In message <op.1k77rfclbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

>
>More mindless legalistic nit picking.

Shouldn't 'nit picking' be hyphenated (ie, 'nit-picking') - or would
that be nit-picking?
--
Ian

On 26/04/2022 03:40 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50 yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driven by a young woman claims to have swerved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along it and broke off the front wheel and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension. Next hit the Golf behind it pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rear well onto the pavement over a high kerb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to driver or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 mph.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been damaged. ;-)
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at large... yes?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driveways there now.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a front
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the footpath.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not always allowed (some such housing has double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be garaged off street at the home of the owner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or user, with street parking only allowed at the far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of any journey.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the expense of others.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are
>>>>>>>>>>> all like that.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It depends.
>>>>>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for
>>>>>>>>> that now.
>>>
>>>>>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>>>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>>>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>>>
>>>>>>>  Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>>>>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>>>>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The  principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly
>>>>>>>>>> spread.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.
>>>>>>>  See above.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>>>>>> village.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>>>>>> front yards at all.
>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>>>>>>  No such village.
>>>
>>>> You actually could not be more wrong.
>
>>>  We'll see...
>
>> I don't know how you think you're going to prove yourself right on
>> that. You can't, because you're wrong.
>
> Then you won't have any difficulty naming that village.
>
> And even if you can, it is completely irrelevant to PLOWCUNT'S STREET.
>
>>>> There are a lot of villages all over the UK with Victorian terraced
>>>> property as either the dominant or a major housing form.
>
>>>  But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>> there is a car park.
>
>>>> How can you not know that?
>
>> You can do that if there IS a car-park and if it is within walking
>> distance.
>
> And if there is such a village, of course it is possible to add a
> carpark like that.
>
>>> How can you ignore the bit about walking to a car park ?
>
>> I didn't.
>
>>>>>>> If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story terraces with
>>>>>>> no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
>>>>>>> at all, it wouldn't be a village.
>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever actually been to England?
>>>
>>>>>  Irrelevant. We have had this funky system called Google Street View
>>>>> for more than a decade now and for at least century now, have had
>>>>> that other funky system called movies and later video.
>>>
>>>> OK. So that's a "No".
>>>  There you go again, face down in the mud, as always.
>
>> Is it *not* a "No", then?
>
>> Have you ever been to England?
>
> None of your business and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
> we have had google street view for more than a decade now.
>
>>>>>> You haven't been to this village.
>>>
>>>>>  You don't know that either
>>>
>>>> Yes, I do. This village is in... er... England: one of the places
>>>> you haven't been to.
>
>>>  You don't know that last.
>
>> You avoided the question. The only reasonable interpretation of that
>> is that you have never been to England.
>
> Only for fools like you.
>
>> That's OK. There's no shame in it.
>
> It isnt about shame.
>
>> I've never been to Australia.
>
> Thank christ for that.
>
>> But I don't argue that I am familiar with Australian urban morphology.
>> That'smainly because I'm not.
>
> But are too stupid to use google street view when
> discussing that is feasible parking wise.
>
> It has in fact covered almost all of Australia and the UK.
>
>>>>> and even if I hadn't, I do know
>>>>> that no village has enough streets where no driveway is
>>>>> possible now and it isnt possible to walk to where cars
>>>>> can be parked, or it wouldn't be a village, it would be a town.
>>>
>>>> Believe what you want to believe.
>
>>>  Know what I know and can see from the Street View.
>
>>>> But even you must have heard of agricultural workers, miners, etc
>>>> and their cottages.
>
>>>  Those are irrelevant when discussing places WHERE
>>> IT ISNT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY.
>
>> There are such places in English villages.
>
> But with a VILLAGE it will always be possible to add a carpark within
> walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.
>
>> In fact, it is a noticeable feature of almost every village where the
>> housing form is predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for
>> terraced houses).
>
> But since it is a VILLAGE, it will always be possible to add a carpark
> within walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.
>
>>>>> And your village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street
>>>>> anyway.
>
> No point in ignoring that, it won't go away.
>
>>>>>>>> AAMOF, there *are* such houses in this village which is hundreds
>>>>>>>> of years old. There are even some terraced houses that do not
>>>>>>>> front the road at all.
>>>
>>>>>>>  But no lots of adjacent streets like that or it wouldn't be a
>>>>>>> village.
>>>
>>>> But it is a village.
>>>  But doesn't have lots of adjacent streets where there is no
>>> possibility of a driveway or a carpark within walking distance.
>>
>> How do you say you know that?
>
> I get real radical and use street view.
>
>> There are several car-parks in the village.
>
> So your village is irrelevant to what is possible with PLOWCUNT'S STREET.
>
>> I admit straightaway that I would not want to have to walk to and from
>> any of them in order to park a car. But then, I don't need to. My
>> house has a driveway and a garage (as do many others in the area,
>> though certainly not all of them.
>
> So your house is irrelevant to what is being discussed
> and so is your village.
>
>>>>>> See my question a few lines above.
>>
>>>>>  See my response to that.
>>>
>>>>>>>  A village with some houses like that can have car
>>>>>>> parking within easy walking distance of the houses.
>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. Maybe not. "Easy walking distance" is a concept upon which
>>>>>> there would be great variation in definition.
>>>
>>>>>  Pathetic.
>
>> If the car-park were a half-mile away from the house,
>
> That isnt a village.
>
>> would that be within "walking distance" in anything but a purely
>> technical sense?
>
>>>> I dare say that some people who can't easily find a convenient and
>>>> free space agree with you.
>>>  Pathetic.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This one sounds a little startling, but in certain urban
>>>>>>>>>> areas, there was, some years ago, during the reign of terror
>>>>>>>>>> of John Prescott at Transport, a government scheme called
>>>>>>>>>> "Pathfinders", wherein some streets of low-value terraced
>>>>>>>>>> housing were to be CPd and demolished, in order to provide
>>>>>>>>>> batches of off-street parking for the houses which had not
>>>>>>>>>> been demolished. Sort of thinning out the herd to provide space.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Yes, but those streets of massive great multistory Victorian
>>>>>>>>> very expensive terrace mansions with no front yards at all are
>>>>>>>>> nothing like that.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you read the post to which you were responding?
>>>
>>>>>>>  Of course I did. Not possible to decide to respond to one
>>>>>>> without reading it and deciding to respond to that one.
>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems not, otherwise you would have seen the next bit:
>>>
>>>>>>>  I did read that bit. It isn't relevant to what was being discussed,
>>>>>>> lots of adjacent streets all with massive great multistory victorian
>>>>>>> terraces houses with no front yards, built before cars were
>>>>>>> invented.
>>>
>>>>>> Almost all houses in the UK are multi-storey.
>>>
>>>>>  Bullshit.
>>>
>>>> What? :-)
>
>>>  Pathetic.
>
>> If you think that most houses in the UK are bungalows,
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
>> you are in a dream world of your own.
>>
>> It does, however, explain some of what you write.
>
> Pathetic.
>
>>>>>> If not, they are universally described as bungalows.
>>>>>  There are plenty of those.
>>>
>>>> Are there?
>>>  Corse there are.
>>
>> What proprtion?
>
> Chase that up for yourself.
>
>> <checks the cupboard for popcorn>
>
> Pathetic, as you always are when you have got done like a fucking dinner.
>
>>>>>> The place I was describing has two-storey terraced houses each
>>>>>> with three bedrooms (or fewer if one has been converted into a
>>>>>> bathroom - which does happen). Very large mansion housing tends to
>>>>>> have more controllable open air space, including the ability to
>>>>>> create a hard-standing. Not always, but it hardly matters since we
>>>>>> are not talking about such housing.
>>>
>>>>>  Irrelevant to the fact that there are lots of streets with no space
>>>>> between the houses and no front yard at all, where it isnt possible
>>>>> to have a driveway.
>>>
>>>> There are a lot of such places. In cities, towns and villages.
>
>>>  Duh, so it was stupid of you to rabbit on about driveways.
>
>> Not at all.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> The road STILL doesn't belong to the occupants of the nearest house.
>
> Irrelevant to what is possible with parking.
>
>>>>>> It is not clear to me that Mr Plowman lives in a mansion, though
>>>>>> he might do for all the information that I have (and it's none of
>>>>>> my business).
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about unimproved houses worth probably about
>>>>>>>>>> £12,000 - £15,000 at the time. I know because a relative owned
>>>>>>>>>> one of them. He wasn't bothered about it and was even looking
>>>>>>>>>> forward to the move, but many others were opposed and the
>>>>>>>>>> government eventually dropped the scheme (after blighting the
>>>>>>>>>> areas concerned for some years).
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Nothing like what we are discussing.
>>>
>>>>>>>  See, that was my response to that para.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheaper, certainly (around 250 miles from London).
>>>
>>>>>>>  So irrelevant to the street the plowcunt has a victorian house in.
>>>
>>>>>>>> But the principle is the same.
>>>
>>>>>>>  The principle is irrelevant. What we are discussing is what is
>>>>>>> possible with those streets.
>>
>> Principle is never irrelevant.
>
> More of your mindless bullshit.
>
>>>>>> The same things are possible, including the use of double-yellow
>>>>>> lines.
>>>
>>>>>  BUT NOT DRIVEWAYS.
>>>
>>>> Quite so. Has anyone claimed otherwise?
>>>  You rabbitted on about that accident would not have happened if the
>>> cars
>>> were parked on driveways. Pity that that isnt possible for so many
>>> streets.
>>
>> You don't "get" sarcasm, do you?
>
> Even more pathetic than you usually manage.

On 26/04/2022 10:14 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>
>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>
> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>
> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.

There are indeed detached cottages in existence.

But nothing like as many as there are workers' cottages in terraced form.
>
> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small building
> constructed in the local vernacular style.

When the term was introduced (whenever that was), that was probably more
or less the only form of the cottage. On that, I agree with you.

But that was then and this is now (or rather, it was a later time, at
least, than "then"). The heyday of the terraced cottage was the second
half of the C19 and the earlier part of C20. In villages such as this
one, one will often encounter a row of terraced houses (usually more
than three and no more than about ten) with the overall name "Xxxxxx
Cottages" (and often a C19 building date on a plaque). There are at
least four such locations I can think of within a half-mile of here.
They're really not very different from the "Coronation Street" type of
dwelling, except for the fact that sometimes, they are at right angles
to the nearest road and reachable only on foot.

On 26/04/2022 10:45, Robin wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 10:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a
>>> noticeable feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>>
>> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small
>> building constructed in the local vernacular style.
>>
>
> As the industrial revolution got going the term was often applied to any
> /relatively/ small home for labourers, factory workers etc.  Much of
> London's East End was built as "workers' cottages".  Other examples
> include the many "miners' cottages".
>
>
>
It is a word that changes meaning over time. Originally a cottage was
the dwelling of a cottager; somebody who owed allegiance to a feudal
lord in return for the cottage with enough land to feed a family
attached. (Not a person engaged in cottaging, which is something else
entirely).

In the 17th century, some of my ancestors lived in a row of 16th century
tied cottages, supplied by the farmer they worked for. Land to grow food
was still part of the deal. Today the original ten terraced cottages
have become two semi-detached cottages and the land for growing food is
now the gardens.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/04/2022 15:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 10:14 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a
>>> noticeable feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
> There are indeed detached cottages in existence.
>
> But nothing like as many as there are workers' cottages in terraced form.

Wrong.

>>
>> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small
>> building constructed in the local vernacular style.
>
> When the term was introduced (whenever that was), that was probably more
> or less the only form of the cottage. On that, I agree with you.
>
> But that was then and this is now (or rather, it was a later time, at
> least, than "then"). The heyday of the terraced cottage was the second
> half of the C19 and the earlier part of C20. In villages such as this
> one, one will often encounter a row of terraced houses (usually more
> than three and no more than about ten) with the overall name "Xxxxxx
> Cottages" (and often a C19 building date on a plaque). There are at
> least four such locations I can think of within a half-mile of here.
> They're really not very different from the "Coronation Street" type of
> dwelling, except for the fact that sometimes, they are at right angles
> to the nearest road and reachable only on foot.

Almost none like that here. In town the so called 'workers cottages' are
now 'period town houses'

--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

On 26/04/2022 04:59 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 15:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 10:14 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a
>>>> noticeable feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>
>>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
>> There are indeed detached cottages in existence.
>> But nothing like as many as there are workers' cottages in terraced form.
>
> Wrong.

One wonders how you could possibly have come to that conclusion. I'm not
aware of a single detached cottage within miles of here. The minimum
number is two, connected together in the normal terraced manner.

I could be mistaken and perhaps there is one. Or maybe two. But even if
there were, they would be vastly outnumbered by the short terraces of
between two and ten houses, built as farmworkers' cottages over a
hundred years ago. Not to mention the ones built and around in the
village centre and nearby.
>
>>> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small
>>> building constructed in the local vernacular style.
>
>> When the term was introduced (whenever that was), that was probably
>> more or less the only form of the cottage. On that, I agree with you.
>
>> But that was then and this is now (or rather, it was a later time, at
>> least, than "then"). The heyday of the terraced cottage was the second
>> half of the C19 and the earlier part of C20. In villages such as this
>> one, one will often encounter a row of terraced houses (usually more
>> than three and no more than about ten) with the overall name "Xxxxxx
>> Cottages" (and often a C19 building date on a plaque). There are at
>> least four such locations I can think of within a half-mile of here.
>> They're really not very different from the "Coronation Street" type of
>> dwelling, except for the fact that sometimes, they are at right angles
>> to the nearest road and reachable only on foot.
>
> Almost none like that here. In town the so called 'workers cottages' are
> now 'period town houses'

That may well be what the estate agents call them.

But they are what they were built as.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>> charles wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>> there is a car park.
>>
>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>
>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>
>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>
> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
> that has been granted by the Crown.

Or if it has a cathedral.

--
"What causes poverty?" Wrong question. Poverty is our primordial state. The real question is, "What causes wealth?"

Hint: it ain't Socialism.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>
> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>
> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.

Cottages are not built in terraces. "Cottage" is not a "posh term" for
anything.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
>>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
> Cottages are not built in terraces. "Cottage" is not a "posh term" for
> anything.
>

Well it is a bit posh for “public lavatory”.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In message <jcql95Fqs9bU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> writes
>On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>>> charles wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>>> there is a car park.
>>>
>>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>>
>>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>>
>>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>>
>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>
>Or if it has a cathedral.

Or an Abbey? City of St. Albans?
>

--
Tim Lamb

In article <jcql95Fqs9bU1@mid.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:

> > On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
> >> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
> >>> charles wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
> >>>>> there is a car park.
> >>
> >>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
> >>
> >>> Sounds like Long Melford.
> >>
> >> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
> >> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
> >> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
> >
> > That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
> > that has been granted by the Crown.

> Or if it has a cathedral.

No longer so. Guildford has a cathedral since the early 1960s, but is not
a city.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <jcl9bnFpiutU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Good to know you live somewhere so cheap.

> Good God, where on earth did that come from?

> I live about 30 miles from Central London. It's not Notting Hill or
> Hampstead, but certainly not "cheap". I tripled my mortgage when we
> moved south, forty years ago.

> And what does the availability of rented garages have to do with
> "cheapness" anyway?

Value of land, pet. You can make much more with housing than garages.

> You are irrational.

Yes dear.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <jcndptF7js7U1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:

> > On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
> >> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >
> >>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
> >>> parking.
> >
> >> And how would that be ?
> >> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
> >
> > Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
> > claimed to be but in reality may not.
> >
> > A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the cash
> > goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.

> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged upon
> domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as domestic
> insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing proportion of
> the final bill, too.

> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small contribution
> to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere near the true
> economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.

And just how do you value part of an existing road? It can't be built on.
So any value you care to give it hypothetical.

Different with new build estates, where the roads can be a legal minium
width.

> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain times
> of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of hours per
> day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the price would
> be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from public parking.

You seem to know little about how such things work.

Some may be residents only. Within certain times and days of the week.
Both of which vary by area. Some may also allow anyone to pay and park.
There can also be resident only bays and general ones in the same street.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was an accident in my road on Monday. About
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50 yards on from the end (T-junction). A Merc SUV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driven by a young woman claims to have swerved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other vehicles involved parked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It first hit the rear side of a BMW, scraped all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along it and broke off the front wheel and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspension. Next hit the Golf behind it pushing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rear well onto the pavement over a high kerb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Golf in turn hit a 911 and pushed that into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the car behind. At some point the Merc spun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways and hit a car parked on the other side..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewed out oil onto the road. No serious injury
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to driver or passenger in the Merc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police and emergency services soon at the scene..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driver apparently sober.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claimed to be observing the speed limit which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 mph.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If all the "victim" cars had been parked on their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners' driveways, they probably wouldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been damaged. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to re-design this part of London, then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Built before cars.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the road is the bit that belongs to the public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at large... yes?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether it is possible to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driveways there now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably true.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don't even have front yards, the front door is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly off the footpath.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am... er... familiar with that housing type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen it a few times before.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it was silly to rabbit on about how it wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have happened if they had been parked in driveways.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is no way to have a driveway with those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Victorian multi story strips of houses with not even a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> front
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yard where the front door opens directly onto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> footpath.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never seen the street in question and had no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on the housing form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of terraced housing and even other forms,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as flats and even semi-detached, parking on-street
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not always allowed (some such housing has double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yellow lines outside).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no prescriptive right to park outside and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a school of thought to the effect that all vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be garaged off street at the home of the owner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or user, with street parking only allowed at the far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of any journey.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All irrelevant to the fact that with victorian terraces,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no way to have a driveway,
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, no way to keep a motor vehicle, except at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the expense of others.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no viable alternative. Hardly viable to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the owners of the houses that they can't have a car.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they can if they can find some off-street parking for it.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just not feasible when the streets close to their house are
>>>>>>>>>>>> all like that.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It depends.
>>>>>>>>>>> There *is* a private sector for renting out garages.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But no way to add enough garages close to those houses for
>>>>>>>>>> that now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That does not affect the principle involved:
>>>>>>>>> the road does not belong to the residents any more than the road
>>>>>>>>> outside my house belongs to me (of course it doesn't).
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what is viable with those blocks of terraces with
>>>>>>>> no front yards at all which were built long before there were
>>>>>>>> any cars at all and which didn't even have stables for horses.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not economic to demolish an entire block of
>>>>>>>>>> those very expensive houses and replace them with
>>>>>>>>>> say a massive great multistory carpark now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The principle exists but obviously provision is not evenly
>>>>>>>>>>> spread.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact nothing even remotely like enough of them
>>>>>>>>>> with those streets where there is no front yard at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone..
>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I needed to (I don't), I could easily rent a garage in this
>>>>>>>>>>> village.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that village doesn't have streets of terrace houses with no
>>>>>>>>>> front yards at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> No such village.
>>>>
>>>>> You actually could not be more wrong.
>>
>>>> We'll see...
>>
>>> I don't know how you think you're going to prove yourself right on
>>> that. You can't, because you're wrong.
>> Then you won't have any difficulty naming that village.
>> And even if you can, it is completely irrelevant to PLOWCUNT'S STREET.
>>
>>>>> There are a lot of villages all over the UK with Victorian terraced
>>>>> property as either the dominant or a major housing form.
>>
>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>> there is a car park.
>>
>>>>> How can you not know that?
>>
>>> You can do that if there IS a car-park and if it is within walking
>>> distance.
>> And if there is such a village, of course it is possible to add a
>> carpark like that.
>>
>>>> How can you ignore the bit about walking to a car park ?
>>
>>> I didn't.
>>
>>>>>>>> If it had lots of adjacent streets with multi story terraces with
>>>>>>>> no front yards at all, built before there were any cars
>>>>>>>> at all, it wouldn't be a village.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever actually been to England?
>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. We have had this funky system called Google Street View
>>>>>> for more than a decade now and for at least century now, have had
>>>>>> that other funky system called movies and later video.
>>>>
>>>>> OK. So that's a "No".
>>>> There you go again, face down in the mud, as always.
>>
>>> Is it *not* a "No", then?
>>
>>> Have you ever been to England?
>> None of your business and irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
>> we have had google street view for more than a decade now.
>>
>>>>>>> You haven't been to this village.
>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know that either
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do. This village is in... er... England: one of the places
>>>>> you haven't been to.
>>
>>>> You don't know that last.
>>
>>> You avoided the question. The only reasonable interpretation of that
>>> is that you have never been to England.
>> Only for fools like you.
>>
>>> That's OK. There's no shame in it.
>> It isnt about shame.
>>
>>> I've never been to Australia.
>> Thank christ for that.
>>
>>> But I don't argue that I am familiar with Australian urban morphology.
>>> That'smainly because I'm not.
>> But are too stupid to use google street view when
>> discussing that is feasible parking wise.
>> It has in fact covered almost all of Australia and the UK.
>>
>>>>>> and even if I hadn't, I do know
>>>>>> that no village has enough streets where no driveway is
>>>>>> possible now and it isnt possible to walk to where cars
>>>>>> can be parked, or it wouldn't be a village, it would be a town.
>>>>
>>>>> Believe what you want to believe.
>>
>>>> Know what I know and can see from the Street View.
>>
>>>>> But even you must have heard of agricultural workers, miners, etc
>>>>> and their cottages.
>>
>>>> Those are irrelevant when discussing places WHERE
>>>> IT ISNT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY.
>>
>>> There are such places in English villages.
>> But with a VILLAGE it will always be possible to add a carpark within
>> walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.
>>
>>> In fact, it is a noticeable feature of almost every village where the
>>> housing form is predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for
>>> terraced houses).
>> But since it is a VILLAGE, it will always be possible to add a carpark
>> within walking distance if something needs to be done about parking.
>>
>>>>>> And your village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street
>>>>>> anyway.
>> No point in ignoring that, it won't go away.
>>
>>>>>>>>> AAMOF, there *are* such houses in this village which is hundreds
>>>>>>>>> of years old. There are even some terraced houses that do not
>>>>>>>>> front the road at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But no lots of adjacent streets like that or it wouldn't be a
>>>>>>>> village.
>>>>
>>>>> But it is a village.
>>>> But doesn't have lots of adjacent streets where there is no
>>>> possibility of a driveway or a carpark within walking distance.
>>>
>>> How do you say you know that?
>> I get real radical and use street view.
>>
>>> There are several car-parks in the village.
>> So your village is irrelevant to what is possible with PLOWCUNT'S
>> STREET.
>>
>>> I admit straightaway that I would not want to have to walk to and from
>>> any of them in order to park a car. But then, I don't need to. My
>>> house has a driveway and a garage (as do many others in the area,
>>> though certainly not all of them.
>> So your house is irrelevant to what is being discussed
>> and so is your village.
>>
>>>>>>> See my question a few lines above.
>>>
>>>>>> See my response to that.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> A village with some houses like that can have car
>>>>>>>> parking within easy walking distance of the houses.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe. Maybe not. "Easy walking distance" is a concept upon which
>>>>>>> there would be great variation in definition.
>>>>
>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>
>>> If the car-park were a half-mile away from the house,
>> That isnt a village.
>>
>>> would that be within "walking distance" in anything but a purely
>>> technical sense?
>>
>>>>> I dare say that some people who can't easily find a convenient and
>>>>> free space agree with you.
>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This one sounds a little startling, but in certain urban
>>>>>>>>>>> areas, there was, some years ago, during the reign of terror
>>>>>>>>>>> of John Prescott at Transport, a government scheme called
>>>>>>>>>>> "Pathfinders", wherein some streets of low-value terraced
>>>>>>>>>>> housing were to be CPd and demolished, in order to provide
>>>>>>>>>>> batches of off-street parking for the houses which had not
>>>>>>>>>>> been demolished. Sort of thinning out the herd to provide
>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but those streets of massive great multistory Victorian
>>>>>>>>>> very expensive terrace mansions with no front yards at all are
>>>>>>>>>> nothing like that.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you read the post to which you were responding?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I did. Not possible to decide to respond to one
>>>>>>>> without reading it and deciding to respond to that one.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems not, otherwise you would have seen the next bit:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did read that bit. It isn't relevant to what was being
>>>>>>>> discussed,
>>>>>>>> lots of adjacent streets all with massive great multistory
>>>>>>>> victorian
>>>>>>>> terraces houses with no front yards, built before cars were
>>>>>>>> invented.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Almost all houses in the UK are multi-storey.
>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>> What? :-)
>>
>>>> Pathetic.
>>
>>> If you think that most houses in the UK are bungalows,
>> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>
>>> you are in a dream world of your own.
>>>
>>> It does, however, explain some of what you write.
>> Pathetic.
>>
>>>>>>> If not, they are universally described as bungalows.
>>>>>> There are plenty of those.
>>>>
>>>>> Are there?
>>>> Corse there are.
>>>
>>> What proprtion?
>> Chase that up for yourself.
>>
>>> <checks the cupboard for popcorn>
>> Pathetic, as you always are when you have got done like a fucking
>> dinner.
>>
>>>>>>> The place I was describing has two-storey terraced houses each
>>>>>>> with three bedrooms (or fewer if one has been converted into a
>>>>>>> bathroom - which does happen). Very large mansion housing tends to
>>>>>>> have more controllable open air space, including the ability to
>>>>>>> create a hard-standing. Not always, but it hardly matters since we
>>>>>>> are not talking about such housing.
>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the fact that there are lots of streets with no space
>>>>>> between the houses and no front yard at all, where it isnt possible
>>>>>> to have a driveway.
>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of such places. In cities, towns and villages.
>>
>>>> Duh, so it was stupid of you to rabbit on about driveways.
>>
>>> Not at all.
>> Fraid so.
>>
>>> The road STILL doesn't belong to the occupants of the nearest house.
>> Irrelevant to what is possible with parking.
>>
>>>>>>> It is not clear to me that Mr Plowman lives in a mansion, though
>>>>>>> he might do for all the information that I have (and it's none of
>>>>>>> my business).
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about unimproved houses worth probably about
>>>>>>>>>>> £12,000 - £15,000 at the time. I know because a relative owned
>>>>>>>>>>> one of them. He wasn't bothered about it and was even looking
>>>>>>>>>>> forward to the move, but many others were opposed and the
>>>>>>>>>>> government eventually dropped the scheme (after blighting the
>>>>>>>>>>> areas concerned for some years).
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing like what we are discussing.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> See, that was my response to that para.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheaper, certainly (around 250 miles from London).
>>>>
>>>>>>>> So irrelevant to the street the plowcunt has a victorian house
>>>>>>>> in.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the principle is the same.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The principle is irrelevant. What we are discussing is what is
>>>>>>>> possible with those streets.
>>>
>>> Principle is never irrelevant.
>> More of your mindless bullshit.
>>
>>>>>>> The same things are possible, including the use of double-yellow
>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>
>>>>>> BUT NOT DRIVEWAYS.
>>>>
>>>>> Quite so. Has anyone claimed otherwise?
>>>> You rabbitted on about that accident would not have happened if the
>>>> cars
>>>> were parked on driveways. Pity that that isnt possible for so many
>>>> streets.
>>>
>>> You don't "get" sarcasm, do you?
>> Even more pathetic than you usually manage.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> The Natural Philosopher wrote
>> JNugent wrote

>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.

> There are indeed detached cottages in existence.

> But nothing like as many as there are workers' cottages in terraced form.

But plenty of those do have a front yard and so can have a driveway.

>> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small building
>> constructed in the local vernacular style.

> When the term was introduced (whenever that was), that was probably more
> or less the only form of the cottage. On that, I agree with you.

> But that was then and this is now (or rather, it was a later time, at
> least, than "then"). The heyday of the terraced cottage was the second
> half of the C19 and the earlier part of C20. In villages such as this
> one, one will often encounter a row of terraced houses (usually more
> than three and no more than about ten) with the overall name "Xxxxxx
> Cottages" (and often a C19 building date on a plaque). There are at
> least four such locations I can think of within a half-mile of here.
> They're really not very different from the "Coronation Street" type of
> dwelling, except for the fact that sometimes, they are at right angles
> to the nearest road and reachable only on foot.

So it is perfectly possible to have car parking within easy walking
distance
and it is all irrelevant to what is possible in the plowcunt's street.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote
> The Natural Philosopher wrote
>> JNugent wrote
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote
>>>> JNugent wrote

>>>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a
>>>>> noticeable feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>>>> predominantly the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>>>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>>
>>> There are indeed detached cottages in existence.
>>> But nothing like as many as there are workers' cottages in terraced
>>> form.
>> Wrong.
>
> One wonders how you could possibly have come to that conclusion. I'm not
> aware of a single detached cottage within miles of here. The minimum
> number is two, connected together in the normal terraced manner.
>
> I could be mistaken and perhaps there is one. Or maybe two. But even if
> there were, they would be vastly outnumbered by the short terraces of
> between two and ten houses, built as farmworkers' cottages over a
> hundred years ago.

But those can obviously have car parking in easy walking distance.
And plenty of them have front yards that can be used for car parking.

And it's all irrelevant to what is possible with streets like the
plowcunt's.

> Not to mention the ones built and around in the village centre and
> nearby.

Which always do have car parking available.

>>>> The term really seems to refer to a an older style rural small
>>>> building constructed in the local vernacular style.
>>
>>> When the term was introduced (whenever that was), that was probably
>>> more or less the only form of the cottage. On that, I agree with you.
>>
>>> But that was then and this is now (or rather, it was a later time, at
>>> least, than "then"). The heyday of the terraced cottage was the second
>>> half of the C19 and the earlier part of C20. In villages such as this
>>> one, one will often encounter a row of terraced houses (usually more
>>> than three and no more than about ten) with the overall name "Xxxxxx
>>> Cottages" (and often a C19 building date on a plaque). There are at
>>> least four such locations I can think of within a half-mile of here.
>>> They're really not very different from the "Coronation Street" type of
>>> dwelling, except for the fact that sometimes, they are at right angles
>>> to the nearest road and reachable only on foot.

>> Almost none like that here. In town the so called 'workers cottages'
>> are now 'period town houses'
>
> That may well be what the estate agents call them.
>
> But they are what they were built as.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:36:14 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
>>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
> Cottages are not built in terraces.

Some are, most obviously with miners' cottages.

> "Cottage" is not a "posh term" for
> anything.

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> More mindless legalistic nit picking.

> Shouldn't 'nit picking' be hyphenated (ie, 'nit-picking')

No, he is picking nits.

> - or would that be nit-picking?

No, nit picking.

On 26 Apr 2022 at 19:23:41 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:36:14 +1000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
>>>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>>
>>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>>
>>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>>
>> Cottages are not built in terraces.
>
> Some are, most obviously with miners' cottages.

No one would call those cottages these days.

--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

On 26/04/2022 17:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>>> charles wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>>> there is a car park.
>>>
>>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>>
>>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>>
>>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>>
>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>
> Or if it has a cathedral.
>

Tell that to Rochester: still has its cathedral but lost the city status
it had had since the 13th century in a local govt reorganisation in
1998. The then City Council were told by Westminster what to do to keep
it but declined to do so.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 05:41:35 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 26 Apr 2022 at 19:23:41 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:36:14 +1000, Tim Streater
>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a
>>>>> noticeable
>>>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is
>>>>> predominantly
>>>>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>>>
>>>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>>>
>>>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>>>
>>> Cottages are not built in terraces.
>>
>> Some are, most obviously with miners' cottages.
>
> No one would call those cottages these days.

https://www.google.com/search?q=miners+cottages+uk

On 26/04/2022 17:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>>> charles wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>>> there is a car park.
>>>
>>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>>
>>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>>
>>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>>
>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>
> Or if it has a cathedral.
>

Building a cathedral does not automatically confer city status. The
place still needs a city charter from the Crown. However, historically,
the two have always gone together.

--
Colin Bignell

Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 17:34, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>>>> charles wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>>>> there is a car park.
>>>>
>>>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>>>
>>>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>>>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>>>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>>>
>>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>>
>> Or if it has a cathedral.
>>
>
> Building a cathedral does not automatically confer city status. The
> place still needs a city charter from the Crown. However, historically,
> the two have always gone together.

Have usually gone together.

Brechin is not officially a city.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 27/04/2022 09:27, Tim+ wrote:
> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 17:34, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 08:49:47 BST, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/2022 23:27, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote
>>>>>> charles wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if it is actually a VILLAGE it would be possible to walk to where
>>>>>>>> there is a car park.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like Long Melford.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is very little of that where a driveway isn't possible and any
>>>>> village is completely irrelevant to the plowcunt's street anyway.
>>>>> It is in the center of by far the biggest city in the entire country.
>>>>
>>>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>>>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>>>
>>> Or if it has a cathedral.
>>>
>>
>> Building a cathedral does not automatically confer city status. The
>> place still needs a city charter from the Crown. However, historically,
>> the two have always gone together.
>
> Have usually gone together.
>
> Brechin is not officially a city.

I wasn't aware of that. However, the granting of city status to places
with diocesan cathedrals was linked to the power of the Church in the
mediaeval English Court. Perhaps they did things differently in Scotland.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/04/2022 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 10:14:40 BST, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 02:33, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> There are such places in English villages. In fact, it is a noticeable
>>> feature of almost every village where the housing form is predominantly
>>> the cottage (which is a posh term for terraced houses).
>>
>> I always assumed you were a UK citizen and knew something about the UK
>>
>> Many cottages - if not the majority - are in fact detached.
>
> Cottages are not built in terraces. "Cottage" is not a "posh term" for
> anything.
>

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some of my ancestors were farm
workers, living in tied cottages. The cottages were built on the farm as
a terrace of 10 (possibly 9) in the 16th century. Today, they have been
converted into two dwellings, making a pair of semi-detached cottages.

--
Colin Bignell