Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

Ouch.

David

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html


"It was a very old building. There was always the possibility that the
weight of the thatch was too much for it - or that work had been undertaken
on it which weakened something. "

ATM it seem that it's only one of many possibilities, It would be nice if it
was a 'DIY' induced problem, otherwise the next door properties could have
problems too....

"Lobster" wrote in message


Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to
see the pictures unfortunately...)

I'm not registered with The Times and I can see it online.

Eeek.

Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

What a *******. Harwell is a lovely village. Hopefully the perpetrator will
move away and it will have one fewer village idiot.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

What a *******. Harwell is a lovely village. Hopefully the perpetrator
will
move away and it will have one fewer village idiot.

Christian.




It was a listed building and he may have done it on purpose in order to be
able to rebuild it as something bigger/better ?

"Fray Bentos" wrote in message
.uk...

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to
see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

What a *******. Harwell is a lovely village. Hopefully the perpetrator
will
move away and it will have one fewer village idiot.


It was a listed building and he may have done it on purpose in order to be
able to rebuild it as something bigger/better ?


I suggest the real 'village idiots' read the story rather than just
assume...

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html


Of course, for a real disaster, you need professional European building
improvers:

http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/news/world/...icle=CAS305478

Fray Bentos wrote:

It was a listed building

Well, its certainly listing now!
--

Reply address is spamtrapped. Remove theobvious for valid e-mail address

It was a listed building and he may have done it on purpose in order to be
able to rebuild it as something bigger/better ?

A high risk strategy in more than one way. He could be compelled to rebuild
it to the former condition. It will be interesting to hear if he needed, and
actually had, permission for what he was doing

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

Ouch.

I can see a picture.

What a shame :-(

Mary

David

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

I can see a picture.

Ah - so can I, now: it's obviously been added in during the morning!

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

I can see a picture.

Ah - so can I, now: it's obviously been added in during the morning!
It looks a pretty amazing collapse. There seems to be little rubble, so
perhaps the walls were clay lump? That can collapse disastrously like that
if water seeps in. Perhaps the thatch had become porous?

Peter Scott

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
It was a listed building and he may have done it on purpose in order to
be
able to rebuild it as something bigger/better ?

A high risk strategy in more than one way. He could be compelled to
rebuild it to the former condition. It will be interesting to hear if he
needed, and actually had, permission for what he was doing

Or Insurance...........
Baz

"Baz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
It was a listed building and he may have done it on purpose in order to
be
able to rebuild it as something bigger/better ?

A high risk strategy in more than one way. He could be compelled to
rebuild it to the former condition. It will be interesting to hear if he
needed, and actually had, permission for what he was doing

Or Insurance...........
Baz



If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I am
currently sitting!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...




If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I am
currently sitting!

Did you feel the Earth move?

Mary


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

Following up the thread on this of a couple of weeks back - here's a
cracker from this morning's paper (you'll need to buy a hard copy to
see
the pictures unfortunately...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...484880,00.html

I can see a picture.

Ah - so can I, now: it's obviously been added in during the morning!
It looks a pretty amazing collapse. There seems to be little rubble, so
perhaps the walls were clay lump? That can collapse disastrously like that
if water seeps in. Perhaps the thatch had become porous?

Peter Scott



it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but rather
poor scan I just did :-

http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)

says he only removed some stud walls ....

would this have been of "cob" construction ?

"brugnospamsia" wrote in message
news:n0qQd.15293



it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but
rather
poor scan I just did :-

http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)

Oh! I get "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated
data transfer."

says he only removed some stud walls ....

Only???

would this have been of "cob" construction ?

We can't see, can we!

Mary

"brugnospamsia" wrote
| it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but
| rather poor scan I just did :-
| http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)
| says he only removed some stud walls ....
| would this have been of "cob" construction ?

I think those 'stud walls' probably were structural timber post and beam.

Owain

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"brugnospamsia" wrote in message
news:n0qQd.15293



it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but
rather
poor scan I just did :-

http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)

Oh! I get "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its
allocated data transfer."

looks like everyone wanted a look...

I'll know not to do that again.

time to rent myself some decent webspace !

brugnospamsia wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"brugnospamsia" wrote in message
news:n0qQd.15293


it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but
rather
poor scan I just did :-

http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)

Oh! I get "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its
allocated data transfer."

looks like everyone wanted a look...

No doubt!

I'll know not to do that again.

Think the real problem was it was such a big file at 600K - relatively
few viewings would have quickly cranked up your quota. With a low res
image like that, you could have easily got away with reducing it to
about 10K, with no discernable difference!

David

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:08:35 GMT, "brugnospamsia"
wrote:

says he only removed some stud walls ....

Oh ... only those things that are holding the house up ... thats all
right then

I suppose there was a tie beam at inconvenient height between the two
bedrooms so he got rid of it so the walls fell in

If he lived in St Edmundsbury (he doesn't though I expect Didcot rules
are similar) then he should have informed the council seven days
before starting any structural stuff with the timber frame so the
council can send round an inspector if they deem it necessary.
Probably he never put in for listed building consent though so he
doesn't know this

Anna

~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
brugnospamsia wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"brugnospamsia" wrote in message
news:n0qQd.15293


it was covered in the "Metro" free rag today - here's a larger, but
rather
poor scan I just did :-

http://uk.geocities.com/gentlegreengiant/dunhomein.jpg (600kb)

Oh! I get "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its
allocated data transfer."

looks like everyone wanted a look...

No doubt!

I'll know not to do that again.

Think the real problem was it was such a big file at 600K - relatively few
viewings would have quickly cranked up your quota. With a low res image
like that, you could have easily got away with reducing it to about 10K,
with no discernable difference!

that's easy for you Photoshop wallahs to say - my low res attempt was awful

:-)

Jeremy

"Anna Kettle" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:08:35 GMT, "brugnospamsia"
wrote:

says he only removed some stud walls ....

Oh ... only those things that are holding the house up ... thats all
right then

I suppose there was a tie beam at inconvenient height between the two
bedrooms so he got rid of it so the walls fell in

If he lived in St Edmundsbury (he doesn't though I expect Didcot rules
are similar) then he should have informed the council seven days
before starting any structural stuff with the timber frame so the
council can send round an inspector if they deem it necessary.
Probably he never put in for listed building consent though so he
doesn't know this

I bet he's feeling very embarrassed ...

Mary

Anna

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...




If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I am
currently sitting!

Did you feel the Earth move?

Mary

No, but the poor lady who lives in the *other half* of the pair of cottages
did (she was on the local news). Seemed quite chipper in the circumstances!


--
Bob Mannix

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...




If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I
am
currently sitting!

Did you feel the Earth move?

Mary

No, but the poor lady who lives in the *other half* of the pair of
cottages did (she was on the local news). Seemed quite chipper in the
circumstances!

She'll probably come out quite well when the insurance coughs up!

Mary


--
Bob Mannix

brugnospamsia wrote:

that's easy for you Photoshop wallahs to say - my low res attempt was awful

The Gimp is free and does pretty much what photoshop does, give or take
some.

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
brugnospamsia wrote:

that's easy for you Photoshop wallahs to say - my low res attempt was
awful

The Gimp is free and does pretty much what photoshop does, give or take
some.

what I should have said was that though I can get photoshop for free as a
uni techie, I'm way too lazy to learn how to use it ;-)

I've just downloaded Gimp though to have a look - thanks...

Google's Picassa looks quite interesting too - though I haven't played with
it much yet

If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I am
currently sitting!

I heard that it might not have been the expected have-a-go bodger. There was
a quote from the conservation officer that implied that they were aware of
the work being implemented prior to the event.

The work so far had been to remove some hardboard partitions, before the
structural work began. I suspect that the house was being held up by the
hardboard...

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
If I hear anything, I'll let you know. It's about 2 miles from where I am
currently sitting!


I heard that it might not have been the expected have-a-go bodger. There was
a quote from the conservation officer that implied that they were aware of
the work being implemented prior to the event.

In the Times report it said "two-bedroom Grade II listed property in
Oxfordshire for a price believed to be £180,000" which seems absurdly
cheap to me. (Sell shoebox in Great Wen and buy cottage in Oxon and have
change, I wish). So perhaps it was known to be in a fragile condition.


--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

brugnospamsia wrote:

what I should have said was that though I can get photoshop for free as a
uni techie, I'm way too lazy to learn how to use it ;-)

Try photoshop elephants 3 then.... much of the oomph, but quicker to
learn...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
"brugnospamsia" says...

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
brugnospamsia wrote:

that's easy for you Photoshop wallahs to say - my low res attempt was
awful

The Gimp is free and does pretty much what photoshop does, give or take
some.

what I should have said was that though I can get photoshop for free as a
uni techie, I'm way too lazy to learn how to use it ;-)

I've just downloaded Gimp though to have a look - thanks...

Google's Picassa looks quite interesting too - though I haven't played with
it much yet

You don't need something that complicated for image optimisation -
have a go with IrfanView.