Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don’t know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing allotments"


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any effect on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut reaction
petition to me, what do others think?

-- Regards
Bob Hobden
Posting to this Newsgroup
from the W.of London. UK

Bob Hobden wrote:

Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don't know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing allotments"


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any effect on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut reaction
petition to me, what do others think?

-- Regards
Bob Hobden
Posting to this Newsgroup
from the W.of London. UK
I bet it's Pickles flying a kite. Depending on the reaction so will
come the policy, if any. Typical bxxxxy tory mind set!

Restrict gardeners and their allotments but give the banks another
billion.

Peter

--
-
The e-mail address obviously doesn't exist. If it's essential
that you contact me then try peterATpfjamesDOTcoDOTuk

"Peter James" wrote

Bob Hobden wrote:

Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don't know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing
allotments"


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove
the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there
are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any effect
on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut reaction
petition to me, what do others think?


I bet it's Pickles flying a kite. Depending on the reaction so will
come the policy, if any. Typical bxxxxy tory mind set!

Restrict gardeners and their allotments but give the banks another
billion.


From what I've read it does not restrict gardeners at all it only removes
one small part of legislation dealing with local demand and a legal
requirement to supply new plots.

Regarding the Banks the facts are that all the money lent to the Banks has
been repaid with interest so we, as taxpayers are already in profit on that
one. The shares we own in Lloyds and RBS can and should also be sold at a
premium over what we paid (depends on the politicians) so supporting the
Banks looks increasingly like a good deal for the taxpayer as we and the
Banks come out of recession.

--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ...

Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don’t know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing allotments"


Pickles isn't likely to have much interest in growing salad crops, is he?

Steve

On 2014-04-03 08:06:34 +0000, Bob Hobden said:

"Peter James" wrote

Bob Hobden wrote:

Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don't know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing allotments"


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61225

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any effect on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut reaction
petition to me, what do others think?


I bet it's Pickles flying a kite. Depending on the reaction so will
come the policy, if any. Typical bxxxxy tory mind set!

Restrict gardeners and their allotments but give the banks another
billion.


From what I've read it does not restrict gardeners at all it only
removes one small part of legislation dealing with local demand and a
legal requirement to supply new plots.

Regarding the Banks the facts are that all the money lent to the Banks
has been repaid with interest so we, as taxpayers are already in profit
on that one. The shares we own in Lloyds and RBS can and should also be
sold at a premium over what we paid (depends on the politicians) so
supporting the Banks looks increasingly like a good deal for the
taxpayer as we and the Banks come out of recession.

+1
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

With waiting lists of up to 9 years, legal requirement to supply new plots is important.

On 2014-04-03 21:49:30 +0000, kay said:

Bob Hobden;1000510 Wrote:
"Peter James" wrote-

Bob Hobden wrote:
-
Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don't know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing
allotments"


'Tell Eric Pickles that allotments must not be sold off! - e-petitions'
(http://tinyurl.com/k9m4hg4)

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove

the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there

are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any
effect
on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut
reaction
petition to me, what do others think?
-

I bet it's Pickles flying a kite. Depending on the reaction so will
come the policy, if any. Typical bxxxxy tory mind set!

Restrict gardeners and their allotments but give the banks another
billion.

-
From what I've read it does not restrict gardeners at all it only
removes
one small part of legislation dealing with local demand and a legal
requirement to supply new plots.


With waiting lists of up to 9 years, legal requirement to supply new
plots is important.

The problem is that there's also a requirement to provide housing and
they're not making any more land! I'm entirely sympathetic to those
who want allotments but there's only so much that can be done with a
finite amount of space.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 03/04/2014 09:06, Bob Hobden wrote:
Regarding the Banks the facts are that all the money lent to the Banks
has been repaid with interest so we, as taxpayers are already in profit
on that one. The shares we own in Lloyds and RBS can and should also be
sold at a premium over what we paid (depends on the politicians) so
supporting the Banks looks increasingly like a good deal for the
taxpayer as we and the Banks come out of recession.

I'm interested to know what that rather blanket statement is based on.
Does it account, e.g., for the ongoing losses at RBS etc. - or the
amounts of cash pumped into them, the guarantees, etc. - rather than
just the share price?

Perhaps you should look at the reports of the National Audit Office -
http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/
is a fascinating place to start and to me, quite clearly disagrees that
the money has been repaid - let alone the amounts that would have been
repayable had the same money been used for 'normal' loans.

The NAO believes that there would need to be significant changes to both
the income of the state invested banks and their share prices to even
come close to repaying the investment.

And even the share prices are extremely misleading. RBS share prices
are now around 310p - 320p. I think shares were bought at around 50p by
the government. Sounds like a good deal at first.

However, the stock was around 20 - 25 p in 2012 before a stock split of
1:10 was made (coverting the price to 220p), so the 315p price doesn't
represent anything like the good deal it might seem. (I'm unclear ofthe
full nature of the stock split, but on bare figures, it would appear
that the share prioce would beed to be more like 450p to cover just the
intial investment, even forgetting about income/interest.

Does your statement account for the hiving off of 'bad debts' to the
taxpayer while the 'going concern' is sold to existing banks (such as
the cherry picking of Northern Rock and others)?

A reasonable review (although from 2013) of *some* of the real costs can
be seen at:
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/what-is-the-cost-to-the-uk-taxpayer-of-supporting-our-banks/

And in some senses, the imbalances roll on -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10735502/Lack-of-too-big-to-fail-plan-could-cost-taxpayers-billions-warns-IMF.html

You might notice that the sites quoted are not exactly known for their
left wing or anti capitalist/banking bias, btw.

Finally, there are a host of other considerations - such as the extra
cost of UK borrowing resulting partly from the bail-outs - and various
other other inangibles to take into account.

Obviously, the wrong NG even allowing for thread drift - but a
fascinating and very complex situation. As with anything involving
numbers, anyone can present different views depending on what they
choose to concentrate on, but blanket statements won't come close.

But that was my two penn'orth

--
regards andy

On 04/04/2014 12:03, News wrote:
But that was my two penn'orth

If I'd spent more, I might have avoided the keyboard trouble that seems
to have afflicted para 5.

Also, the mention of '...extra cost of UK borrowing...' was meant to
refer specifically to UK Government borrowing.

A propos nothing much: the thing that has always puzzled me is who the
deuce trousered all the money that produced the bad debts that resulted
in the crises. It was an awful lot of LSD and it can't have just
disappeared. Some people and companies must have made an awful lot of
loot out of a lot of people's suffering.

--
regards andy

On 2014-04-04 09:38:10 +0000, Martin said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:43:57 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-03 21:49:30 +0000, kay said:

Bob Hobden;1000510 Wrote:
"Peter James" wrote-

Bob Hobden wrote:
-
Just received this from an allotment friend....

"Don't know if you have seen this already

Eric Pickles is proposing councils are released from providing
allotments"


'Tell Eric Pickles that allotments must not be sold off! - e-petitions'
(http://tinyurl.com/k9m4hg4)

Having done some checking it appears he is actually proposing to remove

the
statutory obligation on Councils to provide new allotments where there

are
none if 6 or more locals demand them. So it seems not to have any
effect
on
existing sites, does not remove Statutory Allotment Land status and
protection, or suggest that plots are built on. Seems like a gut
reaction
petition to me, what do others think?
-

I bet it's Pickles flying a kite. Depending on the reaction so will
come the policy, if any. Typical bxxxxy tory mind set!

Restrict gardeners and their allotments but give the banks another
billion.

-
From what I've read it does not restrict gardeners at all it only
removes
one small part of legislation dealing with local demand and a legal
requirement to supply new plots.


With waiting lists of up to 9 years, legal requirement to supply new
plots is important.

The problem is that there's also a requirement to provide housing and
they're not making any more land! I'm entirely sympathetic to those
who want allotments but there's only so much that can be done with a
finite amount of space.

The lack of land resulting in tiny gardens only seems to apply to new small
houses often built on brown field sites.

But there's talk - alarmingly, imo - of allowing development on
so-called protected land and even in national parks.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"News" wrote

News wrote:
But that was my two penn'orth

If I'd spent more, I might have avoided the keyboard trouble that seems to
have afflicted para 5.

Also, the mention of '...extra cost of UK borrowing...' was meant to refer
specifically to UK Government borrowing.

A propos nothing much: the thing that has always puzzled me is who the
deuce trousered all the money that produced the bad debts that resulted in
the crises. It was an awful lot of LSD and it can't have just disappeared.
Some people and companies must have made an awful lot of loot out of a lot
of people's suffering.


The main problem of Bad Debt was due to the American Ratings agencies rating
sub-prime loans as triple A which allowed them to be sold around the world.
The USA (and world) then went into recession and those loans became
worthless as the marginal borrowers defaulted and, due to the recession, the
properties involved used as collateral also became worthless. So other Banks
across the world saw their own customers defaulting and those that had
invested in these sub-prime loans saw their own Bad Debts skyrocket.
Governments then had two options, to let the Banks collapse (probably taking
the economy with them and bankrupting millions of account holders) or bail
them out.
The money went to pay the Bad Debts, so it seems it went to the defaulters.
It could be said those that made money were those that bought up repossessed
properties cheaply.
One question I've always asked is, with all the litigation around how is it
that the US Ratings Agencies haven't been "done" for rating worthless loans
as triple A? But then I keep reminding myself that if they hadn't been sold
around the world the US economy would have collapsed as it alone would have
taken the big hit.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

"News" wrote in message ...

On 03/04/2014 09:06, Bob Hobden wrote:
Regarding the Banks the facts are that all the money lent to the Banks
has been repaid with interest so we, as taxpayers are already in profit
on that one. The shares we own in Lloyds and RBS can and should also be
sold at a premium over what we paid (depends on the politicians) so
supporting the Banks looks increasingly like a good deal for the
taxpayer as we and the Banks come out of recession.

I'm interested to know what that rather blanket statement is based on. Does
it account, e.g., for the ongoing losses at RBS etc. - or the amounts of
cash pumped into them, the guarantees, etc. - rather than just the share
price?

Perhaps you should look at the reports of the National Audit Office -
http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/ is a
fascinating place to start and to me, quite clearly disagrees that the
money has been repaid - let alone the amounts that would have been
repayable had the same money been used for 'normal' loans.
Due to my age I tend to only think of RBS and Lloyds as Banks, I had not
included the "new" banks, or building societies as they used to be known,
and they are a basket case 'tis true.
Looking at "Which banks received support from the UK government?" from the
above link it does appear my belief about repayment of loans by RBS and
Lloyds is correct and most of the information on that link is a year old.
Things have improved since then. My understanding is that a lot more Bad
Debts are now being repaid by borrowers than was expected (if I read the RBS
Balance Sheet correctly).
The 1 for 10 share split of RBS shares occurred on 6.6.2012 so, as you say,
what we paid for shares has to be multiplied by 10 so it works out at 502p
per share and with the current price being 318.3p it will be a while before
we can make a profit (as we did with Lloyds shares last year) but that is
down to our political masters to wait it out. If the profitability of RBS
improves, and it has every likelihood of doing so, then dividends will be
payable again on the shares we hold anyway.

There has also been a significant change in statutory liquidity requirements
for Banks for the future which will have to be met over the next few years,
by 2019 I think from memory, this should ensure such a Banking bailout
disaster does not happen again as it was lack of liquidity that caused the
need for the bailout.

-- Regards
Bob Hobden
Posting to this Newsgroup
from the W.of London. UK

In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there were easy answers.

"kay" wrote
In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the
green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's
cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of
totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most
development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but
greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population
live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the
natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what
prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there
were easy answers.


Considering the number of people with two or more homes, you can only live
in one at a time, if they made it very expensive to have two homes then
maybe a lot would come onto the market. If you travel around, say, Hampshire
you will come across villages that are all but deserted during the week but
on Friday evening all the London crowd arrive for just two days. It's the
also the main reason the pubs and shops close down, no locals.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

On 2014-04-05 21:40:35 +0000, Bob Hobden said:

"kay" wrote
In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the
green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's
cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of
totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most
development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but
greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population
live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the
natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what
prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there
were easy answers.


Considering the number of people with two or more homes, you can only
live in one at a time, if they made it very expensive to have two homes
then maybe a lot would come onto the market. If you travel around, say,
Hampshire you will come across villages that are all but deserted
during the week but on Friday evening all the London crowd arrive for
just two days. It's the also the main reason the pubs and shops close
down, no locals.

Try Salcombe in winter. ;-(
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk