One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to
follow a story through successive related articles - see: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the
reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, you are deliberately missing the point.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I
suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that
category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is
not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, you are deliberately missing the point.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that
category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is
not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:31:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute rubbish. You are being deceitful and obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty >>>>>than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that >>>category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is >>>not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work. >>Nope, you are deliberately missing the point.
That would be you, Tony, getting off topic again. It is all there in
the Subject: - An Education for Chris Penk - that you apparently need
an education as well is Off Topic, Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:31:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute rubbish. You are being deceitful and obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty >>>>>>than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new >>>>homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have >>>>seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>>>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that >>>>category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make >>>>changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is >>>>not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work. >>>Nope, you are deliberately missing the point.
That would be you, Tony, getting off topic again. It is all there in
the Subject: - An Education for Chris Penk - that you apparently need
an education as well is Off Topic, Tony.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I
suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that
category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is
not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:30:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyI have been, and am, on topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 01:31:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute rubbish. You are being deceitful and obtuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty >>>>>>>than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new >>>>>homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have >>>>>seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>>>>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that >>>>>category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make >>>>>changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is >>>>>not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work. >>>>Nope, you are deliberately missing the point.
That would be you, Tony, getting off topic again. It is all there in
the Subject: - An Education for Chris Penk - that you apparently need
an education as well is Off Topic, Tony.
The Subject of the Thread is "An Education for Chris Penk." If you
want to talk about anything else start a new thread.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:29:52 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty
than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that
category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is
not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
These "healthy homes" rules for rental houses are unnecessary. The
only thing they will achieve is to cost everyone money and further
discourage property owners from making their houses available for
rent. They will increase the size of the bureaucracy because every new >regulation means more administration and petty enforcement. My house
is healthy enough as it is. No level of "healthy home" compliance will
make any difference to some fat pig who drinks excessively, smokes,
eats crap and doesn't exercise.
I suspect that the reason left wing governments love this stuff is
that it increases the size of the bureaucracy and provides the likes
of Labour and the greens with a guaranteed supply of votes. None of
the people involved in implementing and enforcing this nonsense would
favour any government they perceive to be a threat to their cushy
jobs.
Bill.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to
follow a story through successive related articles - see: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the
reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 05:59:02 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Sarcsam - the last resort of the inept and uneducated.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:29:52 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty >>>>>than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new
homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have
seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that >>>category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make
changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is >>>not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
These "healthy homes" rules for rental houses are unnecessary. The
only thing they will achieve is to cost everyone money and further >>discourage property owners from making their houses available for
rent. They will increase the size of the bureaucracy because every new >>regulation means more administration and petty enforcement. My house
is healthy enough as it is. No level of "healthy home" compliance will
make any difference to some fat pig who drinks excessively, smokes,
eats crap and doesn't exercise.
Now don't you go worrying yourself, BR, Chris Penk has your back. >Self-certification is all you would need if you are wanting to rent
your house; if you say it is healthy enough well you should know,
"Right"? Now may be Penk could have a quiet word with his good friend
Simeon Brown - forget about those pesky councils that don't like
children being killed outside their schools - let them set their petty >limits, but bring in self-certification for the speed they were
traveling! There could even be a slogan - Getting New Zealand Moving
again!. And before you start worrying about Chris Penk and Simeon
Brown, they'll be OK - the Ministerial Limos are pretty safe in a
crash . . .
I suspect that the reason left wing governments love this stuff is
that it increases the size of the bureaucracy and provides the likes
of Labour and the greens with a guaranteed supply of votes. None of
the people involved in implementing and enforcing this nonsense would >>favour any government they perceive to be a threat to their cushy
jobs.
Bill.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>It seems to be for a lot of people - I am not personally affected, but
wrote:
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
So Penk is looking into this Rich80105 and you consider this an issue?
Has any proposal been taken to Cabinet? If so, did anything come of
this to progress this proposal?
Unless and until the answer to both questions is 'yes' then there isThanks for that - but the coalition agreements will not be the sole
no cause for concern.
I expect that our Cabinet Ministers are capable of exploring new
options at all times. None matter unless Cabinet decisions are
imminent or approved.
Personally I don't think this will go anywhere. It does not achieve
any significant cost reductions - there is simply no point in doing
this and there are no coalition agreement requirements for this
change.
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:39:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:It seems to be for a lot of people - I am not personally affected, but
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a
statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
So Penk is looking into this Rich80105 and you consider this an issue?
I know a lot of people are, and that it affects healthy living which
has flow on effects to health service volumes - we can save money by
better homes.
The last of the four links should have been the following - the
following story rounds out the previous three - I apologise for the
wrong link being posted. >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522965/insulation-s-role-in-overheating-a-myth-building-experts
Has any proposal been taken to Cabinet? If so, did anything come of
this to progress this proposal?
That is not clear, but we have seen a number of decisions recently
that apparently did not need to go to Cabinet.
If it is just changing
a regulation (like a recent excise duty change) apparently it can be
made by the Minister.
Unless and until the answer to both questions is 'yes' then there isThanks for that - but the coalition agreements will not be the sole
no cause for concern.
I expect that our Cabinet Ministers are capable of exploring new
options at all times. None matter unless Cabinet decisions are
imminent or approved.
Personally I don't think this will go anywhere. It does not achieve
any significant cost reductions - there is simply no point in doing
this and there are no coalition agreement requirements for this
change.
reason for legislation.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 05:59:02 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Sarcsam - the last resort of the inept and uneducated.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:29:52 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 20:25:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:25:18 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Yes that is exactly the point.
One of the good things that sometimes happen is that it is possible to >>>>>>>follow a story through successive related articles - see: >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522288/government-considers-rolling-back-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522414/dismay-at-plan-to-revert-to-less-strict-insulation-standards
then >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
and now today: >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/522432/insulation-cost-relatively-small-for-standard-home
Hopefully there will be a further article tomorrow following a >>>>>>>statement from the Minister that he will not be proceeding with the >>>>>>>reversal of good standards relating to housing insulation . . .
My own house doesn't comply.
If I had to go away for a long time, I would sooner leave it empty >>>>>>than spend oney that does not need spending.
Bill.
No it is not. The articles were on the impact on standards for new >>>>homes, and possibly also homes being made available for rent. I have >>>>seen houses that have been condemned and owners forced to move, but I >>>>suspect the houses that Bill and you Tony live in are not in that >>>>category. Should Bill wish to rent his house he may need to make >>>>changes to comply with the law, but it is possible that provided it is >>>>not used for commercial income it does not need that additional work.
These "healthy homes" rules for rental houses are unnecessary. The
only thing they will achieve is to cost everyone money and further >>>discourage property owners from making their houses available for
rent. They will increase the size of the bureaucracy because every new >>>regulation means more administration and petty enforcement. My house
is healthy enough as it is. No level of "healthy home" compliance will >>>make any difference to some fat pig who drinks excessively, smokes,
eats crap and doesn't exercise.
Now don't you go worrying yourself, BR, Chris Penk has your back. >>Self-certification is all you would need if you are wanting to rent
your house; if you say it is healthy enough well you should know,
"Right"? Now may be Penk could have a quiet word with his good friend >>Simeon Brown - forget about those pesky councils that don't like
children being killed outside their schools - let them set their petty >>limits, but bring in self-certification for the speed they were
traveling! There could even be a slogan - Getting New Zealand Moving >>again!. And before you start worrying about Chris Penk and Simeon
Brown, they'll be OK - the Ministerial Limos are pretty safe in a
crash . . .
In your case, the only debating tool that you have.
I suspect that the reason left wing governments love this stuff is
that it increases the size of the bureaucracy and provides the likes
of Labour and the greens with a guaranteed supply of votes. None of
the people involved in implementing and enforcing this nonsense would >>>favour any government they perceive to be a threat to their cushy
jobs.
Bill.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:52:30 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,648 |