Pay to drive :(

Thats not an extension, they usually demolish the original send the stone to the tip and then rebuild a whole new mansion with new stone. Its unusual for them to care where the stone comes from ;(

The worst ones are usually those with the 83 room extension on their "cottage", built with local stone....

Richard

It's the large cottage that's the irony - by definition a cottage can't be large! One of the few good things about being in a conservation area on the edge of the Peak Park is that the stone is usually specified in the detailed planning permission. Inside the Park, the specify which quarry it must come from (well, almost...).

Richard

20 million????

surely there are more than that?

there are more than 55 million address on record, if each has a single vehicle, that is 55 million.

Commercial address may have lots and most households have more than one!

In message , vertuas writes

There are 61 million people in the UK, a lot of them live together. We, for example, have three cars and only two drivers. How many can we drive at once ? If you look at the actual number of people who can ever be on the roads at once, like only those over 17, and under 75 we have to be pretty close to the saturation point already, assuming we can rein in the stupid levels of immigration.

Steve

What really gets me though is the bastards really want to screw you, because by leaving it to a certain handful local authorities to pioneer this, you can be sure that neither will VED be abolished, nor fuel duty lowered to take account of the supposedly more rational way of paying, no no way, this is just a new form of council tax, like the extortion they will charge for the bins and all.

And those bastards in the West Midlands who have not been able to run a decent service since the demise of Midland Red and the individual corporation transport undertakings will profit and grow fat from it, while nothing else improves.

What will I do about it, false numberplates and electronic countermeasures perhaps ???

You know what if every car except for land rovers were banned, there would be a lot less congestion and pollution :)

The guy on TV last night from Manchester stated that they would ask the people of Manchester what we thought. Well a couple of months back the Evening News did just that via an online poll, guess what the answer was? Only these people did not shut down the poll, like certain others who claim to listen to the public.

The clever ones just word the poll very carefully to get the answer they want, e.g. banks customer service satisfaction surveys *never* give you the option to say you think ther service is terrible in some way, they only ask you to answer questions that presume you accept the current service is the best model on offer.

The BBC pulled (without comment) a "Have Your Say" topic on health discrimination when it went very badly wrong (i.e. real-world people started answering), not even offering the archive as they usually do (or at least hiding it - I can't find it).

Richard

Aha! Someone else with not enough to do at work! (Yes, I'm kidding.) I have seen some of my posts to HYS that the BBC have rejected, and I can't for the life of me see what house rules I have broken. One pointed out that Israel used to be spelled P-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-e, and the other was anti-Bliar, using that spelling. You get the picture.

You need a FAQ, "Paddocks do it for a fiver --- Well buy it from bloody paddocks then!"

Ahbut - that's because it's having a go at a global corporation, which is always OK, whatever the language. My anti-US posts (anti the US policy in Iraq, not Merkins personally) seem to get rejected every time. Also, I am always very surprised at how many Merkins seem to be posting there. Some topics, half the posters are from Georgia or somewhere. Hey guys, it's bbc.co.UK. We don't need to hear how wonderful you are and how grateful we all should be.

I'm surprised you got rejected for those - have a look at the McDonalds one (that McDaonalds McJob PR stunt went *very* badly wrong) - some of the stuff I'd never dreamed of having attempting - "McCrap" and the like. I always put a stange word in now, as I've noticed that some of my more scathing efforts have not been moderated for a long time, then appear in the original time order, and I can then realistically search for them. My "Why Is America Unpopular" did get though did get rejected though, I can't see why - I only mentioned that it would be difficult to jealous of a country that leaves wheelchair-bound people to drown because they are poor ;-)[1]

I usually go on there when I'm calming dowm from yet another clown making out that putting something in the post "only costs a jiffy bag -

20p" - it's good therapy, and surprising to find out how many feel the same about any given subject.

Richard

[1] Had another one this morning - "Paddocks do it for a fiver", excpet it's not listed on their site........still avoiding replying for a while, even though I've counted to 1,000,109 so far...

I'm sorely tempted.......

Richard

Don't scare them off! The alternative version of WWII is always good fun. I see on the TV that Hollywood has decided that the US invented air warfare in WWI now, thereby winning that one too. Excellent stuff!

Richard

To be honest I don't think that's enough to get your stuff rejected, there's plenty of anti-US posts, it's more likely to be that they have rant quotas that need a rough balance of each side of an argument even if one side is overwhelmingly represented. I've only ever had one published that I remember and don't bother any more, but the ones that didn't get posted weren't much different from loads of other ones that did. They seem to get loads of posts so someone has to wade through them all and post representatives ones, and given the volume they're bound to get they won't all get put up.

Yeah, guess you're right. At least the new system shows how many you've had published, how many rejected and so on, so it's fairly transparent. I agree that a lot must be rejected if there are shedloads on one side of a topic - but I would have thought that if 98% of posters are on one side of a debate, the % of posts should reflect that. Balance should not be sought by giving equal prominence to unequal propositions. But then, I've lost faith with the BBC's supposed neutrality over the last 10 years.

I caught that clip on the TV tonight as well.

It all looked terribly unreal and 'CGI' even on TV, which is very forgiving.