Awkward for the sake of being awkward

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

like a rentokill for stupidity.

Snag is we would loose most of the goverment and there would be BMW cars parked and dumped everywhere, ..

Not to mention Vauxhall novas and piles of "Bling" from Elizabeth Duke..

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

It is rather annoying that local councils and goverments find the little things and make a molehill out of them, yet permit more hurtful subjects to be ignored such as public transport, anti terrorism equipment, hospitals,schools we all know drill.

What is going to stop them doing this though, I mean they are just taking the easiest road to there pay check and sod the country, and Tories will be worse, if they are anything like there last term in power.

Woah there, nobody's called a general election quite yet...

And let's not forget, planning law is enforced by local councils, not central government. And the elected councillors rarely have anything to do with enforcement notices, the unelected officers handle that sort of thing. The politicians normally only get involved when there's a decision to make, such as whether to grant planning permission (assuming these people stop whingeing about their hurt feelings and apply for it).

[nffc]

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

there should be a number i can call 24/7 and order a group of heavily armed people to go slap silly people in power

quote of the day. total inspired, comedic, spot-on brilliance.

have a rep.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

However the rules themselves are nonsensical.

How *exactly* is putting a flagpole on a building a "structural change"??

Knocking out a wall or building an extension is structural, a flagpole is cosmetic.

This just sounds like some jobsworth with a little bit of power deciding to exercise their ego to show how important they are.

"Awkward for the sake of being awkward"? Yep, I can agree with that.

There are lots of rules and regulations that we may consider "awkward" or administered by "jobsworths" but it does not get away from the reality that they exist and need to followed and just becuase you're gay (or any other perceived type of minority) you are not entitled to special treatment.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by nffc

What about the gay flag being offensive to straight people. The PC brigade hadn't thought of that!

PC annoys me, there's no such thing for starters. The whole PC brigade is inherently un-PC.

Why would a gay flag be offensive to straight people? The reason the 'PC Brigade' hasn't thought of that is because most of them probably don't even know that there is a flag that represents the gay community.

At the end of the day, if you require planning permission, then you require planning permission, and there's not a lot you can do about it. However, the fact that, having had to remove the 'offending item', it is being seen as offensive to the specific community is rather far fetched - why does the flag require a flag-pole anyway? Can't it just be displayed on a wall or something?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There are lots of rules and regulations that we may consider "awkward" or administered by "jobsworths" but it does not get away from the reality that they exist and need to followed and just becuase you're gay (or any other perceived type of minority) you are not entitled to special treatment.

Sir, have a green one for being today's voice of reason

[AndrewJ]

Agreed that post should win a award. A greeny shall complement it though for now.

Originally Posted by Pierre

There are lots of rules and regulations that we may consider "awkward" or administered by "jobsworths" but it does not get away from the reality that they exist and need to followed and just becuase you're gay (or any other perceived type of minority) you are not entitled to special treatment.

I never said that anyone was "entitled to special treatment" but making a big deal out of a little flagpole just strikes me as petty.

And as for those rules "needing to be followed", pardon me if I beg to differ.

[Russ]

There are times when, whether you agree with them or not, you must play by the rules.

[SMHarman]

Reading the papers today on this subject, the buildings are in Soho and are listed, so you need PP to do pretty much anything to them (e.g paint them a different colour), so what is Red Kens problem.

Originally Posted by Graham

I never said that anyone was "entitled to special treatment" but making a big deal out of a little flagpole just strikes me as petty.

And as for those rules "needing to be followed", pardon me if I beg to differ.

If I remember my planning regulations correctly (and it's been some time since I had to cover this sort of thing as a journalist), flagpoles are considered as signage when used at commercial premises, and all signage is subject to planning control - even more so when the building in question, or its locality, is subject to special protection as appears to be the case here.

I have seen what happens when there is little or no planning control over commercial signage, just look at any town in the USA. It is a complete mess. Planning control results in a better environment for everyone, visually or otherwise, and while I accept that it may appear to be petty when reduced to the minutae of an individual case like this, it does serve a greater overall purpose.

As a public servant, and the former leader of a local authority, I am quite sure that Red Ken is entirely aware of all this and is merely indulging in a little populist politicking by wading into this situation.

Originally Posted by Russ D

There are times when, whether you agree with them or not, you must play by the rules.

And there are also times when you should say "stuff the rules".

[Russ]

Yes, I'm sure many a murderer and rapist has said that in their time.

Of course, I'm not trying to equate this situation with crimes as serious as that.

However would you be happy if you became dependant on the government for any reason at all (unemployment benefit, calling the police etc) and they said "stuff Graham"?

One of the conditions of living in Britain is that you play by the rules, like them or not.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes, I'm sure many a murderer and rapist has said that in their time.

Of course, I'm not trying to equate this situation with crimes as serious as that.

I was going to give this thread a wide berth as I regard it as a non story really. But I just had to comment on that remark Russ. Why did you feel the need to make such a blatant reductionist comment that you then retracted. What a waste of time.

The company should have requested PP and didn't, they probably will not and get it. End of story.

Obviously nothing better to write about this week so they thought they'd fill the pages with some guff.

If the news agencies wanted a "poofy" story then lets have something with a bit more backbone like equality for gays over pensions or next of kin, rather than a non story that causes people like Russ (and most of the posters in this thread) to fall off their perch to trying to get their words of distaste out.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dellwear

I was going to give this thread a wide berth as I regard it as a non story really. But I just had to comment on that remark Russ. Why did you feel the need to make such a blatant reductionist comment that you then retracted. What a waste of time.

I used that comment to say that someone coming out with 'stuff the rules' does not justify their actions. I did not retract it, I just used it as an extreme example.

Originally Posted by dellwear

If the news agencies wanted a "poofy" story then lets have something with a bit more backbone like equality for gays over pensions or next of kin, rather than a non story that causes people like Russ (and most of the posters in this thread) to fall off their perch to trying to get their words of distaste out.

Usually they do run stories on equality matters, however I guess this week there was nothing on that matter worth reporting upon. In the above story I'm sure it would have gone unnoticed had it not been 'Red Ken' making comments.

And would you define 'people like Russ'? Not sure what you're trying to suggest by that but I'll say had the council shown blatant descrimination based on sexuality then I'd have been behind you all the way (in the non-sexual sense of course ) however this is simply not the case here.