Guess the speed.

[Richard]

Have you adjusted the cctv angle and could you live-stream so we can watch?

[Richard]

So, she can only count up to 20. Is this feat achievable with shoes on, or does she only manage 10?

[JNugent]

Have you got the cameras set up?

[JNugent]

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).

Doesn't invalidate the principle: the road belongs to everyone.

How do you know?

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.

Did you read the post to which you were responding? It seems not, otherwise you would have seen the next bit:

Cheaper, certainly (around 250 miles from London).

But the principle is the same.

[ ... ]

[Fredxx]

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.

[JNugent]

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.

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.

[Robin]

The apprenticeship levy is another hypothecated tax - although contrary to the prima facie evidence here not hypothecated /solely/ to making Adam's life more interesting.

[JNugent]

Have you ever actually been to England? You haven't been to this village.

See my question a few lines above.

Maybe. Maybe not. "Easy walking distance" is a concept upon which there would be great variation in definition.

Almost all houses in the UK are multi-storey. If not, they are universally described as bungalows.

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.

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).

The same things are possible, including the use of double-yellow lines.

[Richard]

<snip>

You are not obliged to have an idiot.

[JNugent]

Go on then... why isn't it "feasible"?

All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and when the current ones run out, residents would have to pay whatever the going rate is for metered or ticketed parking.

Perfectly feasible.

Perhaps you meant "unfair".

[JNugent]

You actually could not be more wrong. There are a lot of villages all over the UK with Victorian terraced property as either the dominant or a major housing form.

How can you not know that?

OK. So that's a "No".

Yes, I do. This village is in... er... England: one of the places you haven't been to.

Believe what you want to believe.

But even you must have heard of agricultural workers, miners, etc and their cottages.

But it is a village.

I dare say that some people who can't easily find a convenient and free space agree with you.

What? :-)

Are there?

There are a lot of such places. In cities, towns and villages.

Quite so. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

[charles]

our village is long and thin. About 3 miles long.

[Bob Eager]

Sounds like Long Melford.

[JNugent]

You said it isn't feasible.

Please address the questi>> All the council would have to do is cease dishing out the permits and

What about those who have to pay (in various ways) for the parking space provided for nothing (or very little) to specific people who don't own the space any more than any other citizen does? Is it just their job to shell out whilst the resident's job is to receive the benefit of it?

If it isn't unfair to scrap these schemes, there's nothing to worry about.

[JNugent]

I don't know how you think you're going to prove yourself right on that. You can't, because you're wrong.

You can do that if there IS a car-park and if it is within walking distance.

I didn't.

Is it *not* a "No", then?

Have you ever been to England?

You avoided the question. The only reasonable interpretation of that is that you have never been to England.

That's OK. There's no shame in it.

I've never been to Australia. But I don't argue that I am familiar with Australian urban morphology. That's mainly because I'm not.

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).

How do you say you know that?

There are several car-parks in the village. 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.

If the car-park were a half-mile away from the house, would that be within "walking distance" in anything but a purely technical sense?

If you think that most houses in the UK are bungalows, you are in a dream world of your own.

It does, however, explain some of what you write.

What proprtion?

<checks the cupboard for popcorn>

Not at all. The road STILL doesn't belong to the occupants of the nearest house.

Principle is never irrelevant.

You don't "get" sarcasm, do you?

[Colin Bignell]

That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if that has been granted by the Crown. There are two cities in the Greater London Area, The City of London, one of the UK's smallest cities, and the much larger City of Westminster. The Greater London area may be described by many as a city, by virtue of its size, but it does not have city status.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

[Robin]

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".

[Ian Jackson]

In message [e-mail], Rod Speed [e-mail] writes

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

[JNugent]

Please feel free to carry on ad-infinitum with your ignorant* and biased ranting. I've had enough of it.

[* I use that word in its absolute correct sense. You have demonstrated that you know very little of the UK. You even thought that most houses here are bungalows.]