THE Prepping thread - a new beginning :)

thriftwizard

Well. A little bit of a "proud Mama" moment here: as I may have mentioned several hundred times, DS2 & TDiL are actually, really properly moving out in one week and six days. (Counting the days? Who, me?!) And TDiL has been building up a nice stash of non-perishables for her store-cupboard in advance! There are several big boxes of pasta, trays of tins & bottles of various favourite sauces stashed in the conservatory, which have been bought at the local "overstocks" warehouse.

They'll be renting a nice little house in a village not too far away; it's small, but has a lovely big & well-equipped kitchen with a fair bit of storage space; more than double what we had in our first (rented) home. And it seems it will be well-used!

I'd been kind of worried that they seem to spend an undue amount of money on pre-prepared & take-away foods. And there's a supermarket only a few yards from their new front door... however they're old enough to work it out for themselves. And they're moving themselves, with the aid of a work van, so no need to worry about incurring extra costs transporting food around.

They already own a fair bit of camping gear - goodness, my shed's going to seem quite empty, too - so I won't have to worry about them starving, in the unlikely event that we ever get any significant snow down here, then!

DawnW

thriftwizard wrote: »

I won't have to worry about them starving, in the unlikely event that we ever get any significant snow down here, then!

Don't worry, in my experience, if they get the tiniest little bit peckish, they will very soon turn up at your door again, snow or not :rotfl:

Doveling

Stunned into silence after the announcement about the amount of money needed for Buck House being given on Children in Need Day.

Especially as I'd been to see I, Daniel Blake the night before.

I understand that it is an historic building and needs appropriate maintenance like any other listed building; but how has it been allowed to get into such a state of disrepair?

I don't have strong views either way about the Royal family and I shouldn't think the Queen gets down and dirty with the plumbing anyway.

Think it's mis-management on the estate prepping front.:rotfl:

Just a rant.
Still stinging from having to replace our boiler last week :eek:

Thriftwizard - Well done for your offspring. Bet you're still a teeny bit sad they are going though

GreyQueen

Sounds to me like whomever (probably a succession of whomevers and a number of them at any one time) who is responsible for estate management at Buck House has been a bit neglectful of their duties, to put it mildly.

Pretty sick-making, from my pov, but I suffer from anti-royalism so best I don't get into a rant, especially as I haven't even supped my first cuppa of the day.

Anyone in any part of the country lightly-dusted with the white stuff, yet?

mardatha

Absolutely sickening and shows utter contempt for the people of this country. Modern day equivalent of Marie Antoinette. On the same day as BBC Scotland showed the state some people are living in, due to private slum landlords.

GreyQueen

Yeah, I think it's a bit excessive for a coupla pensioners, don't you? What's wrong with a nice little bungalow, it's plenty good enough for other people's grandparents, isn't it?

moneyistooshorttomention

I'm guessing the huge expenditure on that building (ie Buckingham Palace) is deemed (by some!) to showcase Britain's status as a country?

Bearing in mind the age of the current occupant and, even if she is planning on carrying on "in post" for the rest of her life - it's not going to be that long and I would assume that this work is planned now in order to, quite literally, "set in stone" (and electric wiring and.....etc...etc) the "tone" of the next monarchy (ie "business as usual").

It would be as well to leave this work in abeyance and wait until the next monarchy is in place to see if they might have very different plans (ie a more modern/egalitarian/etc style) = which would equal a lot less money spent on the place.

.....and ...yep...I'm a pragmatist. As such - I'm not convinced that having a royal family constitutes "value for money" and I don't think we can afford it.

As someone whose instant response to reorganising any organisation is (indeed has been...:)) to remove the concept of a hierarchy and knock the organisation around and the newly-reinvented organisation is one-tier and much more modern/egalitarian - then it would be my instinct to do the same on this particular "organisation". Definitely too many layers for maximum efficiency and all-round input by all concerned and time for a (peaceful) Major Rethink.

[Deleted User]

Doveling wrote: »

but how has it been allowed to get into such a state of disrepair?

Successive Governments/Parliaments declining to invest in preventative maintenance.

It's like the home owner who ignores a minor problem, and ends up having to have the whole property renovated, when the original problem could have been fixed for very little cost.

[Deleted User]

GreyQueen wrote: »

Anyone in any part of the country lightly-dusted with the white stuff, yet?

Yes me, if you call 3" lightly-dusted.

[Deleted User]

mardatha wrote: »

On the same day as BBC Scotland showed the state some people are living in, due to private slum landlords.

I don't see how you can connect the two.

Private slum landlords are nothing to do with government spending.