"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:44:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
g on top will make it probaly over £300. Some combi's
are
not that much more expensive, and do not put out 44.8 dBA @ 1 metre,
of
sound and vibrate the house down and never run out of hot water. Best
go
for an additional combi.
Is there a combi guild or something like that?
Do you wnat to join?
No. I am too much of an individualist and this smacks of
one-size-fits-all.
You are also a very silly individual who has little of a clue.
I noted from a recent article
published by the BBC that over 70% of
people are not in favour of building on
green field sites.
That is because they are victims of propaganda. Tell people less than
7.5 %
of the land is built on and they don't believe it; you never knew until I
told you.
Actually I did
You never, so don't tell lies.
and most people are happy with that scenario.
Most people don't know.
In fact 84% of people are against green belt reduction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4740545.stm
Your "logic" is rather like asking
people to vote in a referendum.
Keep asking them until they give
you the answer you want..
No. Inform them of the facts. Then how the facts severly affect their
quality of life, then they will not be like sheep.
Really not very convincing, and most people can see through it.
I can see right through the lot. You don't need much brains to see the
scam.
They are so indoctrinated that they think half the country is
paved. Well your sycophantic ways would to keep the stinking landowning
rich, very rich. Must something to do with reptiles.
More to do with democracy I would say.
More to do with igniornace of the facts. I see no votes over land.
I suppose that the remaining 30% think
that it is and believe that combis cure
world hunger,
Was that in the survey too?
I imagine that
they still believe that Tony Blair
is an honest man.
Still brainwashed by Thatcher and the Tory party aren't you. The Tory
party
has nothing to give 95% of the people of this country whatsoever.
Interesting observation since Tony Blurr has policies that are
regularly to the right of the good Baroness.
You are confused. Very much so.
We could all vote for them again, and have all those people living on the
streets and mass poverty again. ..and have them issue free Makita's to
Little Middle Englanders to put up high fences so they can't see the
council
houses.
The Makitas would be a good idea anyway. The homless situation has
changed little,
You are in cloud cuckoo land.
Now the silly BBC article, with me putting them right:
The Tories are accusing ministers of turning the green belt into an "elastic
band" as a study suggests 84% of people oppose building on undeveloped land.
Where are people to live then? Boy some people are stupid.
Mori interviewed 931 people in England between 30 June and 4 July 2005 for
the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
Wow! 931 people out of 60 million. Campaign to Protect Rural England is a
landowners self interest group. Large landowners formed it.
The results are revealed on the 50th anniversary of the first government
circular telling councils to look at designating areas of green belt land.
But ministers insist the green belt is being "maintained and increased".
They say there are controls to stop inappropriate development in green belt
areas.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) head of planning Henry Oliver said
it was "under threat as never before".
The Green Belt is a nonsense, and curtails growth of communities.
He blamed "government plans for massive housing growth" in south-east
England,
Where the f**k are we going to live?
"speculators selling plots to gullible investors for silly prices way above
agricultural value", and proposed new roads and airport runways.
Free up all land and quick buck merchants and taxpayers subsidised council
estates disappear.
These "cast a concrete blight
"concrete blight" propagada words aimed the hard of thinking. A number of
Green organisations are fronts for rich large landowers too.
over some of the finest countryside within easy reach of big urban areas"
and threatened "to relax the belt that has held the line against urban
sprawl for decades", Mr Oliver added.
People should be living amongst the countryside, not having to bus or drive
into see it. And see it is all you do, as you can't walk on it.
"Green belts need to be resolutely defended from these threats, yet even
professional planners, who should be their strongest defenders, sometimes
scoff at green belts as too simple and too restrictive to be a proper
planning tool.
The above is very correct.
"They and the government need to listen to the vast majority of people, who
as our poll shows, are green belt fans."
The government should tell the people the real truth about land, its: usage,
ownership, access, economic benefits, biggest benefactors of the land,etc,
etc.
CPRE members will walk London's green belt on 21 August.
In September, they will cycle through the West Midlands, Gloucester,
Cheltenham, Cambridge, Oxford and London green belts.
Silly pillocks.
The government says the total area of green belt land in England has
increased by about 19,000 hectares (47,000 acres) since 1997, with about a
further potential 12,000 hectares (29,640 acres) proposed in emerging local
plans.
Most of the Green Belt is not public land. It is NOT accessible by the
public. The Green Belt might be a good idea if it was fully open heathland
with full access by the public. It is clearly not, so worth anything to
anybody. All town and city dwellers can do is drive through it on A roads
and look from the windows of the vehicles. The Green Belt is a waste of
time.
"Nationally, a record 70% of all new building is now on brown-field land
compared with 56% in 1997.
The above is disgusting. Most of this Brownfield land should be made in to
heath and parks, so people can live amongst nature, not on top of each
other.
'Girdle'
Conservative shadow local government secretary Caroline Spelman said green
belt had increased in areas where there was little development pressure.
But it had been removed in areas of high housing demand, with 2,500 acres of
green belt built over each year.
Great approach.
"The green belt should be a girdle but what we have seen in the last eight
years is that it has been made into an elastic band," she said.
It shouldn't be there in the first place.
Phil Woolas, a minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
spokesman, said 70% of new developments were on previously developed
brownfield sites.
He said: "Our policy is to strengthen the green belt and to ensure that is a
regional criteria, not a national criteria to avoid the problem that there
may be a shift to the other regions outside the South East."
The Home counties are underpopulated - Kate Barkers report.