I hate Britain [Rant thread]

[Mikeus Caesar]

Disclaimer: before i start, this is a rant that i feel the need to post about the current situation in Britain, of people building houses everywhere when really they could just stick to the cities, where there are tonnes of places to build. It's getting me annoyed. Maybe it'll inspire debate among you guys about this subject, or just get a load of people telling me i'm a hypocrite/idiot/twerp. Anyway, on with the show.

I'm fed up of our stupid society. I live on the fringes of the country, in a nice village in Yorkshire. From some of the windows you can see the Pennine Hills in the distance. All of the houses here are 50+ years old, and generally very nice, with fields and the like pretty much in your backyard.

Well, now it's all going to hell in a handbasket, and my little village is slowly becoming part of the monstrous urban carbuncle that is the town of Huddersfield.

The first sign of trouble was when they built a massive mansion in the middle of the fields nearby my house. The only way to access it is through a small lane called Stretchgates. This lane was only ever meant for people, dogs and horses, and maybe the occasional pedal bike.

Well now, the idiots who built this house drive their massive American style pickups along this little lane at 20mph. The original road surface is gone, so it's down to bare-rock, which results in flooding at the bottom of the road due to there being no dirt for water to seep into.

Just out walking my dog, i nearly got run over as there was barely a foot of clearance on either side of the truck, and ended up having to run as fast as i could, because he couldn't brake his truck while on a hill with a crap road surface. To add to this ridiculous story of capitalism destroying everything, the ******** insist on lighting up the outside of their house with floodlights, which light up the fields and woodlands for about a mile around.

Now, the capitalist scumdogs have gone and decided to build more houses for rich *****. There's a massive plot of land near my house, the wastelands, which used to be the site of an old mill. The mill was demolished years ago, and since then nature had been reclaiming the area. It was even more green than it is on the satellite photo.

Now they have completely ripped it up, and it is a giant brown scar on the landscape. There is only a bit of greenery left, saved because of there being a telegraph pole and a natural spring there. The only tree left is a small spindly oak tree. There used to be an entire developing forest there.

I imagine that instead of building lots of good but small houses that fit in with the local area for people who aren't too well off, they'll build about 5 horrendous looking houses for rich people, in a gated community, for rich people looking to get away from the cities to live in the 'nice tranquil countryside' with their brat ******* emo kids and their giant American style pick-up trucks and they're expensive pedigree dogs.

And then they'll be building on the field opposite my house, to make yet another gated community, with even fewer houses. I remember when there used to be ponies in that field. Now it's fenced off and overgrown.

So now, these rich people who escape the cities to live in the nice tranquil countryside are turning the nice tranquil countryside into precisely what they were trying to escape from - a horrific urban sprawl, from which there is no humanity, no soul, no escape.

I'm glad i'm moving to ******* Australia. Sure, i won't have any friends, a good paying job or anything, but at least i can move into the middle of nowhere, safe in the knowledge that more people won't follow in my wake.

I hate Britain.

Handy map with key to locations mentioned

http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07095/CAPITALISTSCUMDOGS.PNG

1) My haus.
2) Location of the lighthouse mansion.
3) An old farmhouse knocked down so that the lighthouse mansion could have a backyard.
4) The former wastelands. Compare it to the size of my haus, which is quite a big house, and you get a vague idea of the ridiculous amount of land that has been torn up. Think of the poor wabbits and pheasants who lost their homes!
5) The old pony field opposite my haus that will probably be torn up soon i.e next week.

[CrossLOPER]

Let me guess, 1000 hours in MS Paint?

Situations like this are common in the U.S., although not as hilarious. The Russian Rich seem to prefer living in the city. Can't imagine why. You could always curse the land with satanic rituals...

[Scurvy]

I have great sympathy - similar things are happening all over the countryside, and very little is being done about it...

but i dont think its really grounds for hating Britain, just for hating a certain group of people...

:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So....you want to control what other people can do with the land they own?

CR

[Adrian II]

So....you want to control what other people can do with the land they own?

CRNo he just wants to kill them all with an industrial size chain saw. So would I. :yes:

[ShadeHonestus]

I believe the same thing about my country home....I'm the only one who should be able to enjoy those surroundings...damn the rest of you.

In fact the rest of you should move to the inner city projects to rejuvenate growth there, refresh the community a bit.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Could be worse:

https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2879/250pxcincinnatisuburbstkt5.jpg

[scotchedpommes]

Australia? Bit drastic. All you need to do is drive north for a good few hours and
you'd get back to nowhere. :yes:

[And if we take action to remove the Capitalist filth... no-one would ever know.]

[Ice]

So....you want to control what other people can do with the land they own?

CR

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Goofball]

So....you want to control what other people can do with the land they own?

CR

I think he just wants to rant about people who are acting perfectly within their rights of property ownership, but are still offensive in how they are exercising their property rights.

However, I'm curious CR. If my house was directly across the street from your kid's elementary school, and I decided that by way of exercising my rights to do whatever I wanted with my property I would erect (pun intended) a 30' tall statue of Mohammed doing Jesus doggie-style in my front yard, would you still be entirely supportive of my rights as a property owner? Or would you sign the petition that would surely circulate among my neighbors demanding that I get rid of my modern art masterpiece?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh please.

If this was your view:

https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2024/020426beautifulviewofriik5.jpg

and someone built this:

https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3282/newuglyhouse24jc7.jpg

In front of it, you wouldn't be the slightest bit annoyed?

[ShadeHonestus]

I'm sure its anyone's right to be annoyed. Hell, they even have the right to be pissed off. However, I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to have their rantings taken anymore seriously then the homeowner has the right to build there. Either one of them acting in supposition of the existence of a greater right then the other wins a new shiny smug medal.

[Ice]

Hey Sasaki:

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8559/mrdidba2.jpg

[ajaxfetish]

Would you explain how Sasaki's point is a strawman please? Curry has expressed his displeasure in rich newcomers building gaudy homes on the wildlands (at least as wild as England can manage) he loves, and Sasaki posted a picture of a gaudy home and a lovable wildland (true American wildland), asking whether we would enjoy having the home there. It seems relevant to me.

Ajax

[Goofball]

Hey Sasaki:

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8559/mrdidba2.jpg

To quote Inigo Montoya:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(Sorry to whichever Orgah it was (AdrianII I think) who quoted Inigo Montoya recently, I blatantly stole your idea, but this situation was too fitting to pass up)

[CrossLOPER]

Would you explain how Sasaki's point is a strawman please?...
I think he's too enticed by Goofball's idea for a statue. I actually have a relevant picture in my gallery of limbo. PM me if you're interested.* :beam:








*You sick, sick thing you.

[Mooks]

If your really really pissed off. Then you can always force them off the land via vandalism. Thats only if your drastic though.

[ajaxfetish]

Or you can set up the statue Goofball suggested, and see if they still decide they want to live in your neighborhood.

Ajax

[Mooks]

There is a giant forest behind this fence near my backyard. The military preserves it, something about a training base for the SEALS. Its really quite cool, and has lots of wildlife in it. I think you have to travel really far to get to the training base though, one hopes that they dont decide to use live rounds while im wandering around.

[Tuuvi]

Oh please.

If this was your view:

and someone built this:

https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3282/newuglyhouse24jc7.jpg

In front of it, you wouldn't be the slightest bit annoyed?
Some one needs to teach those people how to put up their christmas decorations...

Back on topic, yea that would piss me off to, It happens where I live all the time.

[Ice]

Would you explain how Sasaki's point is a strawman please?
Ajax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.





To quote Inigo Montoya:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(Sorry to whichever Orgah it was (AdrianII I think) who quoted Inigo Montoya recently, I blatantly stole your idea, but this situation was too fitting to pass up)

Never used the word before, buddy.

[Ignoramus]

I think it's a shame. I mean, look at London. Greater London takes up the entire County of Middlesex. Do we really want to be living in concrete metropolis in 2050? People should leave the countryside alone. Otherwise, there won't be any left in 50 years.

[King Henry V]

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Curry's complaint was that the beauty of his local countryside was being destroyed by the development of hideous new mansions, to which CR replied, in words to that effect, that people had the right to do anything they wanted with their own property. Sasaki's point is therefore valid, and though Curry doesn't have a great view of a mountain range which is being obliterated by large, gaudy new constructions, the principle is the same.

[doc_bean]

I'm sure its anyone's right to be annoyed. Hell, they even have the right to be pissed off. However, I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to have their rantings taken anymore seriously then the homeowner has the right to build there.

Which is probably why he's venting in a forum instead of petitioning the government. We all get pissed at other people sometimes, maybe because they're taking something which we considered 'ours' (like a view), because they're just being stupid (big brother !) and annoy us, or soemtimes just because we have a bad day.

Sure those people are in their right to mess up a beautiful piece of the countryside, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be happy about that.

On a side note, I like the way Norway seems to handle things like this, with huge national parks everyone has acces too, while most people live in the cities. Suburbia is the curse of the modern world.

[ShadeHonestus]

I hear ya...however



Sure those people are in their right to mess up a beautiful piece of the countryside, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be happy about that.


You're assigning your own value of beautiful as the measure. These people probably believe they are building a beautiful home in a beautiful setting. Aesthetics, after all, are in the eye of the beholder.

Not knowing the particulars, but admitting I'd like to, if there wasn't some sort of reclamation project which owned the land, then the obvious would be that the land was being held for future development. If that is true, where is the expectation that it wouldn't be developed....again.

[doc_bean]

You're assigning your own value of beautiful as the measure. These people probably believe they are building a beautiful home in a beautiful setting. Aesthetics, after all, are in the eye of the beholder.

Sure, they're entitled to their opinion, I'm entitled to mine, what's the problem ? It's not okay to disagree ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Sure, they're entitled to their opinion, I'm entitled to mine, what's the problem ? It's not okay to disagree ?

Oh of course it is, I just prefer to make clear those arguments which skew the view as only viewable through their eyes. At this point we have nothing to disagree about, except which window we would rather look through, with even that in doubt.

[macsen rufus]

Pity you don't live in Wales, Curry, I'd suggest you join the Sons of Glyndwr. You could still take a leaf from their book though :clown:

[Husar]

I think it's a shame. I mean, look at London. Greater London takes up the entire County of Middlesex. Do we really want to be living in concrete metropolis in 2050? People should leave the countryside alone. Otherwise, there won't be any left in 50 years.
Well, if you leave the countryside alone, you are living in a concrete metropolis, aren't you?
And even big cities expand into the countryside somewhere.

I also sense some prejudices against rich people in currywurry's opinion, ok, lighting up their house is a waste of energy etc., but I wouldn't really paint the ones to follow with the same brush so eagerly and then there was this comment about their kids...
Really, would you like it if someone hated you for what your parents are?

[Strike For The South]

Could be worse:

https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2879/250pxcincinnatisuburbstkt5.jpg

Yea thats whats happening here. I blame the yankees and the mexicans

[mystic brew]

kerching!

bonus points for use of the phrase "hell in a handbasket" in any rant.
:D

[Ice]

Curry's complaint was that the beauty of his local countryside was being destroyed by the development of hideous new mansions, to which CR replied, in words to that effect, that people had the right to do anything they wanted with their own property. Sasaki's point is therefore valid, and though Curry doesn't have a great view of a mountain range which is being obliterated by large, gaudy new constructions, the principle is the same.

I disagree. I doubt where curry lives looks as beautiful as the posted mountain range.

[ajaxfetish]

Since Curry only expressed his displeasure with the situation, and didn't mention anything about forcing the people to his will, approaching the government, or whatever, I think CR's assertion that he wants to control what other people do with their land is the best candidate for a straw man in this thread.

Ajax

[Scurvy]

I disagree. I doubt where curry lives looks as beautiful as the posted mountain range.

surely thats a matter of opinion, it certainly looks alot nicer than the alternative...

[Tribesman]

Some simple quesions for curry .
How old is your house ?
How old are the houses either side and opposite?
What was originally built on what you describe as the"wasteland" ?
Are the poor "wabbits and pheasants" native animals ?
Would you be willing to have your house and your neighbours demolished to improve the view ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Could be worse:

https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2879/250pxcincinnatisuburbstkt5.jpg
That's nothing. Look at what's happening around Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg

[doc_bean]

That's nothing. Look at what's happening around Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg

dear lord ...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I disagree. I doubt where curry lives looks as beautiful as the posted mountain range.

I think you're underestimating just how pretty British countryside can be.

[Tuuvi]

I disagree. I doubt where curry lives looks as beautiful as the posted mountain range.It's a matter of opinion, I live in the middle of a desert and I think it's beautiful.


That's nothing. Look at what's happening around Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
Ugh. I can't believe someone would even buy a house there. There's not even any landscaping or trees, just a bunch of identical looking houses and grass.

[rory_20_uk]

If you're poor, and this is the biggest house you can afford then there's no other option.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yea thats whats happening here. I blame the yankees and the mexicans

And I'm sure that the native Texans running the county planning boards and councils have been so difficult to convince. "Oh please force me to quintuple my tax revenues again...." :dizzy:

[doc_bean]

If you're poor, and this is the biggest house you can afford then there's no other option.

~:smoking:

They seem like pretty big houses to me, unless they have over three kids I don't see anyone needing a house that size. Bigger isn't always better, at least not when it comes to housing :wink:

[CrossLOPER]

There is a similar project near were I live. Hopefully, it's the last.
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/projectnearme.jpg

[BDC]

Piss-poor planning makes it all worse. I live in an 18th century terraced house, it's small and lovely. Population density is high, but it's a nice place to live. Why new estates insist on having hordes of detached brick sheds is a mystery to me. There's no sense of community and it's souless, and uses even more room. At least things are better than in the 1950s...

[Scurvy]

estates insist on having hordes of detached brick sheds is a mystery to me. There's no sense of community and it's souless,

Milton Keynes comes to mind... I live in london on a terraced street, and really like the sense of communti yand atmosphere you get, it does have disadvantages, but imo the advantages are far greater..

:2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

Does the UK have "Wilderness Mitigation Areas"? That's the local scheme in my neck of the woods. My city bought a place called Daly Ranch which now comprises about 20% of our 94 square km of area. The plan is to keep Daly Ranch untouched (except for hiking trials), while every vacant lot in the city proper gets developed.

If such a project isn't considered in the UK, maybe currywurry can beat the drum for it to happen. It won't save his view, of course.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Does the UK have "Wilderness Mitigation Areas"? That's the local scheme in my neck of the woods. My city bought a place called Daly Ranch which now comprises about 20% of our 94 square km of area. The plan is to keep Daly Ranch untouched (except for hiking trials), while every vacant lot in the city proper gets developed.

If such a project isn't considered in the UK, maybe currywurry can beat the drum for it to happen. It won't save his view, of course.

The UK has a number of designation for protected areas - from full National Park status, through Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest. In addition, they have "green belt" planning protection and a myriad of complex planning laws. Each of these have fairly draconian restrictions on development.

There's also local charitable trusts such as the Devon Wildlife Trust (one for most counties) and the National Trust which buy up land and conserve it as private landlords.

If currywurry's neighbours got planning permission for their building, it wasn't for lack of barriers. In most country areas of the UK, you will have real trouble putting up a garden shed without expensive permissions. Of course, money and power will smooth the way in some cases, but it's not at all easy even then.

[Scurvy]

i we have similar schemes to what your talking about, Green Ebelts are areas around cities where building is very restricted, and also areas of natural beauty, and areas in city that planning permission can (in theory) not be granted upon... these may well not apply to curry...

:2thumbsup:

Edit --> exactly what banquo just said as i was writing...

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think he just wants to rant about people who are acting perfectly within their rights of property ownership, but are still offensive in how they are exercising their property rights.

However, I'm curious CR. If my house was directly across the street from your kid's elementary school, and I decided that by way of exercising my rights to do whatever I wanted with my property I would erect (pun intended) a 30' tall statue of Mohammed doing Jesus doggie-style in my front yard, would you still be entirely supportive of my rights as a property owner? Or would you sign the petition that would surely circulate among my neighbors demanding that I get rid of my modern art masterpiece?

I'd oppose it on basis of obscenity and public display of indecent material to children. I wouldn't oppose a sign saying 'praise Allah', but pornographic material I will oppose.


Since Curry only expressed his displeasure with the situation, and didn't mention anything about forcing the people to his will, approaching the government, or whatever, I think CR's assertion that he wants to control what other people do with their land is the best candidate for a straw man in this thread.

Ajax

I asked only a simple question, which, given the vitriol Curry expressed for the developers, is only fair, methinks.

In the US, this attitude is widespread, especially among people who move to an area and then want all further development to cease, and the country people to change their lifestyles (I'm not saying Curry's guilty of this).

My family lives on a nice bit of country land, but the city is creeping closer. It'll spoil a bit (but not most) of the view - my main concern is bliss-a-ninny city idiots calling the cops should I happen to do some target practice with a shotgun ("OMG!!11! There's a man, and he's shooting a GUN!! GAH!!!1111!one ARREST HIM!!!!").

Crazed Rabbit

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess this illustrates one part of the problem well:

https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9380/nuitab5.png

The difference between England, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland, France or Scotland is striking.

It is a pity, the traditional English countryside is lovely, the largest and most pleasant garden in Europe. Its demise is a cultural-historical tragedy. ~:mecry:

It should be protected against the encroachment of loud urbanisation. Cultural landscapes are as worhty of protection as historical cityscapes or nature reserves.

[Incongruous]

Wow, that picture is scary.

[Ignoramus]

It is, I am worried that soon we'll have tiny "reseves" in large urban developments rather than small villages/towns in rolling countryside.

I also totally agree with luigi. I want to move to Britian someday; and not to a comman sprawling urban mass.

[Scurvy]

it is rather firghtening, at least people (and more important the authorities) are getting stricter on urban sprawl/rural development... :2thumbsup:

[Goofball]

I think he just wants to rant about people who are acting perfectly within their rights of property ownership, but are still offensive in how they are exercising their property rights.

However, I'm curious CR. If my house was directly across the street from your kid's elementary school, and I decided that by way of exercising my rights to do whatever I wanted with my property I would erect (pun intended) a 30' tall statue of Mohammed doing Jesus doggie-style in my front yard, would you still be entirely supportive of my rights as a property owner? Or would you sign the petition that would surely circulate among my neighbors demanding that I get rid of my modern art masterpiece?I'd oppose it on basis of obscenity and public display of indecent material to children. I wouldn't oppose a sign saying 'praise Allah', but pornographic material I will oppose.

So (just like the rest of us, I suspect), you believe that people are free to do what they want with their private property, unless it happens to be something you find to be extremely objectionable or detrimental to others. So really, there is no black and white to the issue as your initial question implied.

For what it's worth, I suspect that I agree with you on this issue. I may or may not grumble and complain about the property use described by the OP, but I would certainly not deny that property owner his right to buid a home to his liking on his own property. However, I would certainly object to somebody putting up the statue I described if it was in my neighborhood, and would do everything I could to make him remove it.

[Abokasee]

Yea thats whats happening here. I blame the yankees and the mexicans

Thinks you'll find most people do...

Thing is though, loads of brits are gonna start going of to canada, because canada is the second biggest country in the world, and it has a very small population compared to a island great britain.

[scotchedpommes]

Ah yes, that must be the thing. You lead the way Abokasee, and someone will
follow. Quite who, well...

[Abokasee]

Its only a predication anyway, Im not saying it will im say it might... I pefer it when people don't get flamed in the backroom :yes:

[KukriKhan]

I pefer it when people don't get flamed in the backroom


So do we, mate. So do we. Please PM me to explain your sig. It confuses me.

[Whacker]

5.

Based solely on Goofball's statue suggestion. As a bonus you could register the domain jesusvsallah.com with a webcam up 24/7. :inquisitive: :laugh4: :no: :yes: :balloon2:

[Lorenzo_H]

Britain is quite densely populated, I really don't think there is anything we can do about it. Other people have a right to build where they own.

[Ignoramus]

I wouldn't mind it if 50 million people move to Canada, though. That way, we get a nice lowly populated Britain with almost no urban sprawling.

[Idaho]

Do you have NIMBYs in the US?

Currywurry is one :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Not to sure the Canadians would love that so much. It is a little odd you know, everyone feels like where they live is a little too crowded. People in the US used to feel crowded in the 1800s when they could see the smoke from someone else's cabin.

[Ignoramus]

I know that, but I hardly want the Black Death to wipe out the third of the world's population again. And yet, that's what kept the population under control; Plagues, pestilence, famine, starvation, war, and drought all controlled the population. Now while I'm glad that there are a lot fewer wars these days, there's more food around, and medicine has advanced dramatically, you begin to wonder if this really is good.

Edit: What I mean to say is that while people are living longer, are they living better off? My answer is no.

[Fisherking]

....Edit: What I mean to say is that while people are living longer, are they living better off? My answer is no.
Well if I had to be poor in Briton, I would certainly choose to be poor in Briton today over 200 years ago.

[BDC]

Well if I had to be poor in Briton, I would certainly choose to be poor in Briton today over 200 years ago.
It's probably better to be poor today than rich 200 years ago. You'll live longer, more comfortably, and it's still probably safer. And most the issues are social anyway, if people really had the motivation and know-how to get out of the mess they're in, they could.

[Del Arroyo]

Near my hometown people have taken to buying comfortable, beautifully landscaped, $rich$ ranch homes with big, tree-filled yards; then tearing them down, and building grotesque, tasteless McMansions which consume the lot from left to right and barely have breathing room in the front or the back.

When so many people who have that much money can be that god-****** stupid, one has to wonder how long it will be before this **** gains critical mass.

[Tribesman]

tasteless McMansions
you wouldn't by any chance have just read this months National Geographic ?

[The_Emperor]

We wouldn't have the need for all these new homes if the greedy yuppies didn't keep buying second third or even fourth homes pricing ordinary people out of the market.

There needs to be a limit on how many houses you can own, even if your buying to rent.

[BDC]

We wouldn't have the need for all these new homes if the greedy yuppies didn't keep buying second third or even fourth homes pricing ordinary people out of the market.

There needs to be a limit on how many houses you can own, even if your buying to rent.
I don't know, I think it's more all these divorced people who buy out new homes to live on their own. So instead of a family taking up 1 4 bedroomed house, it now takes up two.

Maybe you could give tax breaks depending on how many people live in a house...

Buying to rent doesn't really cause sprawl. It just means people end up renting. Sooner or later the market is going to fall though, looking at prices there is no way even a couple can get onto the market without being investment bankers or inheriting a fortune.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Some simple quesions for curry .
How old is your house ?
How old are the houses either side and opposite?
What was originally built on what you describe as the"wasteland" ?
Are the poor "wabbits and pheasants" native animals ?
Would you be willing to have your house and your neighbours demolished to improve the view ?

1) My house was built roughly in 1933, and is a damn nice house.
2) The houses around it range from the 1850's till the 1940's.
3) The land that was the wasteland used to be an old textiles mill. I could see them digging up the old cellars today.
4) Yes, actually, the rabbits and pheasants are native animals. They used to live in the forests just to the east of the wasteland, but in the last few years they had been moving into more places.
5) To be quite honest, yes. Heck, if it would make more of the country beautiful, i'd demolish about 60% of houses around here, including my own, to make the countryside more beautiful, but it wouldn't be more beautiful for the sake of my eyes - it would be for the sake of the environment. I believe that as a country gets richer, people should allow the lands to return to the state they were in before we buggered it all up.


I guess this illustrates one part of the problem well:

https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9380/nuitab5.png

The difference between England, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland, France or Scotland is striking.

It is a pity, the traditional English countryside is lovely, the largest and most pleasant garden in Europe. Its demise is a cultural-historical tragedy. ~:mecry:

It should be protected against the encroachment of loud urbanisation. Cultural landscapes are as worhty of protection as historical cityscapes or nature reserves.

The big blob of lights in central England has a hole in the middle of it. I live right at the very most top edge of that hole, so as you can imagine, it is a very nice place. I imagine if the pennines weren't so windswept and rainy, they would just be part of the urban sprawl.

Nice to see my rant has generated so much discussion! :)

[doc_bean]

I don't know, I think it's more all these divorced people who buy out new homes to live on their own. So instead of a family taking up 1 4 bedroomed house, it now takes up two.

Maybe you could give tax breaks depending on how many people live in a house...

Buying to rent doesn't really cause sprawl. It just means people end up renting. Sooner or later the market is going to fall though, looking at prices there is no way even a couple can get onto the market without being investment bankers or inheriting a fortune.

I don't know, I don't know a lot of empty houses around here. :holmes:

[Hosakawa Tito]

The grass always looks greener over the septic tank.....

[Tribesman]

3) The land that was the wasteland used to be an old textiles mill. I could see them digging up the old cellars today .

So any devolpment there would be brown site not green belt and subject to different planning laws .

4) Yes, actually, the rabbits and pheasants are native animals.
Nope they is damn immigrants :laugh4: just like the grey squirrel .

5) To be quite honest, yes. Heck, if it would make more of the country beautiful, i'd demolish about 60% of houses around here, including my own, to make the countryside more beautiful, but it wouldn't be more beautiful for the sake of my eyes - it would be for the sake of the environment. I believe that as a country gets richer, people should allow the lands to return to the state they were in before we buggered it all up.

Yep make everyone move into the cities , and of course stop the farming which makes the countryside look the way it does and of course non of that set-aside rubbish since that stops the land returning to its original state (if that were at all possible ) .
BTW Thanks for the answering the questions

[Strike For The South]

My god that picture is scary as hell is there any green left in Europe?

[doc_bean]

My god that picture is scary as hell is there any green left in Europe?

Not really in Flanders/Brussels. The Netherlands have/had their zoning issues figured out a little bit better, they have a few nice national parks.

[Ignoramus]

I suppose it's like: "Molvania: Where old world charm meets reinforced concrete."

[Mikeus Caesar]

I suppose it's like: "Molvania: Where old world charm meets reinforced concrete."

Brilliant book that.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fic-molv.gif

[Soulforged]

It's probably better to be poor today than rich 200 years ago. You'll live longer, more comfortably, and it's still probably safer. And most the issues are social anyway, if people really had the motivation and know-how to get out of the mess they're in, they could.
That depends on how much "poor" you are. If you're indigent, you'll be an indigent on all times along the line. Also nobody would prefer to be poor on any time, it not only implies an scarcity of money, food, clothes, etc. but also a psicological and social stigma.

About the original subject, I thought that the principle of prohibition of abuse existed on Britain, even more I believed it was created there in a funny case of conflict between neighbors. In any case, I think that by now humanity has learned that there's nothing absolute nor perfect, not even the oh holy right of private property. For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.

[Tribesman]

For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.
If you constucted a wall 20 feet tall on your property it wouldn't be the neighbour objecting it would be the planning authorities , I havn't worked there for some time but the old rules over there limited you to 1200 mm at the front and 1800 mm at sides and back , unless you could prove to them that you had a very good reason to exceed it .
Though unless the planning rules over there have changed you could plant them bloody awful cypress lelandi(sp?) to give you what is effectively a 20' + wall in a very short time .

[ShadeHonestus]

That depends on how much "poor" you are. If you're indigent, you'll be an indigent on all times along the line. Also nobody would prefer to be poor on any time, it not only implies an scarcity of money, food, clothes, etc. but also a psicological and social stigma.



Well I'm pretty sure that some of the indigent even a century or two ago (let alone a further in the past) would have loved to see our modern soup kitchens or even the emergency health care that even the indigent aren't refused.
If I had to choose poor today as opposed to any time in history, based on services (within and across borders) to the poor alone...no brainer.

Gotta go with BDC on this one as how he meant it.

[Soulforged]

If you constucted a wall 20 feet tall on your property it wouldn't be the neighbour objecting it would be the planning authorities , I havn't worked there for some time but the old rules over there limited you to 1200 mm at the front and 1800 mm at sides and back , unless you could prove to them that you had a very good reason to exceed it .
Though unless the planning rules over there have changed you could plant them bloody awful cypress lelandi(sp?) to give you what is effectively a 20' + wall in a very short time .
Wait Tribes, you actually worked in Argentina. When was that?

My example was only that, an example...

[Caius]

For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.
¡Pero tu vecino no puede decidir que tu no haras!

-------------------

But your neitborhoud(sp?) cant decide what are you going to do!

[Tribesman]

Wait Tribes, you actually worked in Argentina. When was that?

Ah you see this bit.....About the original subject, I thought that the principle of prohibition of abuse existed on Britain, even more I believed it was created there in a funny case of conflict between neighbors.

[Soulforged]

Ah you see this bit.....About the original subject, I thought that the principle of prohibition of abuse existed on Britain, even more I believed it was created there in a funny case of conflict between neighbors.
Ooops! I see it now... So just to clarify, you don't have an Irish club (bar, pub, etc.) here right? :laugh4:

EDIT: I mean St. Patrick's day is nearby and I'll love to honor your place if there's any...

¡Pero tu vecino no puede decidir que tu no haras!
Bueno parece que encontré al primer argentino ultra capitalista :laugh4: . No en serio toda esta discusión fue sobre si el vecino lo puede objetar o no, y creo que quedó bien claro que si puede porque nada puede ser absoluto.

[Caius]

Bueno parece que encontré al primer argentino ultra capitalista . No en serio toda esta discusión fue sobre si el vecino lo puede objetar o no, y creo que quedó bien claro que si puede porque nada puede ser absoluto.
Ultra capitalista?No, estas confundido:beam:.En serio.El dinero no deberia existir.
¿Donde quedo la propiedad privada?Cada uno tiene derecho a hacer lo que se cantas las p... :grin: eh digo, las ganas.Bueno, hubo una excepcion en una cuidad que no dejaron hacer un edificio por que no se que...y aquello...y lo otro...y que :yes:...y que :no:.Al final, no se hizo nada:grin2:
Pero tu no eres Dios para decidir que sera de las construcciones del otro