Jump to content

Wellbeing in Worksop....CRT in trouble


matty40s

Featured Posts

13 hours ago, PaulD said:

If we didn't give wealthy pensioners like me bus passes, winter fuel allowances, and other bribes to vote conservative we might be able to solve the growing homelessness problem and become a first world country again.

 

I don't think cutting those universal benefits would even start to make a dent to the scale of the housing crisis in this country. When people say "build more homes to solve the housing crisis" I'm not sure if they realise that with the UK population increasing by about the size of a city like Cardiff every year, providing new housing to cope with that demand is a physical impossibility, especially given the fact that while we all want more affordable housing, nobody actually wants the new houses built in their neighbourhoods.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7667583/Location-Location-Location-presenter-Phil-Spencer-leads-opposition-Hampshire-plan-800-homes.html

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2018based

 

 

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science of flood management has evolved to include  managing the speed of discharge of water downstream.They call it The time of concentration of catchments.

Catchments that have been designed to be  efficient in removing water quickly  from one area are also efficient in quickly discharging this slug of water downstream regardless of consequence. Large areas of surface piped away such as paving and rooftops, have short concentration times, as does steep hillsides with grazing pasture.

Straightening water courses shortens this time of concentration and confining water courses between floodbanks raises peak levels. 

The effect of this traditional stormwater design has been that peak flows have intensified but their duration shortened.But when combined with constrained water channels peak water levels have been raised increasingly often catastrophically.

Rapid climate warming by increasing the energy available in weather systems is worldwide, exceeding the rate in which flood defences are being raised.

In response enlightened authorities are moving towards designing to systematically lower the time of concentration of catchments.

Such things as reafforestation of steep slopes,  and the provision of more floodable channelside buffer water storage in wetlands and meadows, all to slow the time of stormwater concentration, in other words prolonging the period of high water flow as a trade off for reducing peak water levels.

I am afraid though organisational inertia appears to be much greater then the rate of climate change induced storm intensification.

The old ways of quickly draining the water without regard to downstream consequences are still very much in evidence even in new works.

Compassion for the victims of flooding, or bush fires, is simply not enough. As a society we need to make drastic changes to how how we are doing things, urgently, like as of right now.

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

"most"? Nah! More than 70% of the houses round me haven't been sold off. Remind me how much profit persimmon, barret and their ilk made from building houses? That would build a few more. Have you seen what tiny shoe boxes they are too, tiny gardens around them. Give me a roomy council house and garden any day. I'm happy to pay whatever tax I'm eligible to pay, when I first started work it was 35%. 

Oddly we have found completely the opposite of what you say.

 

Having recently moved from a 2 bed ex council semi to a new build David Wilson Homes (Barratt) house we have experience of both.

 

The council house had a bigger plot but that is the only thing it has that the new build doesn't and in reality we have far more useable garden now as it is level whereas the old one was steep. 

 

The new build isn't on paper much larger than the old house but it uses the space far better and feels much bigger. No space is wasted.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

The new build isn't on paper much larger than the old house but it uses the space far better and feels much bigger. No space is wasted.

Surely having a 3-bedroom house that's about the same size as your old 2-bedroom house proves @Jim Riley's point.  

 

I understand your point that the use of space is better in the new house, but if you had an extra bedroom at your old house then the property would have been bigger than your new house.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Surely having a 3-bedroom house that's about the same size as your old 2-bedroom house proves @Jim Riley's point.  

 

I understand your point that the use of space is better in the new house, but if you had an extra bedroom at your old house then the property would have been bigger than your new house.

 

 

No the space in the old house was wasted with rubbish room layouts and an excess of hallway for the size of the house. 

 

This house is about 150sqft bigger than the last one. But it fits in an extra bedroom,  extra bathroom, and rooms that feel much larger and far more spacious. 

 

It is also as would be expected far more energy efficient. It runs on fresh air so far. We are looking forward to a super warm and cosy winter this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

 

I don't think cutting those universal benefits would even start to make a dent to the scale of the housing crisis in this country. When people say "build more homes to solve the housing crisis" I'm not sure if they realise that with the UK population increasing by about the size of a city like Cardiff every year, providing new housing to cope with that demand is a physical impossibility, especially given the fact that while we all want more affordable housing, nobody actually wants the new houses built in their neighbourhoods.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7667583/Location-Location-Location-presenter-Phil-Spencer-leads-opposition-Hampshire-plan-800-homes.html

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2018based

 

 

Interesting that latest 2019 figures show that annual immigration is 59,000 from EU and 200,000 from outside EU. So Brexit will not solve that problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Murflynn said:

is it the responsibility of the council to go around each evening, look for 'homeless' folk sleeping in wheelie bins (who may have been at the boozer and missed the last bus home) and forcibly march them to a convenient 'home' ?     just askin' ......................  

Yes :)

11 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

Out of interest, how much more tax would you be happy to pay to provide decent housing to the thousands if not millions of deserving cases?  

50%

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Yes :)

50%

:)

 

Years ago, I remember a telephone call in programme of the radio and this bloke was saying he would be more than happy to pay an extra penny or two on his income tax if it meant all the homeless people could be given a council house. 

 

He went on to say with commendable largesse that an extra 10p, or even an extra quid on his tax bill would be fine as this would probably save the NHS too.....

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

"Two homeless men almost drowned when they became trapped in an industrial wheelie bin they had been sleeping in."

 

Why is this council allowing people to sleep in wheelie bins?

Outrageously, and especially since austerity policies cut funding,  there are many people trying to find somewhere dry to sleep. 

Sorry. Just saw that post and hadn't read further. Now see I'm not the only one who hates the way society treats those in need. 

Edited by Mrs Trackman
Now read other posts
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would imagine that one of the big industrial wheelie bins would be ok on a cold night. The crucial bit isn't just the lid to keep the rain off, but the fact that you're off the ground, which is where the cold really comes from. It's fifty years since I was sleeping rough, but you don't forget, and you don't mock those that do. 

and in view that, according to the BBC news, the majority of those sleeping rough are from broken homes, we should be asking why the taxpayer should be expected to pick up the tag for folk who don't get along with each other at home.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

and in view that, according to the BBC news, the majority of those sleeping rough are from broken homes, we should be asking why the taxpayer should be expected to pick up the tag for folk who don't get along with each other at home.

Is that how you regard broken homes? Folk who don't get along with each other? Incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst it seems obvious that the council should prevent people sleeping in wheely bins on one level, on another I find the idea makes me faintly uneasy.

 

Firstly, because the obvious way the council will do it is take away the wheely bins, so homeless people are back to sleeping on the cold ground. 

 

Secondly, because I was made homeless by the council many years ago. They decided I should be prevented from living on my boat which must obviously be a substandard hovel, and evicted me from the mooring site. I actually wanted to live on my boat but I was allowed no say in the matter. I'm not saying I think people want to sleep in wheely bins, but calls to prevent people sleeping in wheely bins follows the same vein of thinking, does the team not see?

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Whilst it seems obvious that the council should prevent people sleeping in wheely bins on one level, on another I find the idea makes me faintly uneasy.

 

Firstly, because the obvious way the council will do it is take away the wheely bins, so homeless people are back to sleeping on the cold ground. 

 

Secondly, because I was made homeless by the council many years ago. They decided I should be prevented from living on my boat which must obviously be a substandard hovel, and evicted me from the mooring site. I actually wanted to live on my boat but I was allowed no say in the matter. I'm not saying I think people want to sleep in wheely bins, but calls to prevent people sleeping in wheely bins follows the same vein of thinking, does the team not see?

A year or three ago, in our marina, a moorer had a stroke, he made a partial recovery but the local council refused to give him 'services' (treatment, help, visits, etc etc) unless he (and his wife) moved off the boat and into a council bungalow. He had spent many, many years in his 'home' but eventually had to bite the bullet and move out. It was not a choice he made willingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

and in view that, according to the BBC news, the majority of those sleeping rough are from broken homes, we should be asking why the taxpayer should be expected to pick up the tag for folk who don't get along with each other at home.

A 40 year old should be living with mum and dad?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Is that how you regard broken homes? Folk who don't get along with each other? Incredible.

having watched an interview of 2 young homeless people introduced by a spokesman for a charity for the homeless, that is exactly why they were homeless - they simply didn't get on with the parent they were living with............................  the charity confirmed that at least 50% were in this category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

having watched an interview of 2 young homeless people introduced by a spokesman for a charity for the homeless, that is exactly why they were homeless - they simply didn't get on with the parent they were living with............................  the charity confirmed that at least 50% were in this category.

An entire two homeless people! Well, I take it back! You're not the heartless bastard you made yourself out to be!

 

Call me skeptical but I don't believe for a microsecond that 50% of homeless people are homeless because they don't get on with their parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

having watched an interview of 2 young homeless people introduced by a spokesman for a charity for the homeless, that is exactly why they were homeless - they simply didn't get on with the parent they were living with............................  the charity confirmed that at least 50% were in this category.

You don't risk dying of exposure just because you don't get on with your parents. Sometimes you just don't like them beating you up much. And sometimes you don't want to say that on TV because they might find you and do it again. Sleeping in shop doorways is rarely someone's first choice as a lifestyle. "not getting on" covers a multitude of abusive circumstances. Most families are OK. Some are horrible. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Laurie.Booth said:

50% more than I am paying now

:)

I would pay 100% more tax than I pay now ;)

 

 

 

My gross earnings including state pension is just shy of £11k

I'm not one of those on an armed forces/police/civil service pension 

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Whilst it seems obvious that the council should prevent people sleeping in wheely bins on one level, on another I find the idea makes me faintly uneasy.

 

Firstly, because the obvious way the council will do it is take away the wheely bins, so homeless people are back to sleeping on the cold ground. 

 

Secondly, because I was made homeless by the council many years ago. They decided I should be prevented from living on my boat which must obviously be a substandard hovel, and evicted me from the mooring site. I actually wanted to live on my boat but I was allowed no say in the matter. I'm not saying I think people want to sleep in wheely bins, but calls to prevent people sleeping in wheely bins follows the same vein of thinking, does the team not see?

I have heard you say the council thing before Mike it fills me with horror that idiots in offices don't live in the real world.  Of course those same idiots have been putting children in boats recently but that was ok.......?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

I'm not one of those on an armed forces/police/civil service pension 

Well, at the risk of sounding like that little dig had irked me, the fact that you don't have said pension could always be because you didn't give a lifetime of service to your country, couldn't it. ;)

 

The military pension was a dangling carrot intended to keep the expensively trained workforce (particularly senior ones who cannot be replaced from outside) from going elsewhere, and in part to mitigate for the potential for the vagaries of the job to terminate their life considerably early.  It should also be recognised that, whilst the majority did survive, life expectancy post military service was on average also pretty short.  So, whilst the pension sounded pretty good in the past, most didn't draw it for very long - you could say it wasn't really a higher pension, just a faster one!  :D

 

All that has changed now though, following 2 reviews in the past decade.  Frankly, whilst I am "lucky"* enough to have a military pension from a full career, it wasn't without hard work and much sacrifice, and the attractive pension was a significant deciding factor in my length of service: under the present pension scheme I very much doubt I'd have served long enough to earn one.

 

*  I don't consider there was much luck about it - I knew the terms and conditions of the bargain (and we bore the penalties they imposed upon my family) and kept my side of it in full.  Anyone willing and able to keep a similar bargain with the armed forces could have earned a commensurate reward.

 

(I'll let the Police and Civil Servants speak for themselves as, whilst their pensions are generally more generous, the justifications are different and a little outside my experience)

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Well, at the risk of sounding like that little dig had irked me, the fact that you don't have said pension could always be because you didn't give a lifetime of service to your country, couldn't it. ;)

 

The military pension was a dangling carrot intended to keep the expensively trained workforce (particularly senior ones who cannot be replaced from outside) from going elsewhere, and in part to mitigate for the potential for the vagaries of the job to terminate their life considerably early.  It should also be recognised that, whilst the majority did survive, life expectancy post military service was on average also pretty short.  So, whilst the pension sounded pretty good in the past, most didn't draw it for very long - you could say it wasn't really a higher pension, just a faster one!  :D

 

All that has changed now though, following 2 reviews in the past decade.  Frankly, whilst I am "lucky"* enough to have a military pension from a full career, it wasn't without hard work and much sacrifice, and the attractive pension was a significant deciding factor in my length of service: under the present pension scheme I very much doubt I'd have served long enough to earn one.

 

*  I don't consider there was much luck about it - I knew the terms and conditions of the bargain (and we bore the penalties they imposed upon my family) and kept my side of it in full.  Anyone willing and able to keep a similar bargain with the armed forces could have earned a commensurate reward.

 

(I'll let the Police and Civil Servants speak for themselves as, whilst their pensions are generally more generous, the justifications are different and a little outside my experience)

I draw 3 pensions all related to my military service, I am 40% disabled so they are all tax free,  I still managed to get just under 22 years in so feel that I kept my side of the bargain, would I do it again? Yes in a heartbeat for reasons many would never understand, but the ex forces ones would 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/11/2019 at 13:23, PaulD said:

If we didn't give wealthy pensioners like me bus passes, winter fuel allowances, and other bribes to vote conservative we might be able to solve the growing homelessness problem and become a first world country again.

 

On 15/11/2019 at 13:27, Athy said:

But if such people did not receive these passes and allowances, some of them would be considerably less wealthy.

Were these things withdrawn when a Labour government was in power?

I thought they were introduced by Labour government ? 

Including a return to free entrance into museums. ?

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.