Jerry_Atrick

That is an accent from oop narth

Is it Rugby Union or League? If League, it is the lesser game here. If Union, it is a worry for England.

I agree. But Albo really shouldn't have taken the bait, either. But the press beat up after it was equally ridiculous.

I forgot to mention a couple of other things. The house is a lovely house,, Apart from being big (which I don't attribute to lovely), it offers a well thought out floor plan with good living space, excellent kitchen; bright (and airy ;-)) The village is a lovely village; everyone has their characters, but by and large it has been an inclusive village on day 1. And most have each other's backs. There are even two kiwis in this village as well. If I was staying in the UK, I would stay until I couldn't look after it (financially or physically, whichever came first). In all honesty, as I got older, I would probably subdivide, sell off the big house, and move into the cottage. I still may do that as part of selling up ( and may need to if too many more surprises come). Re the plumbing, yep the heating is also driven off the plumbing. I find it quite good and I understand hydronic heating, as it is called in Aus is getting popular. Of course, leaks can be a pain, but the pipework seems incredibly resilient. When they pressure tested the aged plumbing, they found one leak. That was it. I guess there's plusses and minuses for everything.

Thanks.. It certainly is more than I bargained for + contingency + Some more. The interesting thing is the original structures - except for pointing and some of the slate roofing - are in great nic. And fixing what is deteriorated is a pure joy. It's what they did since about the 1980's which is a pain and most commonly fails. Most of it is shoddy to the core.. What pisses me off is that the surveys didn't uncover the major stuff you would expect them to. They disclaim so much, it is pointless contesting it and would take years through the courts anyway. The next property I buy in Aus, I will get a land survey )of the type of property I am looking for), but do the building check out myself. As an example, about a year before we bought the house, a tree fell on the house. Half the room was repaired. We are in a contractual dispute with the insurer and the builder. The builder says we can;t enforce the contract as it is with the insurer. I point out he has a 25 year warranty that is transferable, the Contract (Rights of Third Party) Act specifically covers this situation, and he could end up going broke if I pursue it. And he agreed.. He would simply dissolve the company as being broke and there would be nothing for him to pay. Its £20 to start a new company and as long as he acted within the law, there is no restriction for him to take further directorships. So, I am pursuing with the insurer, who bats me off to the builder. That is a less probable course of action and the costs are prohibitive to do, which you have to find and can maybe claw back if you win. So, I have to suck it up. Because I am tackling this as it should be tackled - by using the correct materials, the house has surprisingly little damp. In fact the only known damp we have is a leak on part of the roof that wasn't fixed... The problem wasn't the leaky bit of the roof but because some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to use spray foam insulation. The same spray foam that you use to fill holes. There are two problems with that that blind Freddy could see.. One, it holds the moisture... for a loooong time.. it doesn't breathe. 2. It bonds to everything it touches.. So the rafters (rotting) and the tiles (can't remove them without breaking them). Again, the damp is caused not by the age of the building itself nor the materials that should have been used. But by idiots using the wrong materials taking the cheap way out. I have previously gone through the front cement render on the outer front wall.. put up by the builder that did the roof as part of the tree damage. A plasterer noticed and asked if we had damp in the front room, of which there was. Not long after he replaced it, no more damp there. The last set of phitos One of the things about these old buildings is draughtiness. In this house, the floor between the ground floor and the hasement does not go all the way to the walls - there is about a 5mm gap . at some points and there is an open (grated) coal chute to the basement. We have a cover over it that can breathe so it has reduced the breeziness by about 95%, but you do feel it. In the study, which is an ex private chapel, we replaced what as at the time of listing, a grotty PVC window that was double glazed. The guidance for listed buildings is that they are to reflect their passage of time, so in theory, we could have replaced it with another cheap UPVC double glazed windows. But that was crap and we found the original windows (not frames, which were lead-lined single glazed. We applied to have them replicated into a wooden frame but with ultra-thin double glazing at quite a lot more expense that refurbing the ortiginal windows and inserting them into the wooden frame. Given listing guidance is to reflect the evolution of the property, you would have thought it, especially being an improvement entirely sympathetic with the building and the looming environmental crisis, it was a no brainer. Nope; it was asserted because the originals are still there (one thing the previous owners didn't get to sell), it was their intention to install them as is, so we had to stick with it. We appealed as far as we could without getting lawyers involved and decided not to pursue it. You could not make this stuff up. Thankfully global warming is here as I don#t need to heat the room all day at the moment (it is 7:48 and 15 degrees c on the 25th October - absolutely nuts; there is a second storm brewing though, and i have to get the gutters cleaned in between and try and unblock a drain). So, it is draughty but not because it cannot be fixed. BTW, that window cost me £6K; it would have been $8k to do it properly and no one would be the wiser. Re light, apparently there was a window tax from the late 1600s to around mid 1800s. Our extensions must have gone up just after that period as the windows (seen from the photos published) are quite big and we do get a lot of light. I replaced c. 20 windows. Either that, or when they were bricked in, windows were subsequently reinstalled. But you do see a lot of older buildings with bricked in windows today and I always wondered why. Apparently that is the main reason. Of course, in the older days when heating systems weren't quite as efficient, brick and lime were better at keeping the cold out than windows. The tradies thinking you;re rich and pricing accordingly; absolutely. The easiest way to find out is ask for an itemised quote - not down to the nut and bolt, either major deliverables or even just labour and materials. When they refuse, you know you;re getting shafted. On the plumbing this was the case because despite the lure of a lot of work and what I knew was easy money. only two plumbers invited quoted despite the other 15-ish (can't remember exactly how many) saying they would he happy to. When the mate of a gardner heard the cost, he said it was around right, until he heard there was no boiler replacement and we weren#t replacing all the piping. Unf, I didn#t have the tools, the experience, nor the time, and I felt being impaled from behind with every day that passed. Other tradies were the same, but builders are easier to come by. At the moment, I have a decent builder who is experienced with old building, charges normal rates and makes good progress. I have a decorator who is a retired teacher and keeps himself busy; also good rates. The sparky is a little more expensive and totally by the book (commercially), so is the most expensive. But, he is a perfectionist, which I like and does get it done (i.e. not try and fit too many clients in). Still I am all in at the moment. I won't make money on it. Hopefully I won#t lose on it, either. However, if I count the opportunity cost of what else I could have done with the money, I would have retired comfortably by now.

Don#t be sorry, Pete.. It's your thread 😉

It is a lovely property.. but far more neglected than surveys uncovered. For instance the cottage has underfloor wet heating and we had a couple move in for a couple of months. Out of the blue, the u/floor heating shorted and three new manifolds later (and a few hundred pounds) it was fixed. It is the constant tending to things you're not expecting that wears us down

I don't block it from my mind to pretend the problems aren't there..It's more I need the break from it. Often it is waiting for tradespeople who are not rip off merchants to come available. I have two tradies full time on it and they are very reasonable in their rates. Even so, it is costing me about £7k a month. We are probably two months from completion I think. Then the big clean up.

Paradise by dawn light?

Yay

Slightly different depending on road width. They have the right to do it but for a wide enough road they are being discourteous by doing it where they could easily ride single file to allow cars to safely pass... without interrupting their progress. Where the road isn't wide enough (often around here) it's a pain but just part of driving.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-24/watch-floodwaters-swallow-four-wheel-drive-in-six-minutes/107302040?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

That "tenacity" peaks and troughs. At the moment, it is in peak mode, but there are times where I have blocked it from my mind, tbh.

The fault element of involuntary manslaughter is either unlawful and dangerous act; or criminal negligence. The question of legality is not as clear cut as people think. It isn't unlawful to cross a creek even if it is fast flowing. It probably is illegal to drive a car into the mouth of the Yarra river.. Also, the level of danger has to be such that it is a very high risk of injury or death. Importantly these are not strict liability offences - meaning there has to be a fault element (mens rea) and in the case of manslaughter, it is a subjective test - did the defendant actually perceive the level of danger. You're right - where these can be established, the charge will be manslaughter anyway. But the problem is, it is a high bar to reach and in road traffic accidents, there is a lot of grey area around these. For example, intentionally and at speed driving into a torrent of water will probably be evidence to meet the requirement for manslaughter. However, what if you were crossing what looked like a shallow creek with reasonably fast moving water, but it turned out it was quite a bit deeper than it looked? It would be hard to argue this would reach the bar required. So, the lesser offence, with the lesser bar, but still with a significant penal consequence available to the judge is there as a back up. I personally think this is correct, otherwise you risk catching other things in the manslaughter net that weren't intended to be. Maybe the briefings to law enforcement and judiciary should be to apply the provisions (s. 117 in the case of the NSW Road Transport Act) it more?

I am sort of with both camps. We can't assume everyone has the rationalisation around driving the betters ones amongst us have (BTW, I put myself as average at best at driving). Therefore betted education has to be part of the mix. I am not sure what the driving theory syllabus is today, but it really only centred around road rules, don't drink and drive, and don't speed. I am sure it has improved (e.g. in Vic and I guess other states, there is a hazard perception test, which is video based where candidates identify hazards they need to slow down, stop, or maintain speed. The practice tests (https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-and-active-transport/registration-and-licensing/licences/probationary-licence/hazard-perception-practice-tests-for-probationary-drivers will give you an idea of them. However, they don't seem to cover a lot of the hazards especially prevalent in non urban areas, such as fast flowing water. When I was preparing for my license, I attended info sessions (hardly call them courses) by the RACV as well, and they more drove home message of no drink driving and speeding, and not anything terribly much wider. I am sure it has improved today. Regardless, education as part of learning to drive and continuing education would be a very good option. Over here, if you get done for speeding less than by a certain margin (can't recall) and you haven't previously been caught in the last 3 years, instead of a fine and points, you can pay a fee and attend a speed awareness course. Yes, I have done one, but every driver should be made to do one once per three years (online would be good enough) as the course was about driving, not just speed awareness, It covered technique, many hazardous situations, emergency handling theory, etc. I found my driving habits changed.. until I got complacent again, which is why I think it would be best to be best to repeat of a reasonable periodic basis. But, of course, as the person in control of a vehicle, one also has to take responsibility and suffer the consequences of the outcomes of one's actions. And if you deliberately or through negligence/recklessness cause harm or endanger people or property, then, as with other areas of life, you need to be held accountable. The fact that most road traffic offences are strict liability offences indicates people are in command of an inherently dangerous object and in normal circumstances there is no need to prove an intention - the fact it happens - with a couple of exceptions - means the person at the wheel is criminally liable (https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-criminal-code-guide-practitioners-0/part-22-elements-offence/division-6-cases-where-fault-elements-are-not-required/61-strict-liability). However, I think most states have a general offence of dangerous driving and it could cover driving into a fast flowing water... but may not.. For example, under NSW law, it would require death or grievous bodily harm, and there was an impact. A good lawyer could probably successfully argue driving into flowing water is not an impact within the meaning of the law. Maybe what needs to be reviewed is the strict definition of the offence (e.g. materially increases the risk of causing death or grievous bodily harm and remove the necessity of an impact). Under NSW law, a max of 7 years imprisonment is allowed for the offence.

We have had the first "real" rain in what seems like months. We are very much in drought here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw2031mevx17o Our local reservoir, Wibleball Lake is doen to 15%. This week is forecast to be mostly wet. But, not the rain that will have too much impact on the state of the reservoir.

I agree with both posts above.. But if not actually, by far the loudest voice is presented by the right - at least in Aus, the USA, and the UK.. Scrolling through social media also paints a similar picture. But, yes, it isn't always the right. Sometimes it is the left, or any excuse

From what I could find out, the social media reports aren't correct. However, there seems to have an a ship from Russia that was carrying ammonia nitrate that docked last week. There is no confirmed shipments of diesel from Russia heading to the USA by reliable sources, anyway. An absolute kick in the teeth to Ukraine, but also to the US own military. The USA electorate is hardly switched on by foreign affairs, but there is bipartisan criticism of the deal, and this rings with rational voters. MAGA are a cult and will support anything their dear leader does, but MAGA is not as nig as a lot of people think.

Parts of the building date back to the 1200s, but the part in the photos above is from the 1600s. The render is over stones and mortar. Some of the stone is cut to look like brick, but it is mostly stone. The render is a sand rander of some sort to give it the colour. I personally don't like it and wanted to take it all off and expose the stone, but the cost to do it was astronomical. In shoirt, some of the building is original stone, some is cut stone, and some is your bog standard red brick (or the Somerset equivalent). We do have lime render on the walls of the front door. We originally had damp all through that wall in the living room until a plasterer noticed it was a concrete render (put there by builders fixing a wall that was crushed by a fallen tree). So, we had the cement render taken off and lime render put on.. and in about a week, there was no more damp! Re the wireless access points - they were approved by the listed building officer. For small things like that, it is a simple application, some photos and a yes or a no. There is no cost (unless you want to challenge their no). As the place had most of its original interior features sold off before it was listed, the listed building officer is very reasonable - well that and the fact we have restored a lot of the building to its former glory (e.g. taking out all the PVC windows and replacing with wood - can't remember the type but apparently what would have been used in the last extension of the place in the 1800s).

I doubt it at this rate. We should break even though. Anyway,the builder ordered 14 bags of red sand thinking it was more than enough.. We have to get another 10. Here are some photos of today's progress: Notice he is recreating the original fake brickwork in the render.. pain of a job! The sparky is in today moving the broadband and industrial virtual access points so we have full wi fi coverage through the house. They will look a bit like smoke detectors in the ceilings.

Has to put the above in a second post as the first was putting them in upside down - like the first picture in this one.

We're edging closer to completion, but of course, there are still battles to be had. The builder and I took a look at the dilapidating render on the "front" wall. We picked a little bit of it and a lot came off. He has already done a bit of work (covered up due to assist drying without too much moisture or direct sunlight apparently screwing it up. But you can see the patches that still need work:

It is frightening what is happening in what are normally peaceful societies. Helen Haines appears to have been mown down in front of her electoral office: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/oct/19/mp-helen-haines-injured-incident-wangaratta-ntwnfb. First, I wish her a speedy recovery. But the rhetoric spouted by PHON and latterly some of the LP may, and I stress MAY be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some people that drives them to this sort of crap. The problem for those that spout the crap is that there maybe some equally unhinged on the other side that may be motivated to do the same to them. We have had two MPs; one from Labour and one from the conservatives murdered outside their electoral offices; and Anne Widdecombe, an ex Conservative MP and prominent member of Farage's Reform brutally murdered in her house

He visited our school when I was in year 12.. top chap