chris p bacon

Surely that's a J77 Jonathan....

If you’d got to the end you would have found out they issue a badge, worth joining just for that ..

Mentioning Horses, on Wednesday we had our 'Border riding' with 110 horses and riders taking part. Can you imagine how wide a berth you have to give them 😃

In these parts a lot of people opt for a 4WD or SUV mainly for winter conditions, so when Tesla's turn up you know they're generally holiday makers. They're not a car I like the look of, but are certainly engineered very well and have some innovative ideas incorporated. Sadly no matter how good the car is it can be driven by a muppet. Yesterday on the way to Kelso I approached a left hand corner where on the verge there was a car upside down and embedded in a tree, behind me a Tesla had been gaining ground through a series of blind bends and then overtook on the outside of the bend. Coming towards us was another vehicle that had to take avoiding action as the Tesla just managed to get over. I was doing 45 as the receding bends are tight and slow. This is the point the Tesla overtook, there is a lot more undergrowth than on the screenshot. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.5608295,-2.3297444,3a,75y,304.41h,79.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYbtGhvFAUwtu3cBzHpStuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 I then followed him all the way to Kelso. So the point of overtaking me was either pointless, or it scared the cr@p out of the driver. When we moved here we knew that there would be lots of slow moving machinery on what are narrow slow roads, but a large proportion of those that holiday here either haven't a clue, or treat the twisty roads as a race track.

You only have to look at the complete c*ck up that NH have made of Queensbury tunnel to see where money is wasted. They couldn't even remember to pay for the pump so they could carry out their own works. I've seen that before. I always note the amount of times 'estimated' is used in a comparison. What it doesn't say in that comparison is that the cost of infilling was £123,500 but was originally only estimated at £50,000. Also the estimated strengthening cost was to take to road to 38T which the infill hasn't. As always figures are used to re-enforce a position and NH have taken the wrong path from day one. in seeking to divest themselves of these 'assets' they have ignored planning and in some cases common sense. I have several of these bridges near me. Some could easily be taken down, but others are on long planned path/cycle ways, NH are under an illusion that PD is all that is required but have since found that changes in open countryside requires planning permission.....you'd think they'd at least consult a planning lawyer first before wasting public money..but they didn't.

There are different ways that an arch can be filled, but not all can carry the same loadings. You stated in your response that as it's your profession you knew how it had been backfilled and how the loading would be taken. In reality you don't actually know but you've made a guess. I refer you to your earlier statement.

it is, and Highways Englands application of it in these instances is incorrect. If the bridge was to continue as a road over an active railway (that HE were responsible for) it could be construed as PD. But HE were putting the bridge out of use for any further railway use and therefore had to apply for Full Planning Permission. Your application and understanding of planning law is incorrect (bold). In this (and other cases) Not only did the local authorities tell HE that PP was required but also the Secretary of State. Householder and commercial PD rights are not the same and should not be confused.

Are you sure it was pressure grouted? I saw some interim pictures on a civil website and it looked nothing of the sort. How the work was done is up to whoever was overseeing it. The real issue is that Highways England used permitted Development rather than full planning permission which rides roughshod over our planning system.

I hope Lady Spikey gets a better outcome through either the specialist or another test. I never took much notice of glasses until I needed them, and was then amazed at the cost !

I'd say that £700 for a pair of glasses is at the top end of the scale and you couldn't spend more than that anywhere. My partners son has a condition that means he has some very complicated lenses and has been told several times that they are the most expensive to produce. His last prescription 6 weeks ago was £600. I am longsighted and my own glasses were £300 inc test from an independent. The labourer that works for me is also longsighted to a similar degree and went to Specsavers, his test and glasses (which are very similar) was £380 inc test. After several discussions over lunch (eating sandwiches while sitting on a milk crate) he popped into the independent that I use with his prescription, found identical frames to his and was told the charge would be £290. I see it very differently. The optician (who is the professional) gave Lady Spikey an eyesight test and recommended a new prescription. It now turns out that he did not test her sufficiently to find that she has an issue that he is unable to test or prescribe and is seeking a second opinion from someone more qualified. He has therefore prescribed an incorrect lens which she is unable to use now and will be unable to use in the future, as no matter what the specialist says she can't see with them. As the law states "they are unfit for purpose' they should be returned and a refund issued. The only can of worms will be one the chain opens to default on their responsibility. Whatever you do, put it in writing.

A friends son qualified as an optometrist and worked for 2 of the large chains over 8-10 years. After becoming completely dissatisfied with how they operate he moved to a private practice and said he’d never recommend the chains. in Lady Spikeys case she has been Misprescribed (?) and given glasses that are not fit for purpose. I would return them and ask for a refund then seek another test with an independent optician explaining what has happened, she may not need the orthoptist appointment in Nov.

😲...what....have I been lied to.... 😲....What.....Have I been lied to.... Oh...it seems to have quoted twice...😉

IIRC The last aluminium I weighed in (Dec 2021) when I cleared the workshop was £700 a ton. All payments were by bacs with proof of ID required.

Depends if Fergusons are going to bid* on the contract. 😬 * When I say 'Bid' what I meant was 'gifted with an open cheque'

I hope not.

I would suspect that if there were to be a second run that the price would be approaching or even way past £300. I ordered 2 from the first run, the first was something like £179/199 as I ordered on day one, the second I ordered about 6 or 9 months later and the price had already risen to £200+. The project was started 7 years ago and production costs have risen substantially since then so any further run will reflect that. I remember talking to Rapido Bill at Warley and he described just how complex a model it was to make, so even if some costs have been amortised it would still be expensive.

You've misinterpreted rule 191. moving is the word that matters But it does state Simple enough for the offender to understand.

No it isn't. Highway Code rule 191 states As the offender had parked and left the vehicle you would be allowed to pass the stationary vehicle giving due care to pedestrians that may be obscured by the stationary vehicle. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html

Eeeerrr it's the law. As traffic laws go, it's one (in my experience) that is rigorously enforced as it places pedestrians in danger. A crossing is supposed to be the safest place for a pedestrian to cross moving traffic. When a lazy numpty chooses to park within the clearly marked zig zag area they should have their license removed for 28 days so that they understand what it's like to be a pedestrian. As for 1984, try reading the book before quoting it.

When I first read your post I thought you must be a muppet, but I did read it again and sadly it was confirmed. Parking on Zig Zags is Forbidden, no one (except Fire, Police & Ambulance) is allowed to for any reason. It's a really simple law to understand but unfortunately people like the offender and yourself don't think the law applies to them as it's 'Orwellian'

🤣 That'll be the 4x4 I have. The only dealership around here that sells much are Land Rover, They must account for 2-3 out of 5 vehicles in the village. I stuck with my saloon car for quite a while, but the first winter changed that. I looked at various 4x4's but speaking to many locals it became clear that there were only a couple of options that can actually cope with the poor and (very) variable weather here and the RR/Discovery/Land Rover came out well.

Being someone who drives a larger 4x4* I find it funny that they get singled out, when the reality in these parts are drivers in smaller vehicles who drive aggressively and seem to need more of the road width. As for motorhome owners, there are few that use, or even know what a 'passing place' is for, presuming their size will be able to push others out of the way. * 2W drive here is for the foolhardy or those that don't wish to use the roads for 4 months of the year, even the snowplough couldn't get through for 3 days last year.

That's about right! Shaun the sheep is pretty much a documentary up here.

Here in the Borders we're currently surrounded by sheep, the problem if they were to be weaponised is to have them stay alive for long enough as every day sheep find a new and novel way to die. The common saying is that if you've got livestock, you've also got deadstock

I'd insulate the garage rather than half insulate a shed.