McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.
Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.

Really, I think the Myth busters simply collected their own.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"harry" wrote in message
...
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.
Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.

On 24/09/2012 09:11, harry wrote:
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.
Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.


They use **** to make pro biotic yoghurt too. Amazing what you learn off
the tele ennit?

"harry" wrote in message
...
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.
Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.

Yeah, I though some of the make do and mend stuff was a bit moronic given
that they were seen fixing the structural planks together with bespoke metal
fixings.

And does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"

tim

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:11:52 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.
Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.


I thought it was interesting - no planning permission needed for what
is effectively a trailer?
We're looking at getting a container for our allotments - which we
think as a 'permanent' thing needs PP. Putting it on wheels would mean
it doesn't. Apart from having to bury the wheels so we can easily get
a rotavator in it - will there be any other issues? (Other than the
possibly astronomic cost of a wheel base being more than planning
permission would?)

--
http://www.voucherfreebies.co.uk

In article , mogga
writes

I thought it was interesting - no planning permission needed for what
is effectively a trailer?
We're looking at getting a container for our allotments - which we
think as a 'permanent' thing needs PP. Putting it on wheels would mean
it doesn't. Apart from having to bury the wheels so we can easily get
a rotavator in it - will there be any other issues? (Other than the
possibly astronomic cost of a wheel base being more than planning
permission would?)

I didn't see it but can't see the difference between a wheeled trailer
and a caravan which does need PP if used long term, or was he not
intending to use it for residential use?

Btw, is anyone else seeing an element of pot, kettle and black in the
o/p's post?
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On Sep 24, 2:40*pm, fred wrote:
In article , mogga
writes

I thought it was interesting - no planning permission needed for what
is effectively a trailer?
We're looking at getting a container for our allotments - which we
think as a 'permanent' thing needs PP. Putting it on wheels would mean
it doesn't. Apart from having to bury the wheels so we can easily get
a rotavator in it - will there be any other issues? (Other than the
possibly astronomic cost of a wheel base being more than planning
permission would?)

I didn't see it but can't see the difference between a wheeled trailer
and a caravan which does need PP if used long term, or was he not
intending to use it for residential use?

Btw, is anyone else seeing an element of pot, kettle and black in the
o/p's post?
--

I have never been down a sewer to collect ****.

On Sep 24, 2:40*pm, fred wrote:

I didn't see it but can't see the difference between a wheeled trailer
and a caravan which does need PP if used long term.

So what you need is a liaison officer to schedule a date to swap with
the caravan from another allotment so that you can get around the
rules.

harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:40 pm, fred wrote:
In article , mogga
writes

I thought it was interesting - no planning permission needed for what
is effectively a trailer?
We're looking at getting a container for our allotments - which we
think as a 'permanent' thing needs PP. Putting it on wheels would mean
it doesn't. Apart from having to bury the wheels so we can easily get
a rotavator in it - will there be any other issues? (Other than the
possibly astronomic cost of a wheel base being more than planning
permission would?)
I didn't see it but can't see the difference between a wheeled trailer
and a caravan which does need PP if used long term, or was he not
intending to use it for residential use?

Btw, is anyone else seeing an element of pot, kettle and black in the
o/p's post?
--

I have never been down a sewer to collect ****.
I have never been to the moon to buy green cheese, either, harry.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:11:52 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.

That was just ridiculous.

On his point that, "you can erect anything if it's mobile"; I didn't
see any attempt to take the weight of the chassis while it was in that
hole. It can remain mobile, but be held up by jacks or piers to take
the weight off the tyres, which will just rot in the hole.

Knobber, indeed.

On Monday, September 24, 2012 9:11:52 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.
He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.

It surely would make a bit more sense - if not much - to use an onsite toilet to generate methane and store it in a bag or gasometer for lighting - and put the gaslight outside the window! Once digested it can then be legally disposed of nearby.

He didn't seem to realise that pressurised boiling liquid fuel toches & lamps have quite a poor safety record, its why we use gas now.

I might go with LED or CFL lighing on battery primarily for summer, and bottled gas lighting primarily for winter.


Is Dribble's real name Kev?

No limit to what attention seekers will do.

And the new "Grand Designs" is degenerating into a tour of
glassboxes. Again.

Its become boring. How many times can one make a big minimalist box using modern tried & tested building approaches. If he's going to keep interest he needs to morph the model into something that can recapture viewer interest.

One possibility might be to push the boat out rather further, using a percentage of the tv program income to persuade owners to push it with some of the technology. I've certainly got no shortage of innovative house design ideas.

Another might be to build a variety of very small fringe dwellings - which his wooden trailer is, albeit a far too tame one. A budget of 5k largely paid for by the tv program gives far more scope than that - google phoenix commotion for some fine examples.


Mind you, I belive all architects are knobbers.

any architect that tries to spend 10k of a client's money to get a shadow around door frames without even asking would certainly incur my wrath.


NT

On Sep 24, 9:11*am, harry wrote:
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.

Agreed, but he gets to visit nice people's nice houses, so we still
watch him.

His script is about as predictable for its over-played constructed
dramas as CSI:Miami.

He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.

WTF? He could at least have boiled a tree for it, or gone down the
Ironbridge tar tunnel.

harry wrote:

I have never been down a sewer to collect ****.

No need when you talk so much ****.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:11 am, harry wrote:
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.

Agreed, but he gets to visit nice people's nice houses, so we still
watch him.

His script is about as predictable for its over-played constructed
dramas as CSI:Miami.

He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.

WTF? He could at least have boiled a tree for it, or gone down the
Ironbridge tar tunnel.

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?
--
Tim Watts

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:30:42 AM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?


I didn't know you could. It explains the old advert.

Onetap wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:30:42 AM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?


I didn't know you could. It explains the old advert.

I could see methane being a possibility - but why mention paraffin? And if I
needed ****e to make methane, I'd go to the local cow field with a shovel.

--
Tim Watts

Huge wrote:

On 2012-09-25, Tim Watts wrote:
Onetap wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:30:42 AM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?


I didn't know you could. It explains the old advert.

I could see methane being a possibility - but why mention paraffin? And
if I needed ****e to make methane, I'd go to the local cow field with a
shovel.

He wasn't making paraffin from ****, but from the congealed fat that
accumulates in the drains - the sewer chappy referred to it as "fatbergs".



Oh - that makes sense. In a weird and twisted way...
--
Tim Watts

On Sep 25, 10:30*am, Tim Watts wrote:
Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:11 am, harry wrote:
McCoud that is.
Man is obvoiusly a complete knobber.

Agreed, but he gets to visit nice people's nice houses, so we still
watch him.

His script is about as predictable for its over-played constructed
dramas as CSI:Miami.

He made a personal expedition down Londons sewers to get a bucket of
**** in order to make paraffin for his shed lighting.

WTF? *He could at least have boiled a tree for it, or gone down the
Ironbridge tar tunnel.

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?
--
Tim Watts

Shame you can't make paraffin from ****e telly.

Philip

On 25/09/2012 14:33, Huge wrote:
On 2012-09-25, Tim Watts wrote:
Onetap wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:30:42 AM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

How do you make paraffin from ****e anyway?


I didn't know you could. It explains the old advert.

I could see methane being a possibility - but why mention paraffin? And if I
needed ****e to make methane, I'd go to the local cow field with a shovel.

He wasn't making paraffin from ****, but from the congealed fat that
accumulates in the drains - the sewer chappy referred to it as "fatbergs".



A sewer chappy? Sounds very tory

On 25 Sep 2012 13:33:02 GMT, Huge wrote:

He wasn't making paraffin from ****, but from the congealed fat that
accumulates in the drains - the sewer chappy referred to it as "fatbergs".

Why don't they dump a load of sodium hydroxide down there and make some soap to
clean the rest of the drain?


--

I've just caught up with this, recorded on Sky Plus in HD. Bizarrely, the
show seems to have been broadcast with the audio description track for the
visually impaired permanently switched on: did else experience this, or
should I be looking for an obscure fault in my equipment?

His initial "no power tools" approach didn't last very long, did it?

"tim....." wrote in message
...


Bump.

does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"


Is there no-one who knows this?

tim

accumulates in the drains - the sewer chappy referred to it as "fatbergs".







A sewer chappy? Sounds very tory

Would be if it was a sewer pleb (!)

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:22:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:
And does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"

Asphalt shingles? Over here, they're normally capped with an overlapping
row of cut-down shingles, with one nail either side of the ridge securing
each one. Sounds a bit bodgy (like most US construction ;-) but seems to
work in practice.

Our elderly barn does have some form of metal capping to it, though -
possibly just because it's about 50ft to the ridge and so it gets really
hammered by the weather.

cheers

Jules

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-09-26, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:22:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:
And does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"

Asphalt shingles?

No, wooden shakes.

Oh silly me, I thought that the word shingle mean wooden tile, rather than
referring to some other part of the process :-(.

Though according to this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_shingle

I'm sort of half right, but I digress.

Surely the reason for overlapping rows by half a tile horizontally whilst
offsetting them vertically from the one below is done so that any water that
drips though the cracks in one row falls onto the middle of a tile
underneath it and runs away.

But for the topmost row the gaps aren't going to have anything underneath to
catch the water, so either the water is going to drip into the house or if
there is felt underneath to stop this happening, get trapped on the felt by
the top edge of the second row down, and sit there forever rotting the top
two rows of tiles.

Unless there is a ridge tile to stop this, which Kev didn't have. (Unless
he put them on it whilst we weren't looking and they'll magically be there
next week - like it was a cooking for numpties program)

tim

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:04:56 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2012-09-26, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:22:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:
And does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"

Asphalt shingles?

No, wooden shakes.

Ah, fairy nuff. I've got cedar shakes on one of the vehicle sheds, so if
I remember later I'll have a nose and see how the ridge is done.

cheers

Jules

In message , Jules Richardson
writes
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:04:56 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2012-09-26, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:22:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:
And does a shingle roof really not need "ridge tiles"

Asphalt shingles?

No, wooden shakes.

Ah, fairy nuff. I've got cedar shakes on one of the vehicle sheds, so if
I remember later I'll have a nose and see how the ridge is done.

For slates you use half size for the top row but you still need a ridge
cap of some sort. I use sheet lead folded round a length of 40mm waste
pipe.

--
Tim Lamb