The Environment.

[Ivor Windybottom]

Seems to be the way these days in nearly all aspects of life.

OT but a while back I was watching a tv prog about folk renovating an old property. They found possible bat activity and did the right thing, stopped the works and informed bats.gov.uk. What then followed was months of largely being able to do nowt, I think it was closer to a year. This was due to reports needing to be written and if I recall correctly needing to wait until a certain time of year so the agency could determine for sure if there was activity.

The end result? The agency confirmed there was no current bat activity, no recent bat activity, and the (nesting?) area most likely hadn't been used for years.

The delay cost the owners not only in time but also financially.

I won't be popular for typing this, however when I read stuff like this part of me thinks 'why didn't you just bash on'.

I'm pretty sure that bats are only recorded as "rare" because so many people who have them keep bloody quiet about it as they fear the consequences.

Our ex-next door neighbour had them in their loft. They flew over our garden in the evening. I mentioned it to him once. I saw chinks of light from their roof tiles for a few weeks, the loft was full of floodlights. No more bats seen after.

 

[IT Minion]

Those figures sound like nonsense. I'm sure they were the figures stated, but I can buy hedgerow plants for £1.50 each. I really don't get why a bunch of people sitting nattering in a room costs £100,000s. The legal system needs a boot up its arse, it's a scam against the people.

Says you with decades of experience repairing damaged rivers.

I don't know what's in scope, are they going to try to repair the route, reshape the banks, add reeds. They do have to weed out the invasion species that had already taken hold and replanting 22,000+ square metres of diverse riverbank isn't going to be a one man job.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'm sure they'll make a great job of all the bureaucracy. They'll probably spend more on having meetings about future meetings than the farmer spent on clearing the river in the first place.

It's not black and white, right vs wrong. The farmer broke the law. The argument is about the severity, and also why he didn't think he could have a sensible conversation with those in charge.

On a different but similar theme, we looked at buying a derelict church and turning it into our home. Not listed, nowhere near a village so of no community use, not even very old. Thankfully we applied for planning guidance at the same time as buying it, met the British obstructive attitude to anyone trying to do anything and pulled out of the sale. A terrible shame. Someone else bought it, failed to get permission and it's still sitting there years later, now even more derelict.

There are unforeseen consequences of "protecting" things, often the end result is the opposite of protection.

 

[IT Minion]

It's not black and white, right vs wrong. The farmer broke the law. The argument is about the severity, and also why he didn't think he could have a sensible conversation with those in charge

Like when he asked an enforcement officer to just ignore one of his many other breaches, or when he went on a 12 mile road rage pursuit of another one?

The magistrate was not impressed by him, I'm surprised you are so much more forgiving of this repeat offender.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

As I say, he was in the wrong. But he probably had some good intentions - possibly increasing his crop yield, but he also has a history of doing good for the community.

He needed a sentence of some sort. But also those in charge should be looking at why people choose to avoid or ignore them.

We don't need a Saudi system, where hands get chopped off for doing bad things.

 

[IT Minion]

As I say, he was in the wrong. But he probably had some good intentions - possibly increasing his crop yield, but he also has a history of doing good for the community.

He had a history of damaging the river and other natural environment to his benefit.

And if you're gullible to believe he was trying to do it for the community remember the Magistrate didn't agree. If you believe that, then remember he's an idiot who shouldn't be trusted as his damage will have increased flooding risk. His actions are straight out of 1950s flood control theory which turned out to be counterproductive and just moves the floods into people's homes.

But you think he should be fined a few grand and let off with a warning, just like the other times he broke the law.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

You can only move a flood somewhere - either upstream or downstream. It sounds like there are houses immediately upstream of the bridge, so I'm pretty sure what he did was very good at least for those immediately around the area.

Most of the modern world couldn't ever get built if we started again today. We've regulated everything to death, to the point where nobody can do anything. Only the pen-pushers gain from all this, at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

If he'd engaged with those in charge then there would have been a flurry of Tree Protection Orders and other obstructions thrown in the way of solving the problem.

It will look great with a few new trees growing there.

 

[SPLINE]

Read a book a while ago about a farmer in Cumbria. When he was a child in the 70s, the government straightened the rivers and streams in the area around his family's farm, for whatever reason was fashionable then. It caused flooding. Decades later the govt came back and made the rivers wiggly again.

 

[noseall]

, but he also has a history of doing good

Yet in other posts you are one of the most vociferous against do-gooders. Make up your mind boyo.

 

[Odds]

Yet in other posts you are one of the most vociferous against do-gooders. Make up your mind boyo.

he's only here to knit bod's thread together.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Yet in other posts you are one of the most vociferous against do-gooders. Make up your mind boyo.

You clearly aren't aware of what a do-gooder is. It's someone who thinks they're doing good, but evidently isn't.

do-gooder

1. someone who does things that they think will help other people, although the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

E.g. helping people to illegally migrate here.

Let me know if you're still struggling and need any more language lessons.

 

[noseall]

You clearly aren't aware of what a do-gooder is. It's someone who thinks they're doing good, but evidently isn't.

So why call them do-gooders then?

do-gooder

1. someone who does things that they think will help other people, although the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

E.g. helping people to illegally migrate here.

Eh?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Read a book a while ago about a farmer in Cumbria. When he was a child in the 70s, the government straightened the rivers and streams in the area around his family's farm, for whatever reason was fashionable then. It caused flooding. Decades later the govt came back and made the rivers wiggly again.

The wigglifying will be happening around open farmland. Not in towns or villages, where you want to let the stuff get out as easily as possible.

They're introducing beavers in some places, to build dams and slow the rivers down. But not next to anyone's house.

 

[Odds]

You clearly aren't aware of what a do-gooder is. It's someone who thinks they're doing good, but evidently isn't.

do-gooder

1. someone who does things that they think will help other people, although the…

dictionary.cambridge.org

E.g. helping people to illegally migrate here.

Let me know if you're still struggling and need any more language lessons.

see what i mean.