Fugly

Just when I thought planning laws couldn't get any more ridiculous in this country I read about this in the local paper.

The listed building scheme was devised to ensure perfectly good buildings weren't ripped down to pave the way for concrete monstrosities.

The Civic Centre is not a perfectly good building and is itself a concrete monstrosity.

Like much of the post WWII buildings constructed in Plymouth, the Civic Centre has concrete cancer. Plymouth was particularly affected by this condition due to the reaction of the limestone in the cement (Acid) and the marine aggregate (Alkali) that was used for making the concrete.
As the two react slowly over the years they produce a gel-like substance that oozes out of the concrete and weakens the structural integrity of the building by producing cracks.
The repair costs have been estimated at £10 million but a figure of £20 million would be more realistic (Especially given that government contracts are notorious for going over budget)

Knock it down and build something less hideous in its place. I don't mind the winged roof but the sixth form college looking fascia has got to go.

You have to wonder what English Heritage are on. Are these the same muppets that came up with the term "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty"?
If it's anything other than deciduous woodland then it isn't natural in this country is it!*

*This excludes estuaries, beaches, marshland, scrubland, peat bogs and any other geographic feature native to the British Isles that any given smart-arse wants to put in the comments section.

Amusing

I love recursion.

Which would you prefer?

If you were looking to invest £50,000 on a place to live would you do what you're told and lower your asperations by going for this or would you break the mold, demand value for money and get something like this instead?

Until the housing market comes back out of cloud cuckoo land, I have no intention of entering it. My parents brought me up (and my two older brothers) in a four bedroomed detatched house on a single income (although my mother did return to work when I got older). How many people can afford to do that now?

Round the bend

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly a party can make themselves unelectable. I actually voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2005 on the assumption that the murmers of it being a 'party full of loons' were created by Labour to make them less appealing to the electorate.

However since they got rid of Charles Kennedy they seem to be demonstrating to me that they're exactly that. They haven't come up with a decent policy since Ming was voted in and they've kicked out some of their better ones at the same time. The 50% income tax for earnings over £100,000 policy for example.

The freefall has continued with this stupid idea. Exactly how do you expect anyone to vote for you if you're intent on destroying peoples hopes and dreams?

Everyone aspires to owning a fast car like a Ferrari or a Porsche but the reality is that very few people actually do. Fast cars aren't the problem, the slow and heavy ones are.

If you limit every car to a top speed of 101mph you'll still have the same problem of suburbanites driving their children to school in tanks.

There are other issues with this speed limit as well. My car can do about 119mph (I don't know how much exactly as I rarely go above 90) but I still need every single horse in the engine to get me up the steep hills between Exeter & Plymouth. There are parts of Europe that are somewhat more 'hilly' than the Pennines where Chris Davies comes from.

This policy is stupid. It doesn't serve to protect the environment, it just serves to piss a lot of people off - myself included.

It isn't just the Lib Dems that are coming up with stupid motoring ideas though.

A road safety 'charity' (read lobby group) is suggesting more changes to the driving test.

I only took my driving test last year (and passed first time - piece of cake) but I found the amount of government tinkering with the test ridiculous.

One of the questions in my theory test asked me how I could reduce the amount I polluted and I had to answer by walking instead of driving. WTF does that have to do with learning how to be a safe driver?

I don't have the statistics to hand but I'm pretty sure that the best part of 100% of road accidents are caused by drivers who've already passed their tests.

It's difficult to get your license but easy to keep it. I would suggest a driving test every 5-10 years until you retire and then annually from then on. The tests would be free but you'd risk losing your license if you failed - you'd get a retest first. That'd stop bad habits creeping in and maybe take away a few licenses from those who really shouldn't have them.