"Clot" wrote in message
...


It's an interesting site by the way if you have not come across it.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html


Yes they sum it up well.
Its culture and that is what is being eroded by the drivers that refuse to
obey traffic laws just because they think they know better.
There is absolutely no safety reason why a driver has to exceed the speed
limit just because they think it is safe to do so.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:42:43 +0000 Derek Geldard wrote :
All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard,

I am and I do. If you were sat at the back of the classroom you were
allowed to keep your coat on on very cold days.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

"Clot" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 28 Oct, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Coal doesn't need a forced draught.

I've come across coal that needed forced draught, and even then
hardly worked.

anthracitye is teh only pone. and to an exteng dry steam coal. Thse
have low hydrocarbon content compare with lignite of normal
bituminous.

Coke does.

How did the braziers used by nigh****chmen in the 50s work? They
were coke in
a can with holes in and natural draught. Coal would have been
stolen.

If coke was so easy to use, coke would have been stolen too..

I THOUGHT they were coal actually. I guess coke must just about burn
without forced draught, but is hard work. WE used to buy anthracite,
coke and steam coal for a closed stove/fire. All were a devil to
light compared with normal bituminous coal. Coal is a cinch in an
open fire. W used to use some steam coal or coke in the open fire, but
it
wasn't self sustaining - always needed ordinary coal.


There was a small gasworks near where I live. The site is still
there, and the old coking furnace and chimney are still in place, and
form a 'feature' of the use that the building is now put to. The coke
that was produced from the gas making process, went to a car engine
casting plant nearby, and was also bagged and sold to the general
public, so there must have been a demand for it for 'household' use.
I seem to remember my parents buying both coal and coke, and I have a
dim recollection of a fire being 'made' with coal, and then banked
with coke, which burnt much more slowly, and gave off a more steady
heat than a roaring fire up the chimmally ... I also seem to recall
the fire being 'calmed' at night by banking it up with powdered and
chipped coal that my old dad used to refer to as "nutty slack" I
think it was ??

Indeed. But you are surely teasing us with your alleged ignorance? When I
were a nipper, t'was me duty to maintain the central heater boiler which
thrived on coke. To get it started, I'd use them wooden boxes which were
used to import items. I had to use the axe and ensure that the sticks were
of the right dimensions to fit int' 'ole and elp combustion. Then some
suitable quantity of appropriately sized coal to git the bsggsr goin'.

Eh up, I forgot the paper that were stuck on the nail ont' door of the
small room that I put in the boiler before the wooden sticks.

Then, the main fuel, coke.

Now, if you wished to avoid excessive work, you learnt when and how to
riddle the grate to ensure that all the clinker went through. If you
failed to keep it goin', mum was not best pleased, especially on a
Monday!.

To keep the backboiler going in the fire in the dining room, what helped
the boiler to heat the water, you needed to make sure that Dad got a
roaring fire going before he went to bed then closed down the admission of
air and placed on the slack or nutty slack. Where we lived was windy and
slack was advisable being smaller in dimension and ensured the fire
survived the night.

We did have fire guards!

Would this be allowed by the blxxdy Elfin Safety these days?

The flat bed coal wagons on the streets with loose sacks on the back. The
poor buggers carrying 1 cwt of coal.

Them were the days?


Them woz !! I was a little bit young to be tending the fire on my own, but
I did used to help. You're right about the wood to get it going. We had a
big market square near where my dad worked, and the fruit and veg stalls
used to leave the orange crates piled up at the edge for people to take to
use as kindling. I have clear memories of meeting him off the bus, and
helping to carry these orange boxes the rest of the way home.

Arfa

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. *The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. *The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. *It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.

It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.

That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.

Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.

I guess that depends on what services were cut.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:08:42 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?
1883 - 83 years after.

Tambora and others gave the world "The year without a summer" but
that was 1816.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Interesting graph, general cooling until the mid 1800's then rather
rapid warming...

Yes. The dust, which cools, settles out quicker than the CO2 which warms..

All this gotr me looking at historical volcanoes., and the last great mass
extinction. I wonder if there is any coincidence that a large asteroid
hitting the planet coincided with a massive volcanic eruption..never
thought to study the stresses on a planet when hit hard with a cosmic
bullet. I wonder..

The other thought that occurs, is that whilst we may technically have the
means to prevent climate change, as a species we don't have the supra
national political structures, the educational sophistication, and the
general mental outlook, to make it realistic.

I suspect what in fact will happen, is that lots of people will in fact
die.


Peterborough-on-Sea is coming. That'll be nice. I won't have so far to go
for a day out at the seaside ... :-)

Arfa

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:15:15 +0000, Dave wrote:

I entered a 50 MPH zone that did not have the obligatory warning that it
was coming up and I entered the first camera zone at 70 MPH. I'll let
you know if I get a ticket.

Yes, those that drive the motorways be very aware that the signs that
used to exist telling you that there is a limit approaching at
roadworks are no longer in place. Under poor conditions and/or heavy
traffic the non-iluminated signs that designate the start of the new
limit can be hard to spot in time to slow down without braking and
that's from just over 60mph not the limit of 70. Then of course the
first average speed camera is only yards past the first limit sign.

This is not the first time that there has been an infringement in the
sign posts on the M6.

I don't think there is any legal requirement to have advanced warning
of the a limit change. So if approaching roadworks assume that there
will be a 50 limit but note not all roadworks do have a 50 limit...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 28 Oct, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Them were the days?


Them woz !! I was a little bit young to be tending the fire on my
own, but I did used to help. You're right about the wood to get it
going. We had a big market square near where my dad worked, and the
fruit and veg stalls used to leave the orange crates piled up at the
edge for people to take to use as kindling. I have clear memories of
meeting him off the bus, and helping to carry these orange boxes the
rest of the way home.

We owned a greengrocers at the time, (now where should I put that
apostrophe?). A ready source of wood for me to chop. We seemed to be very
popular with local families in early November when our van would arrive
several times with wood for the bonfire. Also chestnuts and spuds!

dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...

I agree with your general approach. It is driving safely under the
conditions such as you describe not foolish adherence to limits to
avoid technical transgression and more importantly not creating
danger by driving at the speed limit when conditions do not allow.

What stops the speed limit being the maximum speed you drive at?
Just because you think it is safer to drive above a speed limit
doesn't mean you have to.
Doing so just puts you in the class of drivers that don't care.
The next thing you will be doing is jumping lights because you can see
nothings coming, or driving the wrong way up one way streets because
you can see nothing coming, or ignoring turn restriction, etc.
You will be like geoff where everything that happens on the roads is
someone else's fault.

It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained. They've just
gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a hundred yards or
so locally that I shall have to remember!

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:00:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Do nothing, climate change happens:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose big time

Do nothing, climate change doesn't happen:
- we run out of fossil energy
- we lose

Do something, climate change happens:
- the affects might be reduced
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we win

Do something, climate change doesn't happen:
- we migrate to a sustainable way of life
- we really win

Life is inherently unsustainable.

Yes, the sun will explode but probably not in my life time...

Industrial Life is completely unsustainable. We all need more energy to
stay alive in cities now at current population densities, than we ever
did.

Great changes will take place, many millions of people will die. We
are at a turning point and the choices we make now will have affects
far down the line.

Doing nothing will lead to the total collapse of modern society and
return, probably quite quickly (weeks or months) once the crunch
point is reached, to essentially scattered small self supporting
agricultural groups.

Doing something won't allow the current extravagant modern life
styles to continue but there is a chance of using our technology in a
sensible manner to retain some aspects of comfort. By "comfort" I
mean a food/water/energy supply that you don't have to grow or carry
yourself to obtain. Sort of pre-industrial revolution but with a few
added bits of technology that can be supported. How much and which
bits of technology can be supported are dependant on our choices
today.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:41:25 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago
knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil
carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

How'd you know they didn't Dave ?

'Cause the OP said so. B-)

The coal's been under the ground for millions of years not thousands,
and not all of it is a mile down ... ;-)

This is true there are surface coal measures within a mile or two of
where I sit. And the local mine is opening up again after being moth
balled for 6 years.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:24:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Take all the money from the working, then give it back to the not
working, is hardly an incentive to work.

Someone I know says he dare not work for less than 300 a week Or he will
lose money. He is very willing to work, and could get lower paid work.

Aye, I had a "good year" a while back, two or three grand more than
the previous year. Trouble is my Working Tax credit then dropped. You
know how much extra cash was in my wallet from that two or three
grand? About £500... hardly worth the extra effort.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Clot" wrote in message
...


It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained. They've
just gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a hundred
yards or so locally that I shall have to remember!

The point is that you shouldn't remember you should look.
You need to be able to do that anyway unless you only ever drive new routes
with supervision.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:11:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:07:29 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Owain
had this to say:

And without cattle there'd be no leather so that would mean oil based
plastic substitutes for footwear, clothing and furniture.

Footwear - wooden clogs.
Clothing - cotton, wool or linen.
Furniture - wood and possibly cotton and/or wool.

Of course, not all 'plastic' stuff is oil-based - think bakelite.

Phenol Formaldehyde innit ?

Whereja get the phenol ?


Trees?

Its a naturally occuring substance in many plants. And a constituent of
creosote IIRC.

Whereja get the formaldehyde ?


Methanol. Otherwise known as 'wood alcohol' Guess where it comes from.


What useter be the rain forest ?

Without actually knowing my intuition tells me there will be less such
desirable content in fast growing softwoods.

Derek

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:57:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

dont be silly. Betwen the end of the ice age and the forestation of
britain, and around 1700, nearly every single tree in the country was
cut down for farming, timber or firewood.


Not to mention shipbuilding and charcoal burning.

Only coal and iron reduced that to the point we are now more wooded than
at any time in the last 300 years.

Derek

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:59:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:24:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Take all the money from the working, then give it back to the not
working, is hardly an incentive to work.

Someone I know says he dare not work for less than 300 a week Or he will
lose money. He is very willing to work, and could get lower paid work.

Aye, I had a "good year" a while back, two or three grand more than
the previous year. Trouble is my Working Tax credit then dropped. You
know how much extra cash was in my wallet from that two or three
grand? About £500... hardly worth the extra effort.


Particularly when you cost in the expenses of working (Assuming you go
to work for someone else) IE bus fares / car costs, laundry, and meals
away from home with workmates, the "Coffee swindle" etc.

Derek

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:17:32 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
. ..

The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time looking
for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just plain
cr@p.

Yup. Not sure anyone here has said that though?

'fraid so.

Oh look - it was you:

"You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday."

Ok, so that's a subset of what dennis said, but the excuse he mentions is
one which is used rather too many times.

But you are (or are choosing to) miss the point. If you regularly
drive a route you 'know' all the signs so don't look for them. Even
less so if you are concentrating on something more important (kid on
road).

I think we've established that regularly driving the route doesn't mean you
know the signs. They may change.

Dunno about you, but I notice new works taking place on routes I drive
regularly. I'll see new sign posts, etc, and they're dull grey things, not a
shiny new reflective sign. A new speed limit sign is more visually intrusive
than many of the things you're looking out for anyway, so claiming you
missed it because you were lookig for other things is bogus.

No one has said you can't see kid AND sign but most people would
assume the sign read today the same as it read for the last 10 years.

Was the case which prompted this thread a simple number change on the sign?
How common is a simple number change, as opposed to moving it, putting some
red paint down, putting a new yellow border on, putting up a "Speed limits
changed" sign? Every time I've seen a new speed limit, it's not just been
rewriting the number, it's always had other changes to point it out.

Or maybe your memory is so bad that you would (always)? What if the
sign was obscured by a lorry. Would you park up and go back and read
it, in case it's changed (if we are being silly).

Are we in that situation? I don't think so.

dennis@home wrote:


"Clot" wrote in message
...


It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained.
They've just gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a
hundred yards or so locally that I shall have to remember!

The point is that you shouldn't remember you should look.
You need to be able to do that anyway unless you only ever drive new
routes with supervision.

Until the point comes when you are trying to look simultaneously at the
road signs, the speedo and the rear view mirror. And fail. This is when
rigid legal style driving becomes more dangerous than not having any
speed limits at all.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:08:42 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?
Bloody volcano IIRC. Krakatoa?
1883 - 83 years after.
Tambora and others gave the world "The year without a summer" but
that was 1816.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Interesting graph, general cooling until the mid 1800's then rather
rapid warming...

Yes. The dust, which cools, settles out quicker than the CO2 which warms..

All this gotr me looking at historical volcanoes., and the last great mass
extinction. I wonder if there is any coincidence that a large asteroid
hitting the planet coincided with a massive volcanic eruption..never
thought to study the stresses on a planet when hit hard with a cosmic
bullet. I wonder..

The other thought that occurs, is that whilst we may technically have the
means to prevent climate change, as a species we don't have the supra
national political structures, the educational sophistication, and the
general mental outlook, to make it realistic.

I suspect what in fact will happen, is that lots of people will in fact
die.


Peterborough-on-Sea is coming. That'll be nice. I won't have so far to go
for a day out at the seaside ... :-)


Kiss good bye to most of London and Cambridge. What a nice thought.

Arfa

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...

Still have flat bed coal wagons round here, but the sacks are only
25kg these days. Sign of the times maybe but the local pit is
starting production again after being mothballed in 2003.

Still 50kg here, t'other side of the country to you.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Peterborough-on-Sea is coming. That'll be nice. I won't have so far to go
for a day out at the seaside ... :-)

Wouldn't Peterborough-under-Sea be even better? :-)

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.

That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.

I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.

Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.


So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.


And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?

Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.

The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.


Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Clot" wrote in message
...


It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained. They've
just gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a hundred
yards or so locally that I shall have to remember!

The point is that you shouldn't remember you should look.
You need to be able to do that anyway unless you only ever drive new
routes with supervision.

Until the point comes when you are trying to look simultaneously at the
road signs, the speedo and the rear view mirror. And fail. This is when
rigid legal style driving becomes more dangerous than not having any speed
limits at all.

Well, personally I don't try to do that. It's easy enough to spot the road
sign and adjust speed, doing the things you describe at appropriate points
rather than trying to do them all at the same time.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:00:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Industrial Life is completely unsustainable. We all need more energy to
stay alive in cities now at current population densities, than we ever
did.

Great changes will take place, many millions of people will die.

...sooner than otherwise might be expected, and childless..

We
are at a turning point and the choices we make now will have affects
far down the line.


My sad view is that as with the economic fiasco that has yet to play
out, those with the understanding are not heeded, and those with the
power will not act against public opinion.

How draconian and against human rights was it of the Chinese to insist
on a state enforced population policy?

What would you say if a one child per family policy was intstituted here?

Yet arguably that is the one thing that would ease all our -physical
problems. Infrastructure overload, housing shortage, national carbon
footprint..

Of course it exposes the Emperors New Economics, based on an ever
expanding GDP and population and tax take to pay off the last
generations debt for the Ponzi scheme it has always been, in reality.



Doing nothing will lead to the total collapse of modern society and
return, probably quite quickly (weeks or months) once the crunch
point is reached, to essentially scattered small self supporting
agricultural groups.


I dont see it quite like that.

some countries are very well placed to survive. New Zealand, Canada, to
name but two. Low population density modern economies.

Nothing much is likely to change in the Kalahari either..;-)

Bangladesh will essentially vanish of course. As possibly will Holland
and most of the Low Countries.


There is adequate energy left though, especially nuclear to ensure that
a 'civilised' lifestyle remains in places that have it. France, Japan..

For our little island, it could go either way. Back to the Dark ages,
with gangs of post modern chavs roaming like Goths Vikings and
Visigoths, raping, pillaging and burning till internecine warfare wipes
them down to sustainable levels., or possibly a final recognition by the
population of the choices that face them, and consensus support for a
centralised government that will implement the probably very draconian
measures needed to survive as a coherent nation. Let's hope it's more of
a Churchill than a Hitler or a Stalin, that's all.

Doing something won't allow the current extravagant modern life
styles to continue but there is a chance of using our technology in a
sensible manner to retain some aspects of comfort.

Agreed.

By "comfort" I
mean a food/water/energy supply that you don't have to grow or carry
yourself to obtain. Sort of pre-industrial revolution but with a few
added bits of technology that can be supported. How much and which
bits of technology can be supported are dependant on our choices
today.


To be honest, if we shove in nuclear power and totally move away from
fossil fuel, most of it can stay. All the electrical stuff should be fine.

Most of the plastics, if valuable enough, are recyclable, if oil prices
went through the roof. Flying would become astronomical in pricce. Ther
is no better energy de4snity in both eight and volume than hydrocaqrbon
fuels, unless you want atomic aircraft..cars trains and buses are viable
as electric vehicles, albeit with some restrictions. Nuclear ships are
perfectly possible too.

If we recycle steel we don't need carbon to reduce iron ore to steel,
aluminium is an electrical process anyway, heating can be electric with
heatpumps making it super efficient, and incidentally, lowering ground
an air temperatures a little in the process.

The two most devastating things are teh actual climate change itself (I
judge it far too late to stop now), and ability to react to changing
crop planting patterns, species loss, and the most worrying, lack of
rain and rise in sea levels.

BUT do not underestimate the speed with which a country can respond when
on an equivalent of 'war footing' and when Elfin Safety is thrown to the
winds.



In 1914, the best aerploane available could climb to about 5000 feet,
travel at 50-60 mph and was only flyable in fair wether. By 1918, top
speeds were 120mph or more, and up to 20,000 feet ceiling na dhad
instrment capability (basic). We entered WWI twenty years later with
aircraft whose to speeds were about 250mph, ceilings about 25000 ft with
almost no radar, no jet engines and still armed with WWI style machine
guns: We ended WWII with tactical missiles, nuclear bonmbs, functional
jet engines, top speeds knocking on Mach 1 (500 mph) ceilings tagging
towards 50,000 feet. cannon rockets and lord knows what else, plus the
bare ideas of what would become computers.

That's what *can* be achieved, when the chips are down.

The biggest worry, is that people dont think the chips ARE dwon, they
are still worrying about 'Yuman Rights' 'affordable Housing' 'social
inequality' when every man jack of us is, thanks to Brown and the
predecessors, about £180k per household in debt over and above private
mortgages, in a country where education is a farce, and no one believes
anyone with a degree from Oxbridge, and certainly wouldn't trust them to
run a ****up in a brewery, and its likely half the populated country
will be flooded in 50 years, and we no longer - thanks to a wonderful
process of supporting the unproductive, and taxing productive labour out
of existence, have the requisite skill set to actually do anything about it.

..

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:17:32 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time
looking for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just
plain cr@p.


I think we've established that regularly driving the route doesn't
mean you know the signs. They may change.

Dunno about you, but I notice new works taking place on routes I drive
regularly. I'll see new sign posts, etc, and they're dull grey
things, not a shiny new reflective sign. A new speed limit sign is
more visually intrusive than many of the things you're looking out
for anyway, so claiming you missed it because you were lookig for
other things is bogus.
No one has said you can't see kid AND sign but most people would
assume the sign read today the same as it read for the last 10 years.

Was the case which prompted this thread a simple number change on the
sign? How common is a simple number change, as opposed to moving it,
putting some red paint down, putting a new yellow border on, putting
up a "Speed limits changed" sign? Every time I've seen a new speed
limit, it's not just been rewriting the number, it's always had other
changes to point it out.

You raise an interesting point there. Both the examples I mentioned in the
thread have been maintained by one county, (not Highways Agency). May be the
practice of moving numerical lollipops varies? Certainly in both the cases,
it appeared that the lollipops were moved "overnight" without evident
warnings. Possibly there were some waterproof notices attached to the posts
for a period of time before the transition and also some notice in the local
paper.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:24:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Take all the money from the working, then give it back to the not
working, is hardly an incentive to work.

Someone I know says he dare not work for less than 300 a week Or he will
lose money. He is very willing to work, and could get lower paid work.

Aye, I had a "good year" a while back, two or three grand more than
the previous year. Trouble is my Working Tax credit then dropped. You
know how much extra cash was in my wallet from that two or three
grand? About £500... hardly worth the extra effort.

marginal tax rate of 80%, applied to a low income worker.

Put like that, Mr Brown, how do you justify it?

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:11:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:07:29 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Owain
had this to say:

And without cattle there'd be no leather so that would mean oil based
plastic substitutes for footwear, clothing and furniture.

Footwear - wooden clogs.
Clothing - cotton, wool or linen.
Furniture - wood and possibly cotton and/or wool.

Of course, not all 'plastic' stuff is oil-based - think bakelite.
Phenol Formaldehyde innit ?

Whereja get the phenol ?

Trees?

Its a naturally occuring substance in many plants. And a constituent of
creosote IIRC.

Whereja get the formaldehyde ?

Methanol. Otherwise known as 'wood alcohol' Guess where it comes from.


What useter be the rain forest ?

Without actually knowing my intuition tells me there will be less such
desirable content in fast growing softwoods.


More actually.

softwoods are loaded with resins that make great chemical feedstocks.

Up till about mid 1800's that and animal products was all there was in
terms of organic chemistry raw materials.

Really there aren't that many crucial materials that cant be replaced
with something else, in most products. Not in bulk, anyway. I means we
use steel , bricks and concrete because its cheap and abundant. Not
because its best.







Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:57:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?
Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

dont be silly. Betwen the end of the ice age and the forestation of
britain, and around 1700, nearly every single tree in the country was
cut down for farming, timber or firewood.


Not to mention shipbuilding and charcoal burning.


covered by 'timber' and 'firewood' basically ;-)

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.

That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.

I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.

The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to
be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems.
For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with
additional tax allowances.

Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.

I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a
decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of
ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own
pockets and still providing a poor service.

So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.

Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to
rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc.. The
is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where
healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.

And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?

That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make
these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get
a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of
creating a bigger divide in the country.

Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I
think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the
impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as
we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy.
Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.

Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.

If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist.
They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the
polical spretrum.

The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.

If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't
believe it has to be this way.

And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.

Very true.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.

I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our
lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone
does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all
the aces.

This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.

I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the
desired standard then messing about with this.

Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -

I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)

I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Clot" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:17:32 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time
looking for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is just
plain cr@p.


I think we've established that regularly driving the route doesn't
mean you know the signs. They may change.

Dunno about you, but I notice new works taking place on routes I drive
regularly. I'll see new sign posts, etc, and they're dull grey
things, not a shiny new reflective sign. A new speed limit sign is
more visually intrusive than many of the things you're looking out
for anyway, so claiming you missed it because you were lookig for
other things is bogus.
No one has said you can't see kid AND sign but most people would
assume the sign read today the same as it read for the last 10 years.

Was the case which prompted this thread a simple number change on the
sign? How common is a simple number change, as opposed to moving it,
putting some red paint down, putting a new yellow border on, putting
up a "Speed limits changed" sign? Every time I've seen a new speed
limit, it's not just been rewriting the number, it's always had other
changes to point it out.

You raise an interesting point there. Both the examples I mentioned in the
thread have been maintained by one county, (not Highways Agency). May be
the practice of moving numerical lollipops varies? Certainly in both the
cases, it appeared that the lollipops were moved "overnight" without
evident warnings. Possibly there were some waterproof notices attached to
the posts for a period of time before the transition and also some notice
in the local paper.

Moved, rather than just the number changing?

Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"Clot" wrote in message
...


It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained. They've
just gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a hundred
yards or so locally that I shall have to remember!
The point is that you shouldn't remember you should look.
You need to be able to do that anyway unless you only ever drive new
routes with supervision.
Until the point comes when you are trying to look simultaneously at the
road signs, the speedo and the rear view mirror. And fail. This is when
rigid legal style driving becomes more dangerous than not having any speed
limits at all.

Well, personally I don't try to do that. It's easy enough to spot the road
sign and adjust speed, doing the things you describe at appropriate points
rather than trying to do them all at the same time.


So you say, till the day you miss one of them.

Like the time I was driving up the M11, in the middle lane, just before
the M25, saw signs saying road works ahead, next thing guy cuts across
to take the M25 slip road, I am busy with that, getting past three
trucks, and a bloody flash goes off in my face. No way could I see the
limit signs through three trucks. Or the cones.

Didn't get a ticket for it though. Was only doing about 60 anyway. To
this day I don't know what the temporary limit actually was. 50 probably.

On 29 Oct, 16:23, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Up till about mid 1800's that and animal products was all there was in
terms of organic chemistry raw materials.

Plus the _vast_ range based on coal tar, which had been around for 150-
ish years earlier, as a by-product of industrial coke making for the
iron industry (thread passim).

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"Clot" wrote in message
...


It is, but it is possible to be caught out as I have explained.
They've just gone and moved another restriction from 70 to 50 mph by a
hundred yards or so locally that I shall have to remember!
The point is that you shouldn't remember you should look.
You need to be able to do that anyway unless you only ever drive new
routes with supervision.
Until the point comes when you are trying to look simultaneously at the
road signs, the speedo and the rear view mirror. And fail. This is when
rigid legal style driving becomes more dangerous than not having any
speed limits at all.

Well, personally I don't try to do that. It's easy enough to spot the
road sign and adjust speed, doing the things you describe at appropriate
points rather than trying to do them all at the same time.
So you say, till the day you miss one of them.

Like the time I was driving up the M11, in the middle lane, just before
the M25, saw signs saying road works ahead, next thing guy cuts across to
take the M25 slip road, I am busy with that, getting past three trucks,
and a bloody flash goes off in my face. No way could I see the limit signs
through three trucks. Or the cones.

Didn't get a ticket for it though. Was only doing about 60 anyway. To this
day I don't know what the temporary limit actually was. 50 probably.

So, no cones, no signs saying road works ahead, no clues that there was
likely to be a change in speed limit. Except there were, weren't there, and
you just said you saw them.

Where did the guy who cut you up go relative to the trucks? How long did it
take after that for you to get to in front of them?

And are the signs just on one side of the road or both? (what's the legal
requirement?)

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:38:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On 28 Oct, 11:04, Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.
It can't do, because parents whose sole income is benefits manage to
raise a child - some of them successfully.
That makes no difference. They could have been financially better off
had they not had the child.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
Lower taxes would benefit hardworking everyones.
I guess that depends on what services were cut.

That's a very interesting point. And one which most of the Left
basically lie about.

If you roughly divide people into 4 income groups

1/. The chronically unemployed
2/. The mostly employed on low wages with occasional unemployment
3/. The almost always employed at reasonably decent wages (the vast
majority).
4/ the rich, with cash and savings to spare (a VERY small minority)

Now, what you find is that about 99% of the tax comes from groups 2 and
3 who are in fact the bulk of the population. Probably about 90%, with
about 4% basically chronically unemployed and 1% who are really
comfortably off.

If we disregard the super rich, who can take care of themselves without
help, and for the moment disregard the chronically unemployed and poor,
the basic equation is that most of the tax and most - but not quite as
much of the services, comes from a very large group of people. Who pay,
one way or another, about 55% of their income TO the government, and get
back so called 'free services' in exchange.

However, the basic argument is, whether to employ a vast and ever
increasing number of bureaucrats to administer this HUGE public purse,
allegedly 'fairly', is in fact more, or less efficient, than essentially
letting people keep the money to start with, and spending it where they
will.

The main reason that an ever increasing number of bureaucrats seems to
be required is the fact that government make up more complex systems.
For example family tax credits. I'd scrap this and replace it with
additional tax allowances.


Indeed. we can agree on that. at least.


Now there are good arguments for some sort of central FUNDING and
REGULATION of essential services, like health and education, but really
I see no reason whatsoever why they should be government OWNED and RUN.
The only argument for state ownership is to manage a de facto monopoly,
like roads, railways, national grid etc etc. Hospitals and schools
simply do not fit into that description.

I don't really care who runs these services as long as they provide a
decent service. Publically run organisations have a history of
ineffeiciency but private companies are good at lining their own
pockets and still providing a poor service.


Not if there is strong competition. One mans profit is another man's
business opportunity.


So the argument becomes less taxation for supply of services, than
taxation as a way to ensure that e.g. everyone has some form of health
insurance, and some form of 'fund' for education. And let them spend it
where they think its best spent. True choice. The Tory position as I
understand it is somewhat along those lines, that the services could be
delivered better and cheaper by not being government RUN, although state
FUNDED in some way.

Sounds fine but I would expect the overall cost of these services to
rise at they have to spend more resources in marketing costs etc..

Why? there is no need to market. beyond say a school letting people
know what it is and where it is.

Marketing is only really there to sell stuff people dont want or need to
them. My waitrose doesn't advertise. I know where it is. My dentists
doesn't advertise. I know where it is.


The
is also a big danger that this would create a multi-tier society where
healthcare and education for the poorer would get worse.


Or a danger that healthcare for the more well off would get better?

That's the real point for most 'socialists' - Why should hard earned
dosh entitle you to better anything.?

My point is, to create an incentive to have hard earned dosh.

There is a point (and for me we are well past it), where the entitlement
of the poor to massive ranges of services, for which they do not, have
not and never will contribute anything of value, is manifestly UNFAIR to
those that do the real work.

I go further, and would hypothesise that totally egalitarian societies
are innately self destructive. Human nature being what it is, and not
what Marxist idealists would like it to be.


And those who have a bit of disposable income, can e.g. purchase extra
tuition, or off insurance special medical care. After all, what is the
point of money at all if it wont buy you those sorts of deeply important
life choices?

That's alright for those fortunate enough to have the money to make
these choices, but touch luck on those who don't. If the rich can get
a better education and therefore better jobs then we are in danger of
creating a bigger divide in the country.

Which is probably a good thing. As long as social mobility is still
possible.


Which is actually LESS easy these days, due to the fact that there is no
smooth graduation between e.g. public and private education or health
care. And no streaming of secondary schools.



Going back to the chronically unemployed, at some point society has to
make a decision about what level of support they are going to
get.Personally I don't think its fair that people who lead productive
active economic lives should be dragged down by extra taxes to support
people who are not, in the style that is often as good as the lower end
of the working fraternity.

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

I totally agree, and that is the one means test I would retain. Are you
physically or mentally unable to work?

If so you belong in hospital, or are a special case.


In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

I agree with the first point. The "poverty trap" is a bad idea. I
think the minimum wage was introduced to remove this trap. I get the
impression it has not succeeded. We do need a level of immigration as
we are not having enough children in the UK to sustain our economy.
Freeloaders should not be made welcome though.


The minimum wage is simply there so that socialist can claim to have
'done something;' of course it only covers full time work. It is
actually counter productive, in that it totally removes, rather than
subsidises, a whole lump of low grade work. The jobs get down overseas.
Or not a all. Or on the black market with cash-in-hand.

Same goes for ALL the legiuslation for anti-=discrimination, and things
like maternity leave. No small business will emply a female whio is
likley to get pregnant, and demand maternity pay ad a job kept o[pen. Of
course we never admit iot, but te fact remains that the jobs go to teh
blokes, or to teh married woman with teenage kids, who does NOT have one
romantic work destroying relationship crisis every other week, get
married - taking time off for a honey moon, get pregnant, wander round
the office like a duck, throw up in the toilets every morning, produce
about half the output when she isn't at home with a migraine, have a
baby, expect to get paid, and then expect the job will still be there in
a years time.

No, sorry, she isnt 'as well qualified' as the married mother of three,
with a decades experience of running a family, and the maturity and
experience that goes with it..




Even the chronically unemployed, or single mothers, are really actually
capable of SOME productive work. But the system as it is currently
constructed, makes this financially disadvantageous.

It's all this muddle headed socialist 'fairthink' that makes it all so
bloody expensive and inefficient.

If your referring to NuLabour I would not describe them a socialist.
They manage to pick the worst policies from both extremes of the
polical spretrum.


its not just them: its the whole eurosocialist movement in Brussels.

T Bliar was basically a weak vain man who reconciled the ends of the
political spectrum by lying equally to each, promising both things that
never materialised, and delivering half baked legislation at the drop of
a sound bite any time political lobbies shouted too loud. And borrowing
a shed load of money to pay everyone off as he did so. A cat beller of
the first order.

Possibly the worst prime minister in my lifetime, except now we have
Brownian Motion, the ability to vaccillate wildly about a mean, under
the influence of hot air, and not actually achieve anything. No Bliar
was worse. Gordon has done almost nothing. Bliar did a lot, all of it bad.




The overheads of trying desperately to make sure that everybody gets
what they need and everybody is taxed according to their presumed
ability to pay, destroy the very wealth that is supposed to be being
redistributed.

If the money gained from taxation is badly spent then yes. I don't
believe it has to be this way.


And one of the best ways is to get central goverenment out of the whole
thing.

Its got no place to tell us how to run our lives. And dicate waht
'services' we get, whether we want them or not.



And places the final burden of defining what is fair, and equitable on a
central government whose activities have clearly shown that as arbiters
of social justice, they are no better than the common man in the street,
and possibly, due to the nature of the process that selects them for
election, often a very great deal worse.

Very true.

The Tory policy again is to accept that fact, and get them out of the
way of micro managing peoples lives: leave the cash by and large in the
hands of those who earn it, to spend where they will, and simply
underwrite the COSTS of public services of the minimum acceptable
standard whilst leaving the delivery of them to the organisations in
question.

I am very much against governments (or anyone else) micromanaging our
lives. However while there is very little economic mobility someone
does need to protect the average person from the people who hold all
the aces.

The answer is to change the rules of the game, so the people hold the aces.


Those aces are the purchasing power left in your pocket.

Remember edwina's curried eggs? she makes a true statement that Joe
public didn't realise was true and always had been true and joe public
nearly destroys the egg industry? Another good politician sacked for
telling the truth. Unlike Bliar.

take schooling.

lets say that you send your child to a school. Every day the school gets
them signed in on the register, it gets a flat rate from the government
provided it conforms to OFSTEDF standards Basic standards. Otherwise it
is free to teach what it likes, how it likes to who it likes.

If it suspends or expels a child, it loses income. That is its
commercial judegment. If the parents don't like its curriculum, or
discipline, or the colour of the mats teachers skin, they can take their
child to any other school that will have them.

If they want private tuition, the school might offer that at extra cost.
Or, indeed, any other subjects or activities that cannot be made
available at the basic state rate, BUT I hasten to add, if enough
parents pay for better playing fields or chemistry laboratories, that
makes them potentially available for all.

Instead of it being state free, or private at £3000 a term, there is now
a socially mobile middle ground.

would the most basic education be any WORSE? I don't see how it could be
frankly. Truly dreadful schools would go bust and get bought up, truly
bad children, who were not amenable to any discipline, would be thrown
out, benefiting the rest.



This is bad news for NHS regional managers etc etc but good news for
everyone else. If we don't like THAT hospital,or school, go to the one
in the next county or borough. Just like you would a dentist.

I'd rather my local school/hospital/dentist etc is brought up to the
desired standard then messing about with this.

well tough **** baby. there are at least 20 dentists within similar
distance of me here. and its my choice which one I use, and if the
choice was not betwen ultra cheap very hurried and very poor dentistry,
and decent service, but a hundred quid every time I stepped through the
door, it would be a far better situation.





Personally, I would kill two other birds with one stone, and increase
taxation slightly, and pay it back instantly to very single citizen in
the country, and a basic living pension, slightly less than subsistence
level, to be paid to them whether they work or not. And eliminate
minimum wages and means tested benefits as a corollary. If you can make
an extra 50 quid a week, its yours to keep and no impact on your basic
pension. Of course this pension would not be available to immigrants.
Instantly your local work force is subsidised vis a vis immigrants. If
they can still make a living, good luck. If not, Dover is that way -

I'd be happy with such an arrangement.

The only means tests should be for people who have a medical condition.
And woe betide them if they get caught managing a couple of rounds of
gold whilst being officially bedridden.

Of course most of this means the EU membership has to go, but 'what good
has Brussels ever done us?'

:-)

I will resist making Monty Python quotes ;-)

;-)

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:42:43 +0000 Derek Geldard wrote :
All this is very odd. Anybody over about 55 will remember huge coke
fired classroom stoves supplied from a huge pile in the schoolyard,

We had a sadistic teacher who used to make badly behaved boys stand in the
narrow gap between the stove and the side wall until they cried for mercy.
Sometimes the price for coming out was two strokes of the cane.

Bill

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rest of a very good reply snipped.

In particular means testing is totally iniquitous. To place people in a
position where to take on low paid work results in an immediate
worsening of their financial position, benefits no one. And encourages
immigration to fill these positions with people who have not got access
to social security in their own countries.

Daughter became a single parent due, in the main, to having a medical
problem. She has always worked since her days at uni. And is bringing up
two daughters.

She gets government money for having a job. Rather than losing any
allowance by working.

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:00:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Industrial Life is completely unsustainable. We all need more
energy to stay alive in cities now at current population densities,
than we ever did.

Great changes will take place, many millions of people will die.

..sooner than otherwise might be expected, and childless..

We
are at a turning point and the choices we make now will have affects
far down the line.


My sad view is that as with the economic fiasco that has yet to play
out, those with the understanding are not heeded, and those with the
power will not act against public opinion.

How draconian and against human rights was it of the Chinese to insist
on a state enforced population policy?

What would you say if a one child per family policy was intstituted
here?
Yet arguably that is the one thing that would ease all our -physical
problems. Infrastructure overload, housing shortage, national carbon
footprint..

Of course it exposes the Emperors New Economics, based on an ever
expanding GDP and population and tax take to pay off the last
generations debt for the Ponzi scheme it has always been, in reality.



Doing nothing will lead to the total collapse of modern society and
return, probably quite quickly (weeks or months) once the crunch
point is reached, to essentially scattered small self supporting
agricultural groups.


I dont see it quite like that.

some countries are very well placed to survive. New Zealand, Canada,
to name but two. Low population density modern economies.

Nothing much is likely to change in the Kalahari either..;-)

Bangladesh will essentially vanish of course. As possibly will Holland
and most of the Low Countries.


There is adequate energy left though, especially nuclear to ensure
that a 'civilised' lifestyle remains in places that have it. France,
Japan..
For our little island, it could go either way. Back to the Dark ages,
with gangs of post modern chavs roaming like Goths Vikings and
Visigoths, raping, pillaging and burning till internecine warfare
wipes them down to sustainable levels., or possibly a final
recognition by the population of the choices that face them, and
consensus support for a centralised government that will implement
the probably very draconian measures needed to survive as a coherent
nation. Let's hope it's more of a Churchill than a Hitler or a Stalin,
that's all.

Doing something won't allow the current extravagant modern life
styles to continue but there is a chance of using our technology in a
sensible manner to retain some aspects of comfort.

Agreed.

By "comfort" I
mean a food/water/energy supply that you don't have to grow or carry
yourself to obtain. Sort of pre-industrial revolution but with a few
added bits of technology that can be supported. How much and which
bits of technology can be supported are dependant on our choices
today.


To be honest, if we shove in nuclear power and totally move away from
fossil fuel, most of it can stay. All the electrical stuff should be
fine.
Most of the plastics, if valuable enough, are recyclable, if oil
prices went through the roof. Flying would become astronomical in
pricce. Ther is no better energy de4snity in both eight and volume than
hydrocaqrbon fuels, unless you want atomic aircraft..cars trains and
buses are viable as electric vehicles, albeit with some restrictions.
Nuclear ships are
perfectly possible too.

If we recycle steel we don't need carbon to reduce iron ore to steel,
aluminium is an electrical process anyway, heating can be electric
with heatpumps making it super efficient, and incidentally, lowering
ground an air temperatures a little in the process.

The two most devastating things are teh actual climate change itself
(I judge it far too late to stop now), and ability to react to
changing crop planting patterns, species loss, and the most worrying, lack
of
rain and rise in sea levels.

BUT do not underestimate the speed with which a country can respond
when on an equivalent of 'war footing' and when Elfin Safety is thrown to
the winds.



In 1914, the best aerploane available could climb to about 5000 feet,
travel at 50-60 mph and was only flyable in fair wether. By 1918, top
speeds were 120mph or more, and up to 20,000 feet ceiling na dhad
instrment capability (basic). We entered WWI twenty years later with
aircraft whose to speeds were about 250mph, ceilings about 25000 ft
with almost no radar, no jet engines and still armed with WWI style
machine guns: We ended WWII with tactical missiles, nuclear bonmbs,
functional jet engines, top speeds knocking on Mach 1 (500 mph) ceilings
tagging
towards 50,000 feet. cannon rockets and lord knows what else, plus the
bare ideas of what would become computers.

That's what *can* be achieved, when the chips are down.

The biggest worry, is that people dont think the chips ARE dwon, they
are still worrying about 'Yuman Rights' 'affordable Housing' 'social
inequality' when every man jack of us is, thanks to Brown and the
predecessors, about £180k per household in debt over and above private
mortgages, in a country where education is a farce, and no one
believes anyone with a degree from Oxbridge, and certainly wouldn't
trust them to run a ****up in a brewery, and its likely half the
populated country will be flooded in 50 years, and we no longer - thanks
to a wonderful
process of supporting the unproductive, and taxing productive labour
out of existence, have the requisite skill set to actually do anything
about it.

Oh well, musnt grumble.

FFS I'll just go & slash me wrists...



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Mark wrote:

It entirely depends on the reason why people are chronically
unemployed. If it is because they are too lazy to work then they
don't deserve much support. If it is because they are ill or have a
disability the sitation is entirely different.

I think at this point, we have to look at the definitions of what
illness, or disability is.

Around this area are lots of young lads that spend their benefits on
cheep cans of lager and brag about how much money they are sucking out
of the pockets of the rest of us.

Remember, it is a doctor that underwrites a description of disability,
or illness. Get them on our side and I'd like to take a bet that the
unemployed total would drop dramatically.

Dave

Yes, moved.

Clive George wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:17:32 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

The excuse used by poor drivers that they spend all their time
looking for
hazards and can't see the speed limit signs or the speedo is
just plain cr@p.


I think we've established that regularly driving the route doesn't
mean you know the signs. They may change.

Dunno about you, but I notice new works taking place on routes I
drive regularly. I'll see new sign posts, etc, and they're dull grey
things, not a shiny new reflective sign. A new speed limit sign is
more visually intrusive than many of the things you're looking out
for anyway, so claiming you missed it because you were lookig for
other things is bogus.
No one has said you can't see kid AND sign but most people would
assume the sign read today the same as it read for the last 10
years.

Was the case which prompted this thread a simple number change on
the sign? How common is a simple number change, as opposed to
moving it, putting some red paint down, putting a new yellow border
on, putting up a "Speed limits changed" sign? Every time I've seen
a new speed limit, it's not just been rewriting the number, it's
always had other changes to point it out.

You raise an interesting point there. Both the examples I mentioned
in the thread have been maintained by one county, (not Highways
Agency). May be the practice of moving numerical lollipops varies?
Certainly in both the cases, it appeared that the lollipops were
moved "overnight" without evident warnings. Possibly there were some
waterproof notices attached to the posts for a period of time before
the transition and also some notice in the local paper.

Moved, rather than just the number changing?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:44:43 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Bit snipped

BUT do not underestimate the speed with which a country can respond
when on an equivalent of 'war footing' and when Elfin Safety is thrown to
the winds.



In 1914, the best aerploane available could climb to about 5000 feet,
travel at 50-60 mph and was only flyable in fair wether. By 1918, top
speeds were 120mph or more, and up to 20,000 feet ceiling na dhad
instrment capability (basic). We entered WWI twenty years later with
aircraft whose to speeds were about 250mph, ceilings about 25000 ft
with almost no radar, no jet engines and still armed with WWI style
machine guns: We ended WWII with tactical missiles, nuclear bonmbs,
functional jet engines, top speeds knocking on Mach 1 (500 mph) ceilings
tagging
towards 50,000 feet. cannon rockets and lord knows what else, plus the
bare ideas of what would become computers.

That's what *can* be achieved, when the chips are down.

The biggest worry, is that people dont think the chips ARE dwon, they
are still worrying about 'Yuman Rights' 'affordable Housing' 'social
inequality' when every man jack of us is, thanks to Brown and the
predecessors, about £180k per household in debt over and above private
mortgages, in a country where education is a farce, and no one
believes anyone with a degree from Oxbridge, and certainly wouldn't
trust them to run a ****up in a brewery, and its likely half the
populated country will be flooded in 50 years, and we no longer - thanks
to a wonderful
process of supporting the unproductive, and taxing productive labour
out of existence, have the requisite skill set to actually do anything
about it.

Oh well, musnt grumble.

FFS I'll just go & slash me wrists...

Any prospect of a discount for quantity ?

Derek

In message , Clive
George writes
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Clive
George writes
"T i m" wrote in message
...

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

If you're overloaded by that information (kid on bike, number on sign),
you
either need to take steps to reduce that load or increase the amount of
information you can take on. The latter means concentrating on driving,
not
going on autopilot.

I very rarely concentrate on my driving, its almost exclusively handled in
the subconscious, the same with e.g. skiing or other occupations where
automatic responses are better and faster than conscious thought, even
when driving at speeds over 100mph where you wake up a bit

That's good. Others are claiming they don't have sufficient processing power
left to handle all the things they need to. You're not. Which means you can
handle all the things they claim they can't.

There is another alternative, which is to slow down to a
level where you can cope with the amount of information coming in, but
that's clearly a ridiculous idea.

Which tells me that you shouldn't really be driving, there is no natural
ability there

But you just said you're already driving at a level where you can cope with
the amount of information coming in.

No I didn't, although I inferred it

That's fine - you're not the one who'll
be getting caught out by new speed limits or other unfamiliar situations.

Or are you now telling me that you do drive beyond your abilities?

No, why should you draw that conclusion ?

--
geoff