I believe the magic requirement for horse accomodation is that it shouldn't be 'permanent', if it can move then you can prvoide what you want so 'mobile field shelters' are the in thing for horses. Fortunately our two little brick built stables are (presumably!) within the curtilage.
*laugh*
No, neither myself nor my parents are Amish.
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "nomatter" saying something like:
IMM has morphed again.
In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes
Sir Toby DIMM ?
Oh Maxie, you are a one..... You have been watching that Last of The Summer Wine again, haven't you? You still think it is funny after all the counteless clips of those silly people in baths running downhill.
In message , IMM writes
I know that you have no idea what I'm on about
however, it's something that GC would understand
message
Maxie, wow....go away.......
In article , IMM writes
Is this the same John Burns that has just said in another thread that he wished he had the land and wealth of the royal family? what would you do with it John, give it away? yeah right and how are your house and your flat? you don't think that's just a little bit selfish? you have two places and some people don't even have one? I don't suppose the word hypocrite is in your vocabulary but you're the worse kind. Exactly what do you do to help your fellow man (apart from causing damage to their heating systems)
Ignore him.
I think he said once that redistributing the land works out at 40 acres each. I don't know many people with the time or money to manage all that land, so all that will happen is that it will be bought by the people who do have the time or money. So after all the upheaveal we will be back to square one.
It's basically a stupid idea championed by people too stupid to see past the giant chips on their shoulders.
Bob
Bertie, you are confused.
< snip babble >
I never said anything like that whatsoever.
Splitting up land equally and giving it to the people is silly, you are right. Other countries re-distributed land very effectively. The UK is the only major western country that has not re-distributed land. It shows in our quality of life: very small super expensive homes on top of each other. 80% of consumer debt is mortgages. Putting a roof over our heads. Only 7to 8% of homes have the wife at home full time, as two need to work to pay the mortgage of the inflated house prices that the artificial land shortage creates; the UK has just over only 7% of the land built on. So much for concreting over the countryside.
In article , IMM writes
But you're quite happy telling people to grab the field next to them and start building on it, isn't that the same basic principle that you are arguing against? or are you just against it when it was done in the past
In article , IMM writes
Not at all John, but then I'm not the hypocrite am I, its you, but you can't see it so that makes you the confused one
It is about freedom to build where you want to. Of course no building in national parks, SSSIs, near nuclear power stations, next to sewage works etc. All common sense. So that leaves an amazing amount of subsidised land, with our money, left to build on. If someone wants to buy a fields to have a feeling of space around him, then fine. Buying and owning 50,000 acres, that prevents a town expanding, etc, is another matter.
Please focus, get the point(s). You have nothing to gain by the current system whatsoever, 99% of us have nothing to gain.
saying
Bertie, you are confused.
< cut drivel >In article , IMM writes
The basic principle is still the same though, people buying up land and preventing others using it, presumably you wouldn't object to those
50,000 acres being owned by 10,000 people (that's 5 acres each), you just object because its owned by one so we're only talking about numbers not principlesActually a lot of us have gained including you, you're just pissed off you haven't got more, greedy sod, you obviously don't even need your flat as you are renting it out.
Without land we not exist. Land is an infinite resource, although currently we have a surplus. Henry George does not refer to land as "property". The property is the bricks on it.
I have two "properties" in different locations rather than one big one. Simple. Can't you understand that? Duh!
Well if you mean more than just this earth... The galaxy could be considered infinite, just not habitable land.
On 01 Jun 2004, Steve Firth wrote
I've heard of "Hutterites" (a group which is fairly well-known in North America). Was "Hatterites" a typo or is that a different sect?
On 01 Jun 2004, Steve Firth wrote
FWIW, "Hutterites Guildford" (with no quotes, as per the rules) returns a googlewhack on the google.co.uk site (but not on google.com).
Not that I'm a nerd, y'unnerstan......
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.