"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote
| "PoP" wrote
| "G&M" wrote:
| Yep. Just broke my foot today falling down three steps of my
| genuine authentic 19th century wooden stairs.
| I slipped on the stairs about 4 years ago - straight onto my
| coxix or whatever that small knob at the base of the spine is.
| My story is that about the same time Spouse had made me some new
| C15th shoes - we were going to a mediaeval Christmas at St
| Briavel's Castle - and I tried them on upstairs. I realised
| that the soles were very slippery and that they might not
| grip on stone steps.

Gymnasts' rosin?

Coarse emery I think. Never thought about rosin, there's still some hanging
about from the kids' string instruments I should think. There's still a lot
of their other jun ... er ... treasured belongings.

| So I went down our (carpeted!) stairs, wearing them, to ask him
| to rough them up.
| I was only (!) 12 stones but the bruises on my extensive

but firm and shapely I'm sure :-)

I doubt it. Depends what you call shapely ...

| thigh were vast and deep and as colourful as only bruises can be.

I once tried riding a spacehopper down the stairs. It had a soft landing.
I
didn't.

LOL!

I tell you what though - I'm very impressed by some of the stunts I see
practised by skate boarders up, along and down steps. Even Spouse is - and
he's very rarely impressed by anything Yoof does.

Is it going to be the next Olympic sport? It should be, there's an enormous
amount of skill there.

Mary

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote
| "Owain" wrote
| | Are modern doors really made of cardboard?
| Yes :-) (Or something like it)
| Two flat outer skins of hardboard separated by a cellular
| corrugated-cardboard core.
| Oh, that kind of door. Are they still made?

Yes. They seem especially popular in America (doing a google search for
cardboard core door).

But in UK?

| There was an episode of the Generation Game where the
| contestants had to make a door.
| er ... Generation Game?

A popular televisual entertainment of the 1980s, featuring Mr Larry
Grayson,
a well-known and rather camp variety entertainer (whose catchphrase was,
appropriately for the topic, "Shut that door!") assisted by Isla St Clair.

Oh.

We had a television for about three years but I can't remember when ... I
seem to remember making a son watch the destruction of the Berlin wall ...

Thanks for the explanation. It makes some sense now because when we teach
people how to make candles some say that 'it feels like The Generation Game'
and I never liked to show my ignorance :-)

Mary

Owain

"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:


We had a television for about three years but I can't remember when
... I seem to remember making a son watch the destruction of the
Berlin wall ...

Funnily enough, I watched the building of the Berlin Wall on our first
television. In Berlin. I do remember when. :-)

--
Rod

www.annalaurie.co.uk

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:


We had a television for about three years but I can't remember when
... I seem to remember making a son watch the destruction of the
Berlin wall ...

Funnily enough, I watched the building of the Berlin Wall on our first
television. In Berlin. I do remember when. :-)

Some things are more memorable than others. I don't remember where I was
when Kennedy died (which seems to be the gold standard) but I do remember
where I was when I heard the report of the Cuba crisis - it was more
significant. I remember where I was (playing the piano) when Lennon was shot
and (in bed on a Thursday morning) when Mrs Thatcher resigned; in bed again
when I heard that That Woman had been killed and in the caravan on The Isle
of Arran when the report of the twin towers came through - the sun shone on
the solar powered radio bringing it into sudden life.

Apart from those universal happenings I'd say that family incidents are more
important.

I'm still not all that good at remembering the When though ...

Mary

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:11:16 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


Are you really going to rip out a 100+ year old staircase because you
tripped and hurt your foot?


Yes ! They are lethal anyway as headroom is 5'6", have no proper
bannisters and are steeper than 45 degrees. House is not listed or anything
and even my BCO took an instant dislike to them as well on seeing them.

Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them? You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them? You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

Indeed. They should only be sold to short people, at a suitable reduced
price.

I'm 5'3" ...

Mary

cheers,
Pete.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:26:00 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .
"Mary Fisher" wrote in
et:


We had a television for about three years but I can't remember when
... I seem to remember making a son watch the destruction of the
Berlin wall ...

Funnily enough, I watched the building of the Berlin Wall on our first
television. In Berlin. I do remember when. :-)

Some things are more memorable than others. I don't remember where I was
when Kennedy died (which seems to be the gold standard) but I do remember
where I was when I heard the report of the Cuba crisis - it was more
significant. I remember where I was (playing the piano) when Lennon was shot
and (in bed on a Thursday morning) when Mrs Thatcher resigned; in bed again
when I heard that That Woman had been killed

Which woman?

and in the caravan on The Isle
of Arran when the report of the twin towers came through - the sun shone on
the solar powered radio bringing it into sudden life.

You don't have one of those clockwork ones?


Apart from those universal happenings I'd say that family incidents are more
important.

I'm still not all that good at remembering the When though ...

Mary






..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:11:16 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


Are you really going to rip out a 100+ year old staircase because you
tripped and hurt your foot?
Yes ! They are lethal anyway as headroom is 5'6", have no proper
bannisters and are steeper than 45 degrees. House is not listed or
anything
and even my BCO took an instant dislike to them as well on seeing them.

Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Nope - just living within a National Park where the conservation officers
try to pretend that everything is effectively listed. Expecting a visit
anyday from the jackboots about the duck pond mentioned on another thread
that I've just had dug in my garden.


Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them?

I'd love to have done so. Or even built a house to suit our needs from
scratch.
But it took over a year to even find an unlisted one with land round here
large enough for what we wanted. And getting planning permission for a new
build here is simply impossible.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:11:16 +0100, "G&M" wrote:

Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them? You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

I would expect 17th century stuff to be preserved and fully agree it should
be listed. But 19th century is rather more common, especially late 1890s
when this staircase was put in.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...
snip
LOL!

I tell you what though - I'm very impressed by some of the stunts I see
practised by skate boarders up, along and down steps. Even Spouse is - and
he's very rarely impressed by anything Yoof does.

Is it going to be the next Olympic sport? It should be, there's an
enormous
amount of skill there.


I saw a few French yoof doing "free running" on channel4 last September and
what they did was truly impressive. The HMS Belfast stunt jumping about 2
storeys from the bridge to the gun turrets and down was in my mind suicidal
and the stunt co-ordinator said so himself, but these amazingly fit guys did
it without injury and made it look easy peasy.

I just hope none of them turn into burglars or the like.
--
Big Al - The Peoples Pal

... That Woman ...

Which woman?

Named after a huntress.

... - the sun shone on
the solar powered radio bringing it into sudden life.

You don't have one of those clockwork ones?

It's a combined solar/clockwork one but it's better than the first we bought
which only lasts for 25 minutes on one wind. I keep that in the greenhouse.
The newer one is smaller and lighter and stores energy, whether mechanical
or solar. Recommended. I bought it when Spouse was in hospital and he
couldn't get R4 on the telly. His room faced south, it was July and it
rarely needed winding. Now it goes with us in the caravan or tent.

Mary

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:22:30 +0100, "G&M" wrote:

Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Nope - just living within a National Park where the conservation officers
try to pretend that everything is effectively listed.

Life in a National Park must be hard :^)

Expecting a visit
anyday from the jackboots about the duck pond mentioned on another thread
that I've just had dug in my garden.

I can't see why that would be a problem, but they may not allow a huge
pond in a conservation area.

Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them?

I'd love to have done so. Or even built a house to suit our needs from
scratch.
But it took over a year to even find an unlisted one with land round here
large enough for what we wanted. And getting planning permission for a new
build here is simply impossible.

It works both ways, if there was no listing process or planning
permission you might end up surrounded by Tudorbethan boxes and not
want to live there anyway. So maybe living with these things is an
acceptable price to pay.

You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

I would expect 17th century stuff to be preserved and fully agree it should
be listed. But 19th century is rather more common, especially late 1890s
when this staircase was put in.

True, but art deco buildings and town centres were considered common
enough in the 60s to make way for tower blocks and ring roads, and it
was seen to be 'progress' at the time.

Could you give the staircase a second chance? It's served it's purpose
for 100+ years so far. My rule for such situations is to always look
where I put my feet, has served me very well so far.

What sort of timber are you planning to replace it with if you don't
mind me asking?

cheers,
Pete.

"Mary Fisher" wrote
| | There was an episode of the Generation Game where the
| | contestants had to make a door.
| | er ... Generation Game?
| A popular televisual entertainment of the 1980s, featuring Mr
| Larry Grayson, a well-known and rather camp variety entertainer
| (whose catchphrase was, appropriately for the topic, "Shut that
| door!") assisted by Isla St Clair.
| Thanks for the explanation. It makes some sense now because when we
| teach people how to make candles some say that 'it feels like The
| Generation Game' and I never liked to show my ignorance :-)

Ah.

Explanation of the Generation Game follows.

Two relatives of different generations of the same family in each team.
Three teams if I remember. An expert would demonstrate a task such as
assembling a door or icing a cake, against the clock, preferably something
involving manual dexterity and sticky stuff. The contestants would then have
to repeat the same task in the same amount of time. Mr Grayson would rush
about making 'helpful' suggestions like "Squirt some more glue all over it".
At the end of the time, the expert would award points according to the level
of accomplishment, trying not to be too scathing about what were obviously
complete bodge-ups.

The contestant with the most points then got to sit in front of a conveyor
belt along which would pass the prizes ... teasmades and the like, and of
course a ubiquitous CUDDLY TOY. After the prizes had passed out of sight the
contestant had to remember them all, with the audience shouting out helping.
Everything the contestant remembered within 30 seconds or whatever,
including the CUDDLY TOY, they got to take home.

All good clean fun on Saturday tea-time television.

Owain

G&M wrote:

"Pete C" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:18:22 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Building regs are actually fairly sane on staircases IMHO.

Yep. Just broke my foot today falling down three steps of my genuine
authentic 19th century wooden stairs.
They are going no matter what the conservation officer thinks !!!!!!

Hi,

Are you really going to rip out a 100+ year old staircase because you
tripped and hurt your foot?



Yes ! They are lethal anyway as headroom is 5'6", have no proper
bannisters and are steeper than 45 degrees. House is not listed or anything
and even my BCO took an instant dislike to them as well on seeing them.




Hear hear!.

Just because its old doesn't make it any bloody good.

If yiou want to see how ghastly really old hoses were vistit the open
aur museum of riral life? near goodwood in west sussex.

Open fires in the centers of rooms with smokeholes in teh roof? No thank
you.

nearest thng to 'en suite' is a cupboard built out over a 20 ft drop
with a hole in the floor and a bucket underneath...

staircases which are essentially ladders.

The standard of a modern house in all but _appearance_ and _size_ is
better than the best tudor mansion.

Take that tudor mansion, insulate it, underfloor heat it, stick in
modern plumbing and lighting, and THEN you have a real house worth
preserving.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote
| | There was an episode of the Generation Game where the
| | contestants had to make a door.
| | er ... Generation Game?
| A popular televisual entertainment of the 1980s, featuring Mr
| Larry Grayson, a well-known and rather camp variety entertainer
| (whose catchphrase was, appropriately for the topic, "Shut that
| door!") assisted by Isla St Clair.
| Thanks for the explanation. It makes some sense now because when we
| teach people how to make candles some say that 'it feels like The
| Generation Game' and I never liked to show my ignorance :-)

Ah.

Explanation of the Generation Game follows.

Two relatives of different generations of the same family in each team.
Three teams if I remember. An expert would demonstrate a task such as
assembling a door or icing a cake, against the clock, preferably something
involving manual dexterity and sticky stuff. The contestants would then
have
to repeat the same task in the same amount of time. Mr Grayson would rush
about making 'helpful' suggestions like "Squirt some more glue all over
it".
At the end of the time, the expert would award points according to the
level
of accomplishment, trying not to be too scathing about what were obviously
complete bodge-ups.

The contestant with the most points then got to sit in front of a conveyor
belt along which would pass the prizes ... teasmades and the like, and of
course a ubiquitous CUDDLY TOY. After the prizes had passed out of sight
the
contestant had to remember them all, with the audience shouting out
helping.
Everything the contestant remembered within 30 seconds or whatever,
including the CUDDLY TOY, they got to take home.

All good clean fun on Saturday tea-time television.

You mean I've missed all that fun?

feels faint

Ah well, I'm very pleased that someone obviously enjoyed it enough to
remember it all. Including the CUDDLY TOY.

I seem to remember that on my parents' tv such conveyor belts would always
include a set of travelling luggage. I'd never seen matching luggage in real
life.

Still haven't, come to think of it. Perhaps no-one ever won it - or always
chose the CUDDLY TOY.

Mary

Owain

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:22:30 +0100, "G&M" wrote:

Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Nope - just living within a National Park where the conservation officers
try to pretend that everything is effectively listed.

Life in a National Park must be hard :^)

Not for me perhaps. But for all the farmhands who can't actually afford to
live there it isn't so good.


Expecting a visit
anyday from the jackboots about the duck pond mentioned on another thread
that I've just had dug in my garden.

I can't see why that would be a problem, but they may not allow a huge
pond in a conservation area.

They'd rather there was nobody here at all. No homes, no farms, no sheep.
Just a few walkers.


Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them?

I'd love to have done so. Or even built a house to suit our needs from
scratch.
But it took over a year to even find an unlisted one with land round here
large enough for what we wanted. And getting planning permission for a
new
build here is simply impossible.

It works both ways, if there was no listing process or planning
permission you might end up surrounded by Tudorbethan boxes and not
want to live there anyway. So maybe living with these things is an
acceptable price to pay.

Problem with the listing process is it stagnates the farms. Farms used to
build a farmhouse. Next generation that would become the barn when a new
farmhouse was built. As this went on unused structures were demolished and
the stone used for the new buildings. Thus farms moved from crofts, through
cottages onto the farmhouses we now know. Suddenly with listing and the
National Parks, this stopped dead. I live in a valley with 30% of the
buildings unused and unusable, but it is impossible to get permission either
to demolish them or convert them to any sensible use. If course if a
demolition was allowed the replacement would have to fit in with the look of
the countryside, but that isn't beyond the wit of at least a small
proportion of modern architects.


You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

I would expect 17th century stuff to be preserved and fully agree it
should
be listed. But 19th century is rather more common, especially late 1890s
when this staircase was put in.

True, but art deco buildings and town centres were considered common
enough in the 60s to make way for tower blocks and ring roads, and it
was seen to be 'progress' at the time.

And fortunately still is. Whoever tried to list the Portsmouth Unicorn
should have been strung up from it.


Could you give the staircase a second chance? It's served it's purpose
for 100+ years so far. My rule for such situations is to always look
where I put my feet, has served me very well so far.

What sort of timber are you planning to replace it with if you don't
mind me asking?

Haven't got that far. In fact aren't going anywhere until foot mends :-)
But there's a traditional staircase company working in a barn nearby so I'll
get them to take a look. Maybe they can rebuild what's there a little safer
which of course would fit in best of all.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:01:18 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


Life in a National Park must be hard :^)

Not for me perhaps. But for all the farmhands who can't actually afford to
live there it isn't so good.

People who have those kind of jobs can barely afford a home anywhere.
However part of the reason local homes are unaffordable is that prices
have been driven up by second home owners and incomers.

It works both ways, if there was no listing process or planning
permission you might end up surrounded by Tudorbethan boxes and not
want to live there anyway. So maybe living with these things is an
acceptable price to pay.

Problem with the listing process is it stagnates the farms. Farms used to
build a farmhouse. Next generation that would become the barn when a new
farmhouse was built. As this went on unused structures were demolished and
the stone used for the new buildings. Thus farms moved from crofts, through
cottages onto the farmhouses we now know. Suddenly with listing and the
National Parks, this stopped dead. I live in a valley with 30% of the
buildings unused and unusable, but it is impossible to get permission either
to demolish them or convert them to any sensible use. If course if a
demolition was allowed the replacement would have to fit in with the look of
the countryside, but that isn't beyond the wit of at least a small
proportion of modern architects.

True, turning them into homes is better than nothing. What would be
better is to have some restriction in the title deeds to make them
available to local people, so they don't end up as more holiday homes.

True, but art deco buildings and town centres were considered common
enough in the 60s to make way for tower blocks and ring roads, and it
was seen to be 'progress' at the time.

And fortunately still is. Whoever tried to list the Portsmouth Unicorn
should have been strung up from it.

Anyone got a link to this on the web? I'm curious to know what it
looks like.

cheers,
Pete.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:20:59 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
Chris J Dixon randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

How is it that so many "designer" homes, often of the type shown
on TV or in the glossies, completely ignore these requirements?
I've lost count of the number of times I have had a dig in the
ribs from SWMBO for muttering *Building Regs" on seeing them.

I do the same (although the only SWMBO is the cat, and she isn't
really paying attention).

Ironically, you CAN rip out a stair, guarding and all in an existing
dwelling without having to replace it with anything which is no worse
than the existing, and not fall foul of the Building Regulations.
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
shows you just how far you've strayed from the pack".

G&M wrote:

"Pete C" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:22:30 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Nope - just living within a National Park where the conservation officers
try to pretend that everything is effectively listed.

Life in a National Park must be hard :^)


Not for me perhaps. But for all the farmhands who can't actually afford to
live there it isn't so good.


Expecting a visit
anyday from the jackboots about the duck pond mentioned on another thread
that I've just had dug in my garden.

I can't see why that would be a problem, but they may not allow a huge
pond in a conservation area.


They'd rather there was nobody here at all. No homes, no farms, no sheep.
Just a few walkers.


Did you spell that last word aright?




Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them?

I'd love to have done so. Or even built a house to suit our needs from
scratch.
But it took over a year to even find an unlisted one with land round here
large enough for what we wanted. And getting planning permission for a

new

build here is simply impossible.

It works both ways, if there was no listing process or planning
permission you might end up surrounded by Tudorbethan boxes and not
want to live there anyway. So maybe living with these things is an
acceptable price to pay.


Problem with the listing process is it stagnates the farms. Farms used to
build a farmhouse. Next generation that would become the barn when a new
farmhouse was built. As this went on unused structures were demolished and
the stone used for the new buildings. Thus farms moved from crofts, through
cottages onto the farmhouses we now know. Suddenly with listing and the
National Parks, this stopped dead. I live in a valley with 30% of the
buildings unused and unusable, but it is impossible to get permission either
to demolish them or convert them to any sensible use. If course if a
demolition was allowed the replacement would have to fit in with the look of
the countryside, but that isn't beyond the wit of at least a small
proportion of modern architects.



No. I have to agree 100%. The concept of 'sympathetic evolution and
preservation' needs to replace 'frozen in space time, forever'

At least for the lower grades.




You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

I would expect 17th century stuff to be preserved and fully agree it

should

be listed. But 19th century is rather more common, especially late 1890s
when this staircase was put in.

True, but art deco buildings and town centres were considered common
enough in the 60s to make way for tower blocks and ring roads, and it
was seen to be 'progress' at the time.


And fortunately still is. Whoever tried to list the Portsmouth Unicorn
should have been strung up from it.


Could you give the staircase a second chance? It's served it's purpose
for 100+ years so far. My rule for such situations is to always look
where I put my feet, has served me very well so far.

What sort of timber are you planning to replace it with if you don't
mind me asking?


Haven't got that far. In fact aren't going anywhere until foot mends :-)
But there's a traditional staircase company working in a barn nearby so I'll
get them to take a look. Maybe they can rebuild what's there a little safer
which of course would fit in best of all.



Agood carpenter can make alomst anything you want. But spend some time
sketching out how you want it fist.

I cotsed out a staircase from the joiners - 3 grand plus whatever the
chippes charged to fit it. Got 600 quids woth of wood and the chiipoes
charged about 2500 to fit it all togther perfectly. MDF where the carpet
was going for strength, and oak wherever you saw it, which looks stunning.

Hugo Nebula wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:20:59 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
Chris J Dixon randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:


How is it that so many "designer" homes, often of the type shown
on TV or in the glossies, completely ignore these requirements?
I've lost count of the number of times I have had a dig in the
ribs from SWMBO for muttering *Building Regs" on seeing them.


I do the same (although the only SWMBO is the cat, and she isn't
really paying attention).

Ironically, you CAN rip out a stair, guarding and all in an existing
dwelling without having to replace it with anything which is no worse
than the existing, and not fall foul of the Building Regulations.


I am not at all sure that is true. If making a 'material alteration' you
are required to esnure that the alteration is to standards. If you
merely repair iot, then thats true. But putting a new staircase in - it
HAS to comply IMHO.

Staircase design was the biggest bugbear of my house in fact. I had to
move the fireplaces off center to accomodate the main one. The second
staircase going up to a low half storey under the eaves could only go up
the house center, to meet height requirements, and ended up as a virtual
spiral. You can bend the rules to breaking point with a slightly narrow
staircase that winds. It uses the absolute miniumum of floor area.

It seems that you can have plenty of low ceilings in rooms, but not in
staircases :-)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:37:25 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I am not at all sure that is true. If making a 'material alteration' you
are required to esnure that the alteration is to standards.

An alteration is only material if it adversely affects a Relevant
Requirement (currently Part A- structure, Part B- fire safety and Part
M- access & facilities for disabled people), or a controlled service
or fitting (drainage and waste disposal, combustion appliances, and
for dwellings, replacement windows or central heating boilers,
vessels, etc). Part K is not a relevant requirement, so if the work
consists wholly of replacing a stair, it is not controlled.

If it is being altered as part of other work (an extension or
structural alteration) then it should be made no worse than
previously.
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
shows you just how far you've strayed from the pack".