Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Indeed - however I stay open to the possibility that someone can prove that we have a right to make other people keep us alive, give us information and such.


As Cameron's "Big Society" proved, people are all for less government intrusion and taxation, until government says it's going to stop providing something they want provided - and then it becomes toffs trying to cut stuff that the poor need to stay alive...

 

[Lizard]

Thanks Famine

 

[Liquid]

As Cameron's "Big Society" proved, people are all for less government intrusion and taxation, until government says it's going to stop providing something they want provided - and then it becomes toffs trying to cut stuff that the poor need to stay alive...

I think it's the viciousness of the cuts that people don't like. Necessary, but unpopular.

A lot more needs to change than simply cutting services though. I can tell you for sure that some people are genuinely dependant on benefits and are desperate to find work but cannot find any within a 20 mile radius, and taking away that JSA will see them starve and struggle even more.

It's a very delicate matter, and I don't know what would be the answer. By taking away the benefits for example, there needs to be an immediate increase in the number of available jobs, which has been a great struggle over the past 3 years. The general psyche of young people and their attitude towards work needs to change too, which means teaching needs to change, which means even more things need to be considered and so on. I am of the opinion that more discipline is required in classrooms, and more practical applications should be on offer in schools to get people used to the idea of work, and hopefully show them that it's better than being unemployed alcoholics who end up on the Jeremy Kyle Show.

As for the rest of the 'Big Society', could someone refresh my memory and tell me exactly what the Government's plans are?

 

[Famine]

I think it's the viciousness of the cuts that people don't like. Necessary, but unpopular.

It's another reflection of the Daily-Mail-ish mindset that has crippled our country - it's absolutely fine to cut or ban things you* don't agree with, but when it comes to your own thing it's unnecessary government intrusion...

Ultimately, the less we rely on government, the more efficient the service becomes and the more effective a government becomes. The service needs to be cut before the funding to it is removed (taxation is reduced) or we run a deficit.

As for the rest of the 'Big Society', could someone refresh my memory and tell me exactly what the Government's plans are?

No, because I'm not sure they have exact plans. It's just a nice-sounding buzz phrase - but it goes hand-in-hand with "Small Goverment".

I can't imagine they'll vote to reduce their own size, scope and salaries though. Many of them get elected on the basis of nannying us by banning things the DM Brigade want banned - they'd fight tooth and nail to keep their six figure salaries, limitless expenses and mistresses other perks from busybodying, and so long as there's 650 of them, one Prime Minister can't make a difference for the better even if they had a good plan.


* General societal "you", not you specifically.

 

[Liquid]

No, because I'm not sure they have exact plans. It's just a nice-sounding buzz phrase - but it goes hand-in-hand with "Small Goverment".

So my thoughts were right, it's a populist phrase with no substance at present which has ended up being ridiculed by the opposition in their typical anti-whatever the Government says rhetoric, but is actually relevant if there aren't actually any plans. Yet.

The Daily Fail are pretty bad, but the press generally are terrible in this country. Far too concentrated in trivial celebrity nonsense and hating anything foreign.

---

Generic you: Don't worry, I'm well aware of the difference. 'One' is the more accurate pronoun if need be.

 

[Famine]

There are a few specifics.

The essence of the idea was to reduce government-funded programs in favour of charity- or private-funded ones and to devolve some powers from national government to local government. Exactly what schemes, powers and programs are involved... *shrug*

 

[ExigeEvan]

As for the rest of the 'Big Society', could someone refresh my memory and tell me exactly what the Government's plans are?

A bit off topic but something that has happened recently.

For a couple of years now local mountain bikers and trail riders have created a series of trails and jumps through an area of woodland that is publicly owned and already has a paved cycle trail going through the middle of it.

They've done this off their own backs and created a high quality facility with no public funding that attracts people from a wide area and has received zero complaints because these cyclists really do a good job of cleaning up and maintaining the local environment. Great.

But they didn't have planning permission, so without even a warning the council started levelling it. What in the hell.

 

[ASH32]

Someone probably got hurt and then health and safety will have had it shut down, that wouldn't surprise me. If free running/Parkour gets any bigger then you can bet they'll decide that's too dangerous and anti-social and start giving out fines and asbos for it.

 

[Liquid]

But they didn't have planning permission, so without even a warning the council started levelling it. What in the hell.

Unbelievable. People doing what the Government wants/is trying to encourage, and the councils get all uppity about it. Especially so when it wasn't causing a problem.

 

[Famine]

I just want to check...

It was on public land (thus owned by everyone) and they didn't get permission from the body elected (in ideal circumstances) to represent everyone within the area the public land was in to modify the land for their purposes?

If that's the case then, aside from the fact that local taxpayer money was wasted, I don't have an immediate problem with the council's response. Do what you like on your own land (again, ideally), but public space is for the public rather than a small section of the public and you need to gain permission from the body that represents that public before you divert it for your own purposes. Since they didn't, that body returned it to its original (presumably - only with more caterpillar tracks) state - and if I were a member of the local community I'd want the people who effectively stole that land billed for its reclamation.

 

[Liquid]

If nobody had lodged any formal complaints, it's legally correct but heavy-handed on those who did all the grafting.

Had they asked for permission, my own cynical view is that it's doubtful that they would have given it. And even if they had, they'd want a say in how it was built and used taxpayers' money to built it, whereas from the sound of it, the locals did a stern effort with some good old fashioned elbow grease.

In this particular case the interest is there for the facilities to exist, but because it wasn't done by the book it's been destroyed. Councils abuse power to spy on us via our bins, but as soon as we step out of line they come down on us like a ton of bricks.

Relating it to the big society, something must be done to trim down council powers and wastage. But as Famine has already alluded to, the politicians don't really want small Government because that would mean that they would be out of a job and no longer be able to profligate whilst contempting us for our needless excuses.

I need to get back into the country. I'm too out of the loop to make any sense....

 

[Famine]

If nobody had lodged any formal complaints, it's legally correct but heavy-handed on those who did all the grafting.

Yes and no. Their grafting wasn't legal so they shouldn't have done it.

Had they asked for permission, my own cynical view is that it's doubtful that they would have given it.

If there were no complaints, there'd be no reason for the council to reject it but it's public land and that means the council effectively owns it, which means...

And even if they had, they'd want a say in how it was built and used taxpayers' money to built it, whereas from the sound of it, the locals did a stern effort with some good old fashioned elbow grease.

That.

This, ultimately is the problem with the scenario. The council shouldn't own the land - they should just manage it to prevent abuse. It neatly ties in with what the actual point of governing bodies is - to provide force to uphold rights where individuals cannot do so themselves. The land is public and a small group of people chose to abuse the property rights of the public, the council providing the force to restore it.

In this particular case the interest is there for the facilities to exist, but because it wasn't done by the book it's been destroyed. Councils abuse power to spy on us via our bins, but as soon as we step out of line they come down on us like a ton of bricks.

Relating it to the big society, something must be done to trim down council powers and wastage. But as Famine has already alluded to, the politicians don't really want small Government because that would mean that they would be out of a job and no longer be able to profligate whilst contempting us for our needless excuses.

In this instance, part of Big Society has been fulfilled - devolution of such powers to local government rather than national. It's just the local governments have conflicting interests because they're the de facto land owners - they don't want the public providing for each other on their land.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Just a quick question for those who don't think there should be free education (government provided).

Do you mean optional education or all education, even the mandatory one?

 

[ExigeEvan]

I just want to check...

It was on public land (thus owned by everyone) and they didn't get permission from the body elected (in ideal circumstances) to represent everyone within the area the public land was in to modify the land for their purposes?

If that's the case then, aside from the fact that local taxpayer money was wasted, I don't have an immediate problem with the council's response. Do what you like on your own land (again, ideally), but public space is for the public rather than a small section of the public and you need to gain permission from the body that represents that public before you divert it for your own purposes. Since they didn't, that body returned it to its original (presumably - only with more caterpillar tracks) state - and if I were a member of the local community I'd want the people who effectively stole that land billed for its reclamation.

I don't dispute the legality of the Council's actions and their right to act as they see fit.

However, the I posted it in regard to "Big Society". The Government's plan to transfer responsibility from the public sector and into the private and charitable sector. This facility is simply dirt. It is literally that. Dirt jumps in a forested area, and not one with any environmental protection or any significant species present.

As it's also a youth orientated facility, of which there are few in the area, it's well supported by the local community.

So while it can legally be justified it cannot logically, or in regard to "Big Society" be done so.

 

[Famine]

However, the I posted it in regard to "Big Society". The Government's plan to transfer responsibility from the public sector and into the private and charitable sector.

Not quite. You've missed a step in the chain - devolving powers from national government to local government. Like your council.

This facility is simply dirt. It is literally that. Dirt jumps in a forested area, and not one with any environmental protection or any significant species present.

As it's also a youth orientated facility, of which there are few in the area, it's well supported by the local community.

So while it can legally be justified it cannot logically, or in regard to "Big Society" be done so.

Yes it can, for myriad reasons.

"Big Society" doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't mean you can do what you want so long as people don't complain about it. It doesn't mean you get to unilaterally abuse property (including land) that is public. It also doesn't apply in Wales - Big Society is England only, I'm afraid.

Public land isn't yours to do with as you please. It isn't mine to do with as I please. It is ours and that means we need to come to agreement between us how to use it. Ideally, this is why local councils exist - to provide the forum for that agreement and prevent or repair any abuse of the property - but the present reality is that they own it. Hopefully we can return to a state where we own the land again and they simply enforce property rights - but even then, the folks acting alone to convert public property to their own purposes would need permission from (a majority of) the rest of us.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Not quite. You've missed a step in the chain - devolving powers from national government to local government. Like your council.

Yes it can, for myriad reasons.

"Big Society" doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't mean you can do what you want so long as people don't complain about it. It doesn't mean you get to unilaterally abuse property (including land) that is public. It also doesn't apply in Wales - Big Society is England only, I'm afraid.

Public land isn't yours to do with as you please. It isn't mine to do with as I please. It is ours and that means we need to come to agreement between us how to use it. Ideally, this is why local councils exist - to provide the forum for that agreement and prevent or repair any abuse of the property - but the present reality is that they own it. Hopefully we can return to a state where we own the land again and they simply enforce property rights - but even then, the folks acting alone to convert public property to their own purposes would need permission from (a majority of) the rest of us.

All great points, but given this is the same council that can't take control of a "traveller" issue in the area (Including an illegal one demanding £90,000 of facilities); has seen documentaries on heroin addicts (Youtube: Swansea Love Story) and homelessness (Swansea: Living on the street) filmed on the streets; has made a decision on the first strip club in the city, but won't announce the decision until after local elections; and now destroys popular unfunded facilities, I can't honestly say I take any of them to heart.

 

[Famine]

All great points, but given this is the same council that can't take control of a "traveller" issue in the area (Including an illegal one demanding £90,000 of facilities); has seen documentaries on heroin addicts (Youtube: Swansea Love Story) and homelessness (Swansea: Living on the street) filmed on the streets; has made a decision on the first strip club in the city, but won't announce the decision until after local elections; and now destroys popular unfunded facilities, I can't honestly say I take any of them to heart.

Indeed - but it doesn't detract from the point that, every now and then, they can act as they should. Protecting rights - in this case public property rights - is one of those functions they should fulfil.

 

[boiltheocean]

A bit off topic but something that has happened recently.

For a couple of years now local mountain bikers and trail riders have created a series of trails and jumps through an area of woodland that is publicly owned and already has a paved cycle trail going through the middle of it.

They've done this off their own backs and created a high quality facility with no public funding that attracts people from a wide area and has received zero complaints because these cyclists really do a good job of cleaning up and maintaining the local environment. Great.

But they didn't have planning permission, so without even a warning the council started levelling it. What in the hell.

That happens far too often in the dirt jumping community, especially due to the younger average age of participants. Heck, even with planning permission places are still under threat because one or two don't like it or big housing developments want them gone.

By the way are you talking about Moo's trails?

 

[ExigeEvan]

By the way are you talking about Moo's trails?

Yep.

 

[boiltheocean]

Yep.

They actually have planning permission, the current dispute means that they can ride and maintain all existing trails but no new trails can be built. Sadly the council came and started ploughing a few old things anyway because they don't ask or check before they go in destroying years of delicate, loving work.

 

[ExigeEvan]

They actually have planning permission, the current dispute means that they can ride and maintain all existing trails but no new trails can be built. Sadly the council came and started ploughing a few old things anyway because they don't ask or check before they go in destroying years of delicate, loving work.

I understand that yes they have planning permission for some of the routes, but there's quite a lot of stuff down there, new and old, that they don't have it for that's simply an expansion.

 

[Liquid]

Says a report on The Telegraph's website.

Article

Obviously I wouldn't look into it that much, but it's a bit of fun, I suppose.

Thank Christ Wrexham isn't the worst place in Wales.

Chester, Cardiff and Manchester are also fine cities.

Whenever lists like this come out, I'm always reminded of this:

 

[Lizard]

Aldershot is not that bad.

 

[Crumpet]

Chester, Cardiff and Manchester are also fine cities.

I live in Manchester, I think its a dump...

 

[Wiegert]

I surprised that my home town isn't on that list, and that Windsor and Winchester are on it, especially so high up as well. Some of those locations are typically seen on these lists, like Hull for example.


I'm not one to judge though, having never visited many of those places.

 

[PeterJB]

Bath seems way too high. I'm not too fond of it, but it's a reasonably nice looking city.

 

[E28]

Windsor is 2nd? I always thought it was a nice place to live...

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Bath seems way too high. I'm not too fond of it, but it's a reasonably nice looking city.

Yup, Bath is way too high. Never have trouble in Bath, but plenty in Bristol.

 

[Lizard]

Yup, Bath is way too high. Never have trouble in Bath, but plenty in Bristol.

Never noticed that.
Bath needs to come off the list its a great city.
And like I said how can Aldershot be on the list its the safest place in the UK. (From invasions)

 

[Emptyone]

Yup, Bath is way too high. Never have trouble in Bath, but plenty in Bristol.

Thank you Bath is a great place to live in, and trouble is pretty rare, apart from one rare occasion last year, it's a fantastic place to be.