On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 01:04:49 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 21:08:19 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 19:26:10 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 05/08/2016 20:33, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:05:28 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

On 05/08/2016 19:37, James Wilkinson wrote:


Er, yes. Plain cheap ugly slabs of concrete is for council estates.
Compare these two:
http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...london/155.jpg


http://www.northeastpavingandgardens...10/slider1.jpg



That bog standard herringbone pattern is the one the local councils
are
putting on tenants drives around here.

Typical council wasting money.


They do it because its cheaper!

About 90% of the cost is in the stuff under the road/pavement not in
the
covering.

Then why the **** does anyone ever used grey plain paving slabs?

Because they are too stupid to pour concrete.

But if monoblock is the same price,

It never is. It is MUCH more expensive because it is MUCH more labour
intensive.

do that, it looks nicer.

Looks chavvy

No, looks much better. I regularly see people upgrading to it.

and is a lot more work to get rid of the weeds and to clean.

Jetwash.

Don't need to do a damned thing with poured concrete done properly,
at most hose the dirt off it if you park on it with muddy tires etc.

But it looks crap.

--
Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them.