To add or reply to a message you must register or login first.
Login Password
Forgotten your password?

Where I Live England Messageboards
Choose an Area... Beds, Herts & BucksBerkshireBirminghamBlack CountryBradford & West YorkshireCambridgeshireCornwallCoventry & WarwickshireCumbriaDerbyDevonEssexGloucestershireGuernseyHereford & WorcesterHumberJerseyKentLancashireLeedsLeicesterLincolnshireLiverpoolManchesterNorfolkNorthamptonshireNorth YorkshireNottinghamOxfordShropshireSomersetSouthamptonSouth YorkshireStoke & StaffordshireSuffolkSurrey & SussexTeesTyneWearWiltshire
Board Status: Open for business




If you see a message which you feel breaks our House Rules, please log in and click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1244th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:32
>> "we can (initially through all formal channels, and then whatever else we can do) to make them leave. This is our estate and we will make it a good place to live!"
>> "Now if people have that attitude and work on the problem, don't you think life would be better? But I think far too many are just happy to accept apathy and fear, hope someone else or the police/politicians will do it for them. And you reap what you sow."

Actually, people aren't apathetic.

They aren't even afraid of the baddies.

They are afraid of what the do-goodies will do to them if they try anything from shooting an intruder, through giving a yob a clip round the earhole, to speaking to a pupil in an inappropriate tone of voice as one teacher was charged with.

But you have confused me.

The same people who insist that people don't have the right to protect themselves and their property because it's the centralised role of the authorities are usually the same people who insist that people don't have the right to make their own travel, housing, education, etc, arrangements because that, too, is the centralised role of the authorities and you will love the tram, the council estate, comprehensives, etc, because they are good for you, because we say so, and we know best how to look after you. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1239th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:23
You go on to say:
>> "but a car in most areas (if not all) of Nottingham (unless one is working outside of the city) is a convenient luxury and not a necessity for almost all things."

Well, while I've live next to a junction of a main arterial road and the Nottingham Ringroad I've had four employers. It was impractical to use public transport to get to work for any of them. Admittedly in one case I could walk to work.

Until they moved to Sheffield.

My wife can also walk to work, but not use public transport. But as she works nights this is not something she chooses to do since she got stalked one night.

Perhaps you live and work in one of St Annes, Sneinton, Forest Fields, Radford, Hyson Green. I've worked with people who live in them, and work nowhere near them. For some strange reason they were more than happy to accept lifts home rather than catch the next bus (and the next). Perhaps they have better things to do with what little money they earn, and what little time they have spare, after working long and unsocial hours, to catch two or three buses home.

I've also worked in four locations in the London area while living near the centre. Despite having the choice of bus, tube and rail, it was almost always more convenient to drive. And in the one case where it was practical to use public transport, that was only if I was working 9:00 to 5:00, Monday to Friday. Which I rarely was.

Oh, and when I say "convenient", I mean convenient as in driving in the wrong direction, dropping my wife off, turning round and getting to work little more than half an hour after setting off.

Instead of walking to the nearest bus stop to try to catch the 6 o'clock bus. And after waiting for the connection, getting to work at ten.

And the other journeys?

Walking to the nearest railway station to catch the 6 o'clock train, and after making several tube and train connections getting to work at 8:00.

For a 7:30 start which I could achieve setting off in the car after 6:00.

Or the one where I could get to work for 8:30 unless the bus was late for the connection, otherwise 9:00.

For an 8:00 start.

You don't work in a nice, permanent, 9:00 to 5:00 job, in a nice permanent centrally located council office, college or school perchance?

Unlike the majority of people who work round the clock, round the year, round the city, county, country, even.

To pay for planners and trams.

And who, even if they could afford to move closer to their job, would probably be out of it by the time they had moved. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1242nd post - 7 Mar 2004 17:19
>> "Like many of your posts, this is pro-car nonsense. It might certainly be true in rural areas and far out estates"
In case you didn't actually bother reading my post I quoted:

>> >> "The independent report on social exclusion says access to a car is essential for full participation in work and leisure activities in modern society."

>> >> "And it concludes that lack of access to a car is the main transport factor in the social exclusion of low-income households and other marginalised groups."

>> >> "It also found that even in families which do not own cars more trips are made by car than by public transport!"

As far as I am aware, something like 70% of households do have a car, and 90% of the population don't live in rural areas.

And why, if the car is a "convenient luxury and not a necessity" do the poor "waste" a quarter of their hard earned and limited income to run one?

Did someone mention trolling? [reply] [Complain about this post]

To add or reply to a message you must register or login first.
Login Password
Forgotten your password?

Where I Live England Messageboards
Choose an Area... Beds, Herts & BucksBerkshireBirminghamBlack CountryBradford & West YorkshireCambridgeshireCornwallCoventry & WarwickshireCumbriaDerbyDevonEssexGloucestershireGuernseyHereford & WorcesterHumberJerseyKentLancashireLeedsLeicesterLincolnshireLiverpoolManchesterNorfolkNorthamptonshireNorth YorkshireNottinghamOxfordShropshireSomersetSouthamptonSouth YorkshireStoke & StaffordshireSuffolkSurrey & SussexTeesTyneWearWiltshire
Board Status: Open for business




If you see a message which you feel breaks our House Rules, please log in and click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1244th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:32
>> "we can (initially through all formal channels, and then whatever else we can do) to make them leave. This is our estate and we will make it a good place to live!"
>> "Now if people have that attitude and work on the problem, don't you think life would be better? But I think far too many are just happy to accept apathy and fear, hope someone else or the police/politicians will do it for them. And you reap what you sow."

Actually, people aren't apathetic.

They aren't even afraid of the baddies.

They are afraid of what the do-goodies will do to them if they try anything from shooting an intruder, through giving a yob a clip round the earhole, to speaking to a pupil in an inappropriate tone of voice as one teacher was charged with.

But you have confused me.

The same people who insist that people don't have the right to protect themselves and their property because it's the centralised role of the authorities are usually the same people who insist that people don't have the right to make their own travel, housing, education, etc, arrangements because that, too, is the centralised role of the authorities and you will love the tram, the council estate, comprehensives, etc, because they are good for you, because we say so, and we know best how to look after you. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1239th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:23
You go on to say:
>> "but a car in most areas (if not all) of Nottingham (unless one is working outside of the city) is a convenient luxury and not a necessity for almost all things."

Well, while I've live next to a junction of a main arterial road and the Nottingham Ringroad I've had four employers. It was impractical to use public transport to get to work for any of them. Admittedly in one case I could walk to work.

Until they moved to Sheffield.

My wife can also walk to work, but not use public transport. But as she works nights this is not something she chooses to do since she got stalked one night.

Perhaps you live and work in one of St Annes, Sneinton, Forest Fields, Radford, Hyson Green. I've worked with people who live in them, and work nowhere near them. For some strange reason they were more than happy to accept lifts home rather than catch the next bus (and the next). Perhaps they have better things to do with what little money they earn, and what little time they have spare, after working long and unsocial hours, to catch two or three buses home.

I've also worked in four locations in the London area while living near the centre. Despite having the choice of bus, tube and rail, it was almost always more convenient to drive. And in the one case where it was practical to use public transport, that was only if I was working 9:00 to 5:00, Monday to Friday. Which I rarely was.

Oh, and when I say "convenient", I mean convenient as in driving in the wrong direction, dropping my wife off, turning round and getting to work little more than half an hour after setting off.

Instead of walking to the nearest bus stop to try to catch the 6 o'clock bus. And after waiting for the connection, getting to work at ten.

And the other journeys?

Walking to the nearest railway station to catch the 6 o'clock train, and after making several tube and train connections getting to work at 8:00.

For a 7:30 start which I could achieve setting off in the car after 6:00.

Or the one where I could get to work for 8:30 unless the bus was late for the connection, otherwise 9:00.

For an 8:00 start.

You don't work in a nice, permanent, 9:00 to 5:00 job, in a nice permanent centrally located council office, college or school perchance?

Unlike the majority of people who work round the clock, round the year, round the city, county, country, even.

To pay for planners and trams.

And who, even if they could afford to move closer to their job, would probably be out of it by the time they had moved. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1242nd post - 7 Mar 2004 17:19
>> "Like many of your posts, this is pro-car nonsense. It might certainly be true in rural areas and far out estates"
In case you didn't actually bother reading my post I quoted:

>> >> "The independent report on social exclusion says access to a car is essential for full participation in work and leisure activities in modern society."

>> >> "And it concludes that lack of access to a car is the main transport factor in the social exclusion of low-income households and other marginalised groups."

>> >> "It also found that even in families which do not own cars more trips are made by car than by public transport!"

As far as I am aware, something like 70% of households do have a car, and 90% of the population don't live in rural areas.

And why, if the car is a "convenient luxury and not a necessity" do the poor "waste" a quarter of their hard earned and limited income to run one?

Did someone mention trolling? [reply] [Complain about this post]




To add or reply to a message you must register or login first.
Login Password
Forgotten your password?

Where I Live England Messageboards
Choose an Area... Beds, Herts & BucksBerkshireBirminghamBlack CountryBradford & West YorkshireCambridgeshireCornwallCoventry & WarwickshireCumbriaDerbyDevonEssexGloucestershireGuernseyHereford & WorcesterHumberJerseyKentLancashireLeedsLeicesterLincolnshireLiverpoolManchesterNorfolkNorthamptonshireNorth YorkshireNottinghamOxfordShropshireSomersetSouthamptonSouth YorkshireStoke & StaffordshireSuffolkSurrey & SussexTeesTyneWearWiltshire
Board Status: Open for business




If you see a message which you feel breaks our House Rules, please log in and click 'Complain about this post' next to the message in question. A moderator will then check the message as a matter of urgency.

re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1244th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:32
>> "we can (initially through all formal channels, and then whatever else we can do) to make them leave. This is our estate and we will make it a good place to live!"
>> "Now if people have that attitude and work on the problem, don't you think life would be better? But I think far too many are just happy to accept apathy and fear, hope someone else or the police/politicians will do it for them. And you reap what you sow."

Actually, people aren't apathetic.

They aren't even afraid of the baddies.

They are afraid of what the do-goodies will do to them if they try anything from shooting an intruder, through giving a yob a clip round the earhole, to speaking to a pupil in an inappropriate tone of voice as one teacher was charged with.

But you have confused me.

The same people who insist that people don't have the right to protect themselves and their property because it's the centralised role of the authorities are usually the same people who insist that people don't have the right to make their own travel, housing, education, etc, arrangements because that, too, is the centralised role of the authorities and you will love the tram, the council estate, comprehensives, etc, because they are good for you, because we say so, and we know best how to look after you. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1239th post - 7 Mar 2004 17:23
You go on to say:
>> "but a car in most areas (if not all) of Nottingham (unless one is working outside of the city) is a convenient luxury and not a necessity for almost all things."

Well, while I've live next to a junction of a main arterial road and the Nottingham Ringroad I've had four employers. It was impractical to use public transport to get to work for any of them. Admittedly in one case I could walk to work.

Until they moved to Sheffield.

My wife can also walk to work, but not use public transport. But as she works nights this is not something she chooses to do since she got stalked one night.

Perhaps you live and work in one of St Annes, Sneinton, Forest Fields, Radford, Hyson Green. I've worked with people who live in them, and work nowhere near them. For some strange reason they were more than happy to accept lifts home rather than catch the next bus (and the next). Perhaps they have better things to do with what little money they earn, and what little time they have spare, after working long and unsocial hours, to catch two or three buses home.

I've also worked in four locations in the London area while living near the centre. Despite having the choice of bus, tube and rail, it was almost always more convenient to drive. And in the one case where it was practical to use public transport, that was only if I was working 9:00 to 5:00, Monday to Friday. Which I rarely was.

Oh, and when I say "convenient", I mean convenient as in driving in the wrong direction, dropping my wife off, turning round and getting to work little more than half an hour after setting off.

Instead of walking to the nearest bus stop to try to catch the 6 o'clock bus. And after waiting for the connection, getting to work at ten.

And the other journeys?

Walking to the nearest railway station to catch the 6 o'clock train, and after making several tube and train connections getting to work at 8:00.

For a 7:30 start which I could achieve setting off in the car after 6:00.

Or the one where I could get to work for 8:30 unless the bus was late for the connection, otherwise 9:00.

For an 8:00 start.

You don't work in a nice, permanent, 9:00 to 5:00 job, in a nice permanent centrally located council office, college or school perchance?

Unlike the majority of people who work round the clock, round the year, round the city, county, country, even.

To pay for planners and trams.

And who, even if they could afford to move closer to their job, would probably be out of it by the time they had moved. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1242nd post - 7 Mar 2004 17:19
>> "Like many of your posts, this is pro-car nonsense. It might certainly be true in rural areas and far out estates"
In case you didn't actually bother reading my post I quoted:

>> >> "The independent report on social exclusion says access to a car is essential for full participation in work and leisure activities in modern society."

>> >> "And it concludes that lack of access to a car is the main transport factor in the social exclusion of low-income households and other marginalised groups."

>> >> "It also found that even in families which do not own cars more trips are made by car than by public transport!"

As far as I am aware, something like 70% of households do have a car, and 90% of the population don't live in rural areas.

And why, if the car is a "convenient luxury and not a necessity" do the poor "waste" a quarter of their hard earned and limited income to run one?

Did someone mention trolling? [reply] [Complain about this post]

Re: Typical Backroomer Solves Society's Problems

March 13 2004, 3:25 PM

Pollution - heres a bit: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

Re: The'Scam' to beat 'Scameras'

March 13 2004, 3:27 PM

This is a real scam: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

 

Re: Cameras Up: Deaths Up!

March 13 2004, 3:28 PM

I've a good idea then - let's just ban cars. Then everyone would have more time to read such pearls as: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

Re: Transport Minister Whitewash

March 13 2004, 3:29 PM

Of course it's a total farce the ABD are talking through their backsides once again. Just like the "genius" who wrote: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

Re: London to ban speed cameras

March 13 2004, 3:31 PM

Bogush says: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

Re: Local Fuel Price Increase at Tesco,s

March 13 2004, 3:32 PM

But of course: re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Sorting out the problems on estates bogush j mann - 1246th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:34 >> "First, does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)?" Well, it would appear so! >> "Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" No, in fact, if you actually read my posts you would know that I am not anti-tram. However, the Nottingham tram is an excellent example of nanny know best command and control and therefore it should not cause surprise if I use it as one of a number of examples of nanny know best command and control. Should it? >> "But I think changing attitudes and apathy are a bigger contributer." But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are people apathetic because they see those whose hobby, if not full time occupation, is "activism" having the ear of the government and they know that, even if they had the inclination, they would never have the time, to counter their input. Especially as many, if not most, politicians (off all hues) want the same command and control society as the activists. After all, command and control is their full time occupation! >> "Just look at what the anti-fuel-duty-increase lobby did if you doubt the power." Exactly: Spin and lies from the government conning the public into believing that duty was low and reasonable and necessary to get doctors and nurses into hospitals and that the protesters were stopping them getting to hospitals, and fuel too. Spin and lies about attendance at rallies and what protesters were doing. And new laws making future protesters into terrorists. Of course, we could all try standing for parliament. But, as they say, should you vote for somone who wants to be elected? Or, as they also say: "does the tram really need bringing into every post (irrespective of the topic)? Do you eat, sleep and drink anti-tram?" [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1249th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:19 And if you look at: CITY TRAMS GET BIG THUMBS UP You will find: "The incident caused NET to automatically halt its entire system of trams for 40 minutes while the problem was solved." "Road traffic, unable to cross the junction because the barriers were down, also had to be diverted by police officers." In other words cars and buses at that point were inconvenienced by having to make a detour. But the whole tram system had to shut down because of a problem at one point! That's not a "step forward in transport": It's a step back. "Kapeesh"? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 11 Mar 2004 21:07 I don't believe it. I reminded Tim that: >> >> "Alistair Darling says: >> >> >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." And Tim responds: >> "Have you got a web link that you can proove this with?" ?! Tim, everyone knows that most of the money for the tram comes from the taxpayer, either directly, or indirectly from the EU. Apart from you, it would appear. The anti-reintroduction of a tram which is causing massive disruption, will be a mobile road block, and which is too big for the city (it's actually a small train running down people's terraces and through city centre streets) when the taxpayers money could have been put to far better use will tell you it's a waste of public money. And the pro-railway on the roads because it's a mobile road block will tell you that that is an excellent use for public money. About the only thing that they all agree on is that it is public money. If you really need "proof" check out the Nottingham Evening Post writeup of the grand opening of the tram system: Go to their website, click on news, them trams, and, surprise, surprise, you'll get a list of tram news. From Tuesday 9th March 2004 go to: "MINISTER: 'FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IS IN YOUR HANDS...' " Where you'll find the quote. Now, would you like to rephrase your claim that you are: "simply stating a fact." ? [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1248th post - 10 Mar 2004 22:10 Not quite. If you re-read my posts you will see that I choose to drive because driving for half an hour, including dropping off my wife in the opposite direction, is more "convenient" than travelling for four hours in public transport. Especially as I, like a vast proportion of the workforce, don't work 9:00 to 5:00 and that four hours each way would leave little enough time to eat and sleep, never mind recreations such as bathing. Can I take it that you have a railway station about a mile away, commute into Nottingham, then catch a bus to the BBC? And that you meet up with friends for a meal or a drink in the centre. Again, if you don't live in, or near the centre, don't work in, or near, the centre, don't work 9:00 to 5:00, etc, you can't enjoy such luxuries without the "luxury" of flexible personal transport. There was an interesting survey carried out during the fuel protests. People who worked in civil service type jobs and the media, law, etc, or were in education or on benefits, were all for higher petrol duties. People in industry, commerce, and those in non 9:00 to 5:00 public service jobs were against. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about "luxury" and "convenience". [reply] [Complain about this post] re: Independent Study Shows Poor bogush j mann - 1247th post - 10 Mar 2004 20:51 Tim said: >> "Yes" When I queried his claim that: >> >> >> "the money came from the private sector anyway." And in response to: >> >> "[you're a comedian?]" He asserts: >> "No, simply stating a fact." Strange that Alistair Darling says: >> "that £180m of the cost of the 14km tram line had come from the Government." Even stranger then that when I ask: >> >> "Is that as accurate as your preceeding sentence? " Tim insists >> "Yes" Should I assume then that all Tim's sentences are that "accurate"?! [reply] [Complain about this post]

 

Well,

That was about 20,000 words,

Or about 35 pages worth of cut and past.

Mind you, not all of our Anonanus poster's posts are up to that standard:

S/He did cut and paste a mere 600 word article from the Nottingham Evening Post too (unedited).

And s/he posted this:

No you're not banned yet Bogush from the BBC boards. It's a pity though because you've effectively shut the Nottingham one down though. If I had my way things would be different...........

Funny how s/he new I was banned before I did!

I reckon S/He's a disgruntled BBC "moderator" frustrated at not being able to delete all my posts.

Instead of just most of them!