"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 03:01:57 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?

Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.

My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.

To your Little Middle England mind, that means any law made by the Labour
party.

All parties do it. I didn't single out TB for special attention.

Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement
of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.

Collectivism works.

Such as in the former Soviet Union, Maoist China,.... as examples?

They had extreme versions. Taking a version that did work to get illiterate
poverty stricken people on their feet, and say all doesn't work is
ridiculous. Exteme collectivism worked for them. There are version of
democracy that aren't too good, so we must do away with all then.
Collectivism in varying degrees works. Please apply common sense.

People like Ken L are trying to give
cities back to people, and clean them
up.

So what's his next ploy? Communal bathrooms?

If you are that way inclined apply to Ken.

And he is right. Ken L wants Londoners to benefit, not people in
Surrey who use London as a doormat and regard it as a place to make money
from.

The way to do that would be to encourage
people not to go into central London at all
for business purposes which was my original point.

The public transport into the centre is superb. USE THAT!!!! It is fools
like you driving in, in diesel 4WDs that **** Londoners off. Otherwise STAY
OUT!!!