And Adrian Fudge is wrong about having to build more houses here just because people "only want to live in the South"! So what's wrong with the North and Midlands, Mr Fudge? And if it's lack of highly paid jobs, perhaps it'd be better to try and revitalise their local economies than trying to cram everyone into the South and Southeast of the country?
Contrary to your posting I did not say that people "ONLY" wanted to live in the South please do not put a diffrent emphasis on what is said
Nothings wrong with the Midlands or the North .
i visit my daughter who lives in Derbyshire frequently and its a beautiful area but I , and presumably you, prefer to live in the South and so do a lot of other people
The demand for housing is , as I said already there and increasing and it will be extreamly difficult if not impossable for the youngsters of this area to find affordable accomodation when they grow up
Who is going to tell them hard luck move North
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 1:07pm Fri 27 Jun 08
What youngsters Mr Fudge? We cannot get enough youngsters to fill school places- we have an excess of 1,000 school places to fill in the Purbeck area- I cannot see the demand or strong evidence of many pregnant mothers. Couples are struggling on two salaries just trying to make ends meet. People are also so very worried about job security too, we all need hard evidence on housing demand- the figures do not stack up.
What youngsters Mr Fudge? We cannot get enough youngsters to fill school places- we have an excess of 1,000 school places to fill in the Purbeck area- I cannot see the demand or strong evidence of many pregnant mothers. Couples are struggling on two salaries just trying to make ends meet. People are also so very worried about job security too, we all need hard evidence on housing demand- the figures do not stack up.
Posted by: Gastines, St.Malo ex Bournemouth on 1:40pm Fri 27 Jun 08
As previously stated,I wish the Government would contact the Crown Estates/Duchy of Cornwall and Church Landholdings to see if they would like to help the country out for a change.Freehold of course.
As previously stated,I wish the Government would contact the Crown Estates/Duchy of Cornwall and Church Landholdings to see if they would like to help the country out for a change.Freehold of course.
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 1:51pm Fri 27 Jun 08
...And as I have said before. The answer is [bold]not[/bold] to build even more houses. The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up - 1 down house so that families can have larger houses without having to build on still more green belt land!
There are 10's of thousands of people (in the whole of the country) living in houses far too big for their needs; children grown up & left home, never had kids or just plain selfish so why should they keep the big houses when we are forcing families into the tiny 'homes' that builders are putting up nowadays?
The labour government should introduce a law which makes having empty bedrooms illegal (perhaps they could use Purbeck Council's idea of a 'bedroom tax' to force old people to sell their homes when they retire!).
At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.
Get the old out so that we can house families.
...And as I have said before. The answer is
not to build even more houses. The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up - 1 down house so that families can have larger houses without having to build on still more green belt land!
There are 10's of thousands of people (in the whole of the country) living in houses far too big for their needs; children grown up & left home, never had kids or just plain selfish so why should they keep the big houses when we are forcing families into the tiny 'homes' that builders are putting up nowadays?
The labour government should introduce a law which makes having empty bedrooms illegal (perhaps they could use Purbeck Council's idea of a 'bedroom tax' to force old people to sell their homes when they retire!).
At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.
Get the old out so that we can house families.
Posted by: laurie marsh, australia on 2:22pm Fri 27 Jun 08
BADGER,
THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET.
OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED!
YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES!
INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS?
I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU!
BADGER,
THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET.
OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED!
YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES!
INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS?
I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU!
Posted by: Munkstar, Bournemouth on 2:48pm Fri 27 Jun 08
I think you will find a lot of property developers keen to tarmac Dorset are Tory, its big business, BMW driving, the state paying for your nanny ... TORIES! IMHO.
I think you will find a lot of property developers keen to tarmac Dorset are Tory, its big business, BMW driving, the state paying for your nanny ... TORIES! IMHO.
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 2:50pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]laurie marsh[/bold] wrote:
BADGER, THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET. OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED! YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES! INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS? I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU![/quote] laurie marsh...Do you have to shout, or are you going deaf in your old age? Perhaps your difficulty in hearing is caused by the echo in the empty rooms in your house???
...And [bold]I[/bold] didn’t say anything about 'disposing' of the old people, I simply suggested that they should be relocated to ease the overcrowding in this country, not that it should bother you with all the spare land you have down there (no doubt stolen from the aboriginal peoples using 'white mans law' as an excuse)
If you consider my suggestion to reduce the burden of building homes on our dwindling green belt to mean [italic]euthanize the old[/italic] then you really do have some hang ups about 'the war'. Might I suggest that you get some help before it's too late?
laurie marsh wrote:
BADGER, THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET. OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED! YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES! INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS? I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU!
laurie marsh...Do you have to shout, or are you going deaf in your old age? Perhaps your difficulty in hearing is caused by the echo in the empty rooms in your house???
...And
I didn’t say anything about 'disposing' of the old people, I simply suggested that they should be relocated to ease the overcrowding in this country, not that it should bother you with all the spare land you have down there (no doubt stolen from the aboriginal peoples using 'white mans law' as an excuse)
If you consider my suggestion to reduce the burden of building homes on our dwindling green belt to mean
euthanize the old then you really do have some hang ups about 'the war'. Might I suggest that you get some help before it's too late?
Posted by: fiona, Bournemouth on 2:51pm Fri 27 Jun 08
The government is showing contempt for conservation and the environment by forcing this house building on our area
We need to protect not only the Green Belt but all the green areas in our town
That's what gives Bournemouth its character
The government is showing contempt for conservation and the environment by forcing this house building on our area
We need to protect not only the Green Belt but all the green areas in our town
That's what gives Bournemouth its character
Posted by: Munkstar, Bournemouth on 2:55pm Fri 27 Jun 08
None of what you see is 'natural', go on Google Maps etc zoom out and you will see a green and yellow quilt of agro-cultural destruction of our natural fauna habitats. Our countryside is man made, pretty, but not natural. I blame the Anglo Saxons.
None of what you see is 'natural', go on Google Maps etc zoom out and you will see a green and yellow quilt of agro-cultural destruction of our natural fauna habitats. Our countryside is man made, pretty, but not natural. I blame the Anglo Saxons.
Posted by: Mike, Portland on 2:56pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]laurie marsh[/bold] wrote:
BADGER, THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET. OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED! YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES! INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS? I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU![/quote] Well said [bold]laurie marsh[/bold]but it might be a different story in a few years time when [bold]Badgers[/bold] time comes & no i dont think his parents will be very proud of him because if thats how he thinks then clearly they have failed as parents, but it does go to show what sick individuals their are out their God help us.
laurie marsh wrote:
BADGER, THE "OLD" E.G. YOUR MUM AND DAD, RAISED YOU (OBVIOUSLY NOT TOO WELL) AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING AROUND TODAY WITH THEIR HANDS OUT AND WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH THEM TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET. OBVIOUSLY THEY FAILED! YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIER HOMES! INSTEAD OF WASTING MORE MONEY ON FLATS FOR YOUR MUM AND DAD WHY NOT JUST SEND THEM TO SOME GAS CHAMBERS? I BET YOUR PARENTS ARE PROUD OF YOU!
Well said
laurie marshbut it might be a different story in a few years time when
Badgers time comes & no i dont think his parents will be very proud of him because if thats how he thinks then clearly they have failed as parents, but it does go to show what sick individuals their are out their God help us.
Posted by: Munkstar, Bournemouth on 3:00pm Fri 27 Jun 08
'New Labours regime is technically illegal under English Law'. HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
,HA,HA,Ha! Robert Mugabe is illegal, not the standing Labour party leader. You vote for a 'party' not its leader! Remember 18 Years of Tories and weep if they get back in ... vote Lib to stop it.
'New Labours regime is technically illegal under English Law'. HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
,HA,HA,Ha! Robert Mugabe is illegal, not the standing Labour party leader. You vote for a 'party' not its leader! Remember 18 Years of Tories and weep if they get back in ... vote Lib to stop it.
Posted by: Mike, Portland on 3:02pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Can anybody come up with any suggestions as to where all these houses should be built, we need the houses so where do we build them ???.
Can anybody come up with any suggestions as to where all these houses should be built, we need the houses so where do we build them ???.
Posted by: glashen, Christchurch on 3:03pm Fri 27 Jun 08
The problem is who can't force people out of their houses or to live in the north, and if you restrict house building the result will be higher prices.
At present were heading for the worst of all worlds, filling in the green belt turning family houses into flats and allowing piece meal developement across Dorset. I think sadly the only answer is larger developements on green land outside Bournemouth and Poole (for instance to the East of Burton) and at least keep some of the open spaces around the existing conurbations.
The problem is who can't force people out of their houses or to live in the north, and if you restrict house building the result will be higher prices.
At present were heading for the worst of all worlds, filling in the green belt turning family houses into flats and allowing piece meal developement across Dorset. I think sadly the only answer is larger developements on green land outside Bournemouth and Poole (for instance to the East of Burton) and at least keep some of the open spaces around the existing conurbations.
Posted by: vote-them-out, Dorchester on 3:06pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote]At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.[/quote]
[bold]Amateur[/bold] gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use.
As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way.
At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.
Amateur gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use.
As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way.
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 3:12pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Badger, Poole on 1:51pm today
To each according to his need, from each according to their ability. That is a Karl Marx fundamental principle is it not?
Great for grossly fat ignorant stupid foul mouthed violent and lazy single parents.
Not so good for the clever hard working honest law abiding career person.
Stalin jammed the old into tiny flats. Come to think of it, he jammed everyone into tiny flats.
Badger, Poole on 1:51pm today
To each according to his need, from each according to their ability. That is a Karl Marx fundamental principle is it not?
Great for grossly fat ignorant stupid foul mouthed violent and lazy single parents.
Not so good for the clever hard working honest law abiding career person.
Stalin jammed the old into tiny flats. Come to think of it, he jammed everyone into tiny flats.
Posted by: laurie marsh, australia on 3:20pm Fri 27 Jun 08
BADGER,
IF I AM TYPING TOO LOUD FOR YOU WELL TOO BAD.
MY HOUSE (BOUGHT AND PAID FOR) USED TO ECHO WITH THE LAUGHTER OF MY CHILDREN. IT NOW IS FULL OF THEIR CHILDRENS NOISE AND I LOVE EVERY SHRIEK!
I WOULD HATE TO SEE PEOPLE OF YOUR ILK "RELOCATING" THE VERY PEOPLE THAT PAID THEIR TAXES TO PAY FOR YOUR EDUCATION (SUCH AS IT IS), MEDICAL CARE AND DOLE CHECK.
ONE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT REPLY ON IS WHETHER YOU THINK THAT IT IS OK FOR YOUR PARENTS TO BE "RELOCATED"?
IF YOU DONT WANT TO REPLY I UNDERSTAND!
BADGER,
IF I AM TYPING TOO LOUD FOR YOU WELL TOO BAD.
MY HOUSE (BOUGHT AND PAID FOR) USED TO ECHO WITH THE LAUGHTER OF MY CHILDREN. IT NOW IS FULL OF THEIR CHILDRENS NOISE AND I LOVE EVERY SHRIEK!
I WOULD HATE TO SEE PEOPLE OF YOUR ILK "RELOCATING" THE VERY PEOPLE THAT PAID THEIR TAXES TO PAY FOR YOUR EDUCATION (SUCH AS IT IS), MEDICAL CARE AND DOLE CHECK.
ONE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT REPLY ON IS WHETHER YOU THINK THAT IT IS OK FOR YOUR PARENTS TO BE "RELOCATED"?
IF YOU DONT WANT TO REPLY I UNDERSTAND!
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 3:24pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Again, this whole idea of building houses in the South just because 'more people want to move here' is ludicrous. If we leave things be, house price differentials will encourage more people to live elsewhere – and more firms to relocate to cheaper areas. This would spread prosperity and be better for the country as a whole.
I mean, what if every single person in the UK wanted to live in Bournemouth? Would we build thousands of high-rise tower blocks to accommodate them all? Of course we wouldn't!
Again, this whole idea of building houses in the South just because 'more people want to move here' is ludicrous. If we leave things be, house price differentials will encourage more people to live elsewhere – and more firms to relocate to cheaper areas. This would spread prosperity and be better for the country as a whole.
I mean, what if every single person in the UK wanted to live in Bournemouth? Would we build thousands of high-rise tower blocks to accommodate them all? Of course we wouldn't!
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 3:33pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]vote-them-out[/bold] wrote:
[quote]At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.[/quote] [bold]Amateur[/bold] gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use. As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way. [/quote] Silly boy (or girl). This is not a p*****g contest about who's got the biggest this, or who can pay for that...This is about the concreting over of what's left of our open spaces just to make room for rabbit hutch houses put up by greedy developers for a (Scottish) government hell bent on destroying our (English) way of life. It doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to realise that it doesn’t matter if you've got one or a dozen shotguns the fact is that eventually there will be so many houses here that we wont be able to move for the traffic jams! And as we all know just too well, this government wont invest in roads and other infrastructure because if there’s no congestion there can be no congestion charging!
Oh, and [bold]HAL101[/bold] . Our socialist leaders will eventually wake up to realise that Stalin's idea of squeezing everyone into flats was a good idea. Personally I'd prefer to see a few concrete tower blocks and lots of open land between them rather than one vast concrete sprawl with not a green leaf to be seen for miles!
vote-them-out wrote:
At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.
Amateur gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use. As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way.
Silly boy (or girl). This is not a p*****g contest about who's got the biggest this, or who can pay for that...This is about the concreting over of what's left of our open spaces just to make room for rabbit hutch houses put up by greedy developers for a (Scottish) government hell bent on destroying our (English) way of life. It doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to realise that it doesn’t matter if you've got one or a dozen shotguns the fact is that eventually there will be so many houses here that we wont be able to move for the traffic jams! And as we all know just too well, this government wont invest in roads and other infrastructure because if there’s no congestion there can be no congestion charging!
Oh, and
HAL101 . Our socialist leaders will eventually wake up to realise that Stalin's idea of squeezing everyone into flats was a good idea. Personally I'd prefer to see a few concrete tower blocks and lots of open land between them rather than one vast concrete sprawl with not a green leaf to be seen for miles!
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 3:33pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Eh?
Seems as if that is happening right now- everywhere you look in B'mouth. Poole Weymouth, Swanage, Wimborne,yep -they all want to live down here - mostly to retire, so Houston- we really do have a problem- The lonliness of flatland beckons!
Eh?
Seems as if that is happening right now- everywhere you look in B'mouth. Poole Weymouth, Swanage, Wimborne,yep -they all want to live down here - mostly to retire, so Houston- we really do have a problem- The lonliness of flatland beckons!
Posted by: Solitaire, christchurch on 3:34pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[italic]"The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up "[/italic]
Hell would freeze over before I downsize to accommodate a family. Do you really think I worked b**** hard for 30+ years to move to a shoe-box? The only box I'm moving to is a coffin!
It's not the elderly being in 2+ bedroom properties that's the issue - nowadays most marriages/partnershi
ps break up - the man invariably gets shunted out to live in the shoebox while the woman keeps the house. Bring in thousands of aliens and it's no wonder we have a housing shortage.
"The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up "
Hell would freeze over before I downsize to accommodate a family. Do you really think I worked b**** hard for 30+ years to move to a shoe-box? The only box I'm moving to is a coffin!
It's not the elderly being in 2+ bedroom properties that's the issue - nowadays most marriages/partnershi
ps break up - the man invariably gets shunted out to live in the shoebox while the woman keeps the house. Bring in thousands of aliens and it's no wonder we have a housing shortage.
Posted by: Furball, Upton on 4:09pm Fri 27 Jun 08
For once it would seem that most, if not all, of our local representatives are singing from the same hymn sheet. Upton and Lytchett Minster are going to be hard-hit if this ridiculous RSS target is rubber stamped by Hazel Blears. An unelected quango imposing ITS will on the residents of a semi-rural area is tantamount to dictatorship. We in the Purbecks will fight tooth and nail to oppose this scheme and I would urge anyone who doesn't want to see the destruction of the green belt to get involved in their local Action Group. Oh and just to inflame the "politico's" amongst you, the Regional Assembly is supported by Labour AND the Lib Dems!!!!
For once it would seem that most, if not all, of our local representatives are singing from the same hymn sheet. Upton and Lytchett Minster are going to be hard-hit if this ridiculous RSS target is rubber stamped by Hazel Blears. An unelected quango imposing ITS will on the residents of a semi-rural area is tantamount to dictatorship. We in the Purbecks will fight tooth and nail to oppose this scheme and I would urge anyone who doesn't want to see the destruction of the green belt to get involved in their local Action Group. Oh and just to inflame the "politico's" amongst you, the Regional Assembly is supported by Labour AND the Lib Dems!!!!
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 4:15pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Badger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]vote-them-out[/bold] wrote: [quote]At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.[/quote] [bold]Amateur[/bold] gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use. As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way. [/quote] Silly boy (or girl). This is not a p*****g contest about who's got the biggest this, or who can pay for that...This is about the concreting over of what's left of our open spaces just to make room for rabbit hutch houses put up by greedy developers for a (Scottish) government hell bent on destroying our (English) way of life. It doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to realise that it doesn’t matter if you've got one or a dozen shotguns the fact is that eventually there will be so many houses here that we wont be able to move for the traffic jams! And as we all know just too well, this government wont invest in roads and other infrastructure because if there’s no congestion there can be no congestion charging! Oh, and [bold]HAL101[/bold] . Our socialist leaders will eventually wake up to realise that Stalin's idea of squeezing everyone into flats was a good idea. Personally I'd prefer to see a few concrete tower blocks and lots of open land between them rather than one vast concrete sprawl with not a green leaf to be seen for miles! [/quote] Getting a little over-excited here I think. Time for a cup of tea is it not?
Badger wrote:
vote-them-out wrote: At the traffic lights the other day an old bu***r in the car next to me asked why I was driving a gas guzzler (is a Ford Street Ka with the roof down a gas guzzler??)so I asked him how many rooms in his house were unoccupied, and how much carbon he was emitting just to provide heat & light to those rooms!!.
Amateur gas guzzler. I drive a 2.7t 4x4 and have a three bedroom house. Thing is, I don't turn the lights on in rooms I'm not in and the radiators/heating are only switched on as required. I've no desire to heat a room when it's not in use. As it happens I pay for my house, so feel free to come over and try and evict me and see which end of the shotgun comes your way.
Silly boy (or girl). This is not a p*****g contest about who's got the biggest this, or who can pay for that...This is about the concreting over of what's left of our open spaces just to make room for rabbit hutch houses put up by greedy developers for a (Scottish) government hell bent on destroying our (English) way of life. It doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to realise that it doesn’t matter if you've got one or a dozen shotguns the fact is that eventually there will be so many houses here that we wont be able to move for the traffic jams! And as we all know just too well, this government wont invest in roads and other infrastructure because if there’s no congestion there can be no congestion charging! Oh, and HAL101 . Our socialist leaders will eventually wake up to realise that Stalin's idea of squeezing everyone into flats was a good idea. Personally I'd prefer to see a few concrete tower blocks and lots of open land between them rather than one vast concrete sprawl with not a green leaf to be seen for miles!
Getting a little over-excited here I think. Time for a cup of tea is it not?
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 4:21pm Fri 27 Jun 08
http://www.gosw.gov.
uk/gosw/peoplesc/146
509/
This is our government for the south west!! See what they want to do for you all- Did any one ask them to come in?
http://www.gosw.gov.
uk/gosw/peoplesc/146
509/
This is our government for the south west!! See what they want to do for you all- Did any one ask them to come in?
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 5:33pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 1:51pm today
[bold]Quote [/bold] The labour government should introduce a law which makes having empty bedrooms illegal (perhaps they could use Purbeck Council's idea of a 'bedroom tax' to force old people to sell their homes when they retire!).
[bold]Reply [/bold] What a [bold]hideous[/bold] ill mannered [bold]uneducated comment.[/bold]
Get back to your little [bold]BOX [/bold] and stay there.
It appears from other readers comments you are indeed [bold]Badger by Name, and Badger by Nature[/bold] [italic] are you not?[/italic]
Badgers spend most of thier life in the [bold]DARK[/bold] under ground your name suites [bold]your charter type.[/bold]
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 1:51pm today
Quote The labour government should introduce a law which makes having empty bedrooms illegal (perhaps they could use Purbeck Council's idea of a 'bedroom tax' to force old people to sell their homes when they retire!).
Reply What a
hideous ill mannered
uneducated comment.
Get back to your little
BOX and stay there.
It appears from other readers comments you are indeed
Badger by Name, and Badger by Nature are you not?
Badgers spend most of thier life in the
DARK under ground your name suites
your charter type.
Posted by: local boy, branksome on 5:58pm Fri 27 Jun 08
stop whinging those of you who own a house and think of the poor people who have to live in a box due to the current planning laws and pay a fortune for it
stop whinging those of you who own a house and think of the poor people who have to live in a box due to the current planning laws and pay a fortune for it
Posted by: Tim M, usa on 6:23pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote]Councillors hope Mr Cameron will pledge to scrap the controversial targets and give local councils the power to set their own figures if the Conservatives win the next general election.[/quote] His first job should be the dismantling of all "Regional Authorities" and any other superfluous layers of government. All these do is increase the members' power in areas beyond their purview while decreasing accountability for their actions. [quote]A spokesperson for the [italic]Department of Communities and Local Government[/italic] said:[/quote] I couldn't have made up an example better than a national government department for decisions which, by definition, should be purely local.
Councillors hope Mr Cameron will pledge to scrap the controversial targets and give local councils the power to set their own figures if the Conservatives win the next general election.
His first job should be the dismantling of all "Regional Authorities" and any other superfluous layers of government. All these do is increase the members' power in areas beyond their purview while decreasing accountability for their actions.
A spokesperson for the Department of Communities and Local Government said:
I couldn't have made up an example better than a national government department for decisions which, by definition, should be purely local.
Posted by: adrian fudge, boscombe east on 7:41pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Tru Belle[/bold] wrote:
What youngsters Mr Fudge? We cannot get enough youngsters to fill school places- we have an excess of 1,000 school places to fill in the Purbeck area- I cannot see the demand or strong evidence of many pregnant mothers. Couples are struggling on two salaries just trying to make ends meet. People are also so very worried about job security too, we all need hard evidence on housing demand- the figures do not stack up.[/quote] Sorry I dont understand
The schools are full of youngsters
They will all become adults
People are living longer
The population is increasing
The demand for housing is and will continue to increase
The above is reality
I dont know how anybody can dispute this since all statistics(and dont say you can prove anything with statistics this is pure numerics)prove it
Tru Belle wrote:
What youngsters Mr Fudge? We cannot get enough youngsters to fill school places- we have an excess of 1,000 school places to fill in the Purbeck area- I cannot see the demand or strong evidence of many pregnant mothers. Couples are struggling on two salaries just trying to make ends meet. People are also so very worried about job security too, we all need hard evidence on housing demand- the figures do not stack up.
Sorry I dont understand
The schools are full of youngsters
They will all become adults
People are living longer
The population is increasing
The demand for housing is and will continue to increase
The above is reality
I dont know how anybody can dispute this since all statistics(and dont say you can prove anything with statistics this is pure numerics)prove it
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 7:47pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Well how urban are you. Get your head out of the sand and cut the mantra out please. My area is under Red Knight rule- quite sick to death of trotted out mantra. Life extends further than Boscombe East!!
Well how urban are you. Get your head out of the sand and cut the mantra out please. My area is under Red Knight rule- quite sick to death of trotted out mantra. Life extends further than Boscombe East!!
Posted by: mike, poole on 8:39pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Please, does anyone know how the SW Regional Assembly is constituted, who serves on it and how they were 'elected'? (using the word 'elected' advisedly). Also, how often does this Assembly meet and to whom is it responsible? There are so many questions about this quango
Please, does anyone know how the SW Regional Assembly is constituted, who serves on it and how they were 'elected'? (using the word 'elected' advisedly). Also, how often does this Assembly meet and to whom is it responsible? There are so many questions about this quango
Posted by: Tim M, usa on 8:47pm Fri 27 Jun 08
[quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote:
Please, does anyone know how the SW Regional Assembly is constituted, who serves on it and how they were 'elected'? (using the word 'elected' advisedly). Also, how often does this Assembly meet and to whom is it responsible? There are so many questions about this quango[/quote] http://www.southwest
-ra.gov.uk/nqcontent
.cfm?a_id=877&tt=swr
a
I don't think this made it as a link, but I'm sure it'll cut and paste. From looking at the make up I'd say we can blame Labour for its existence, but not for the decisions it makes... there's not a lot of Labour councillors aboard.
mike wrote:
Please, does anyone know how the SW Regional Assembly is constituted, who serves on it and how they were 'elected'? (using the word 'elected' advisedly). Also, how often does this Assembly meet and to whom is it responsible? There are so many questions about this quango
http://www.southwest
-ra.gov.uk/nqcontent
.cfm?a_id=877&tt=swr
a
I don't think this made it as a link, but I'm sure it'll cut and paste. From looking at the make up I'd say we can blame Labour for its existence, but not for the decisions it makes... there's not a lot of Labour councillors aboard.
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 10:36pm Fri 27 Jun 08
http://www.gosw.gov.
uk/gosw/peoplesc/146
509/
[bold]This[/bold] is our government for the south west!! See what they want to do for you all- Did any one ask them to come in?
When you have all looked at that, then try the South West Regional Development Agency- they are another quango-- who will define all these new planning hardhits that are due to land in the laps of everyone shortly!
Oh quite forgot about the South West Regional Assembly too,so many aren't there- full of advisors and consultants who are poised to stick their noses in to say what is good for you all!!
http://www.gosw.gov.
uk/gosw/peoplesc/146
509/
This is our government for the south west!! See what they want to do for you all- Did any one ask them to come in?
When you have all looked at that, then try the South West Regional Development Agency- they are another quango-- who will define all these new planning hardhits that are due to land in the laps of everyone shortly!
Oh quite forgot about the South West Regional Assembly too,so many aren't there- full of advisors and consultants who are poised to stick their noses in to say what is good for you all!!
Posted by: mike, poole on 11:20pm Fri 27 Jun 08
Does anyone know of NAMES of representatives on the SW Regional Development Agency who make decisions on 'our behalf?' It almost seems to be a secret society..of dubious nature
Does anyone know of NAMES of representatives on the SW Regional Development Agency who make decisions on 'our behalf?' It almost seems to be a secret society..of dubious nature
Posted by: Charlie on 9:06am Sat 28 Jun 08
Quote from Borough of Poole website:
"There are currently about 1,500 empty homes in Poole and nearly 350 are long term empty."
Quote from Borough of Poole website:
"There are currently about 1,500 empty homes in Poole and nearly 350 are long term empty."
Posted by: Tim M, usa on 3:03pm Sat 28 Jun 08
[quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote:
undefined[/quote] if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.
mike wrote:
undefined
if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.
Posted by: BH16, Lytchett Minster on 3:18pm Sat 28 Jun 08
I live in the proposed area where 2750 homes are going to be built. I am absolutely sure that Hazel Blears has not seen the beauty of this area and what will be completely wiped out if (I pray it is never a [italic]when[/italic] ) these houses are going to be built. Lytchett Minster and Lytchett Matravers are lovely places that will be changed out of all recognition. Tourism is one of the biggest industries in this area. What will happen when all the heathland, fields and countryside is gone. It will be bigger than Canford Heath over here. I am not being a NIMBY (not in my back yard), I agree we could do with some low cost housing so our children can stay in this area, but nearly 3000 homes cannot be sustained with the proposals of the RSS. Try coming back from Wareham or Studland on a sunny afternoon and you will know what I mean. Where are all the secondary age children going to go to school? What is going to happen when the roads flood after a downpour when there are no fields to drain the water away? It will be like Gloucester and Hull all over again!
I live in the proposed area where 2750 homes are going to be built. I am absolutely sure that Hazel Blears has not seen the beauty of this area and what will be completely wiped out if (I pray it is never a
when ) these houses are going to be built. Lytchett Minster and Lytchett Matravers are lovely places that will be changed out of all recognition. Tourism is one of the biggest industries in this area. What will happen when all the heathland, fields and countryside is gone. It will be bigger than Canford Heath over here. I am not being a NIMBY (not in my back yard), I agree we could do with some low cost housing so our children can stay in this area, but nearly 3000 homes cannot be sustained with the proposals of the RSS. Try coming back from Wareham or Studland on a sunny afternoon and you will know what I mean. Where are all the secondary age children going to go to school? What is going to happen when the roads flood after a downpour when there are no fields to drain the water away? It will be like Gloucester and Hull all over again!
Posted by: Charlie on 6:11pm Sat 28 Jun 08
[bold]I am absolutely sure that Hazel Blears has not seen the beauty of this area and what will be completely wiped out if (I pray it is never a when ) these houses are going to be built.[/bold]
Why should Hazel Blears care? She doesn't live here, and politicians of all types are only concerned with what will affect them.
I am absolutely sure that Hazel Blears has not seen the beauty of this area and what will be completely wiped out if (I pray it is never a when ) these houses are going to be built.
Why should Hazel Blears care? She doesn't live here, and politicians of all types are only concerned with what will affect them.
Posted by: Tru Belle, purbeck on 10:49pm Sat 28 Jun 08
Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme!
Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme!
Posted by: mike, poole on 11:19pm Sat 28 Jun 08
Tim M, Thanks for the info. re members of the SW Regional Assembly. It makes VERY interesting reading. It may be worth asking a few pointed questions of those local councillors who 'serve' on the quango
Tim M, Thanks for the info. re members of the SW Regional Assembly. It makes VERY interesting reading. It may be worth asking a few pointed questions of those local councillors who 'serve' on the quango
Posted by: hoppity, hamworthy on 9:05am Sun 29 Jun 08
quo...And as I have said before. The answer is not to build even more houses. The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up - 1 down house so that families can have larger houses without having to build on still more green belt land!
What rubbish even if it was to happen and why should it making people sell their larger house which they have worked had to buy nobody can afford them. It is all right building all these new houses but people still cannot afford to buy them.
quo...And as I have said before. The answer is not to build even more houses. The answer is that those people living in houses too large for them (the retired and DINKies) should be forced to sell and down size into a flat or 1 up - 1 down house so that families can have larger houses without having to build on still more green belt land!
What rubbish even if it was to happen and why should it making people sell their larger house which they have worked had to buy nobody can afford them. It is all right building all these new houses but people still cannot afford to buy them.
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 2:43pm Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Tru Belle[/bold] wrote:
Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme![/quote] Too right. All this Government cares about is headline statistics and targets, rather than a long-term approach to change things for the better. This simplistic sledgehammer approach has already ruined the education system, the NHS and policing.
As for Hazel Blears, can anyone really take her seriously now? Her days in the cabinet must surely be numbered after that embarrassing stolen laptop incident.
Tru Belle wrote:
Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme!
Too right. All this Government cares about is headline statistics and targets, rather than a long-term approach to change things for the better. This simplistic sledgehammer approach has already ruined the education system, the NHS and policing.
As for Hazel Blears, can anyone really take her seriously now? Her days in the cabinet must surely be numbered after that embarrassing stolen laptop incident.
Posted by: carrieb, oakdale on 6:09pm Sun 29 Jun 08
perhaps if there weren't so many people who have second homes in this region there would be enough first homes for people. As for people who want to buy second homes here - shame on you - you won't be contributing full time to the economy here and it will cost us locals our beautiful countryside!
perhaps if there weren't so many people who have second homes in this region there would be enough first homes for people. As for people who want to buy second homes here - shame on you - you won't be contributing full time to the economy here and it will cost us locals our beautiful countryside!
Posted by: adrian fudge, boscombe east on 8:12pm Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Tim M[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote: undefined[/quote] if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.[/quote] The make up of the assemblyis
Councillors
38 conservatives
25 lib dems
9 labour
5 independant
2 unknown
35 non Councillors
It doesnt look like you can blame Labour for its decisions!!
It would be interesting to know how the others have voted --assuming they attend
Tim M wrote:
mike wrote: undefined
if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.
The make up of the assemblyis
Councillors
38 conservatives
25 lib dems
9 labour
5 independant
2 unknown
35 non Councillors
It doesnt look like you can blame Labour for its decisions!!
It would be interesting to know how the others have voted --assuming they attend
Posted by: nickg, canford heath on 11:32am Mon 30 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Phil[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Tru Belle[/bold] wrote: Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme![/quote] Too right. All this Government cares about is headline statistics and targets, rather than a long-term approach to change things for the better. This simplistic sledgehammer approach has already ruined the education system, the NHS and policing. As for Hazel Blears, can anyone really take her seriously now? Her days in the cabinet must surely be numbered after that embarrassing stolen laptop incident.[/quote] Both spot on. New Labour aren't interested in quality of life our our beautiful countryside in the South - as it's not Labbour country they simply do not care. Note in places such as Liverpool they are knocking down old houses and replacing them with fewer houses and more green spaces. Whereas down here they just want to pile us all up on top of each other.
Phil wrote:
Tru Belle wrote: Hazel Blears and co are more concerned with number crunching-massaging statistics and inflicting as much grief as possible. It is a phenomena that some of us have met-whether through awkward neighbours and petty arguments over hedges , boundaries, cars children, tall trees , noise, smells, etc- It has a name- POWER-and this will be used to the real extreme!
Too right. All this Government cares about is headline statistics and targets, rather than a long-term approach to change things for the better. This simplistic sledgehammer approach has already ruined the education system, the NHS and policing. As for Hazel Blears, can anyone really take her seriously now? Her days in the cabinet must surely be numbered after that embarrassing stolen laptop incident.
Both spot on. New Labour aren't interested in quality of life our our beautiful countryside in the South - as it's not Labbour country they simply do not care. Note in places such as Liverpool they are knocking down old houses and replacing them with fewer houses and more green spaces. Whereas down here they just want to pile us all up on top of each other.
Posted by: Tim M, usa on 8:01pm Mon 30 Jun 08
[quote][bold]adrian fudge[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Tim M[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote: undefined[/quote] if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.[/quote] The make up of the assemblyis Councillors 38 conservatives 25 lib dems 9 labour 5 independant 2 unknown 35 non Councillors It doesnt look like you can blame Labour for its decisions!! It would be interesting to know how the others have voted --assuming they attend[/quote] You probably can blame Labour, since they signed on to the whole bureaucrat behemoth apparently without questioning it, but beyond that, they seem to be outnumbered 70 - 9, so shame on the non-Labour members for caving in to remote big government shenanigans. Unfortunately it is here to stay, because, as it's website states:
"The South West Regional Assembly exists to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of all who live and work in the region. It reviews and develops wide ranging strategies at the regional level to provide an over-arching vision for the South West. It works to provide a voice for the region and aims to develop the capacity for further action at the regional level." The touchy-feely first sentence guarantees its further existence because the language used allows anyone questioning policies to be instantly demonised as uncaring about those things. The final words remove all "local" involvement and distribute decision making among a number of people who more often than not do not represent constituents who will have to pay for and live with the consequences. Creepy stuff.
adrian fudge wrote:
Tim M wrote: mike wrote: undefined
if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.
The make up of the assemblyis Councillors 38 conservatives 25 lib dems 9 labour 5 independant 2 unknown 35 non Councillors It doesnt look like you can blame Labour for its decisions!! It would be interesting to know how the others have voted --assuming they attend
You probably can blame Labour, since they signed on to the whole bureaucrat behemoth apparently without questioning it, but beyond that, they seem to be outnumbered 70 - 9, so shame on the non-Labour members for caving in to remote big government shenanigans. Unfortunately it is here to stay, because, as it's website states:
"The South West Regional Assembly exists to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of all who live and work in the region. It reviews and develops wide ranging strategies at the regional level to provide an over-arching vision for the South West. It works to provide a voice for the region and aims to develop the capacity for further action at the regional level." The touchy-feely first sentence guarantees its further existence because the language used allows anyone questioning policies to be instantly demonised as uncaring about those things. The final words remove all "local" involvement and distribute decision making among a number of people who more often than not do not represent constituents who will have to pay for and live with the consequences. Creepy stuff.
Posted by: nickg, canford heath on 9:52am Tue 1 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Tim M[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]adrian fudge[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Tim M[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote: undefined[/quote] if you're looking for names of assembly members you can go on to the site I mentioned before. There is a link to a list in the middle of the page if memory serves me. There are some familiar names indeed - some who post here from time to time.[/quote] The make up of the assemblyis Councillors 38 conservatives 25 lib dems 9 labour 5 independant 2 unknown 35 non Councillors It doesnt look like you can blame Labour for its decisions!! It would be interesting to know how the others have voted --assuming they attend[/quote] You probably can blame Labour, since they signed on to the whole bureaucrat behemoth apparently without questioning it, but beyond that, they seem to be outnumbered 70 - 9, so shame on the non-Labour members for caving in to remote big government shenanigans. Unfortunately it is here to stay, because, as it's website states: "The South West Regional Assembly exists to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of all who live and work in the region. It reviews and develops wide ranging strategies at the regional level to provide an over-arching vision for the South West. It works to provide a voice for the region and aims to develop the capacity for further action at the regional level." The touchy-feely first sentence guarantees its further existence because the language used allows anyone questioning policies to be instantly demonised as uncaring about those things. The final words remove all "local" involvement and distribute decision making among a number of people who more often than not do not represent constituents who will have to pay for and live with the consequences. Creepy stuff.[/quote] Creepy stuff indeed. This nasty, sinister government have slowly taken away our traditional democratic powe
