• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Interesting Items...

Yep. I got one of those too.
That's what happens when our elected representatives don't do as we ask. And taking 'no deal' off the table then took away what little leverage that we had. Madness.
 
Bath & North East Somerset are considering a planning application at the moment (ref 19/01265/AR). The application is retrospective for an advertising hoarding already put up by Kia Motors on the Lower Bristol Road in Bath.

Because of the restricted visibility caused by the hoarding when emerging from Midland Road, the council are minded to make the new bridge across the Avon northbound only, when it was originally promised to be two-way. The new bridge is a long-delayed replacement for a "temporary" Bailey bridge that had been there for 50 years, and was southbound only (the old bridge was known locally as the "destructor bridge" due to a nearby scrapyard).

This all seems disingenuous to me. The traffic planners are disregarding the original basis for the replacement bridge because of a structure than was erected without consent.

I am also strongly against retrospective planning approval on principle. Individual cases may have a strong argument, but the very existence of retrospective application as a mechanism encourages cheating: "we won't bother to apply for permission before going ahead; if we get challenged we can apply for retrospective approval and then there won't be any opportunity for the planners to impose conditions".

Maybe I am becoming more cynical in my old age.

(If anyone reading this lives in Bath, I suggest you go onto the BNES council web site and register an objection to the planning application.)
Permission has been refused!
 
Permission has been refused!
Would you buy a used car from this bunch of Del Boys?
Lying on the application form should result in automatic refusal and with no right of appeal (which they also seem to be doing). It would if I made the rules anyway.
Let's hope they lose the appeal and are compelled to remove it, although by then they will already have had the use of it for half the period they didn't apply for.
 
The June 2019 issue of Scientific American notes that both men historically credited with developing calculus, ironically died in excruciating pain having developed calculii - in Newton's case a bladder stone, and a kidney stone for Leibniz.
 
Always amused me when a dentist referred to calculus. It had me thinking - a.d(what)/dx = b.d(plaque)/dt +c ...
Confusing having the same name for two entirely different things.
And those pesky stones can be very painful.
 
The word 'calculus' derives from Latin for "small stone", and has a hard k sound in either case. No doubt the name calcium derives from a similar root, but the 'i' causes the pronunciation to soften the c.
 
It's the same at the self-checkouts in Sainsbugs. They should go to the customer (dis-)service tills instead.
 
Back
Top