On 08/04/15 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:03:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its possible to live very comnfortably an a 6' x 4' cell.

Good to hear from one with first hand experience.

Have to admit, I never had TurNiP down as having been a member of a
monastic order.

Might explain his fascination with Brian Cox. ;-)

Er you are the one who is fascinated, not moi.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 08/04/2015 11:08, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:02, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:09, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote


http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...twork/gallery/






2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2







Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

Most cyclists I see, do not wear Lycra etc. I certainly don't.
On hot sunny days I just wear a pair of shorts and I've never worn a
helmet.

In my terms, you're a pedal powered organ donor!

Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049


In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

But which group are the main "organ donors"? which was the incorrect
statement I was replying to. The poster was totally incorrect to say
that it is cyclists.

I don't see anything about them being the main ones in the original
post, but in terms of deaths per billion passenger kms, they are second
after motorcyclists.

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/04/2015 10:16, Andy Cap wrote:
On 08/04/15 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:

Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

Is not independence a perfectly legitimate political aim, ...

Anarchy is a perfectly legitimate political aim and probably one of the
few that are likely to be worse for our economy than independence from
foreign investors who want a gateway into Europe.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/15 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:03:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its possible to live very comnfortably an a 6' x 4' cell.

Good to hear from one with first hand experience.

Have to admit, I never had TurNiP down as having been a member of a
monastic order.

Might explain his fascination with Brian Cox. ;-)

Er you are the one who is fascinated, not moi.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the reason for my reference to him went
straight over your head. So much does.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:08, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:02, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:09, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote


http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...twork/gallery/







2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2








Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

Most cyclists I see, do not wear Lycra etc. I certainly don't.
On hot sunny days I just wear a pair of shorts and I've never worn a
helmet.

In my terms, you're a pedal powered organ donor!

Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049


In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

But which group are the main "organ donors"? which was the incorrect
statement I was replying to. The poster was totally incorrect to say
that it is cyclists.

I don't see anything about them being the main ones in the original
post, but in terms of deaths per billion passenger kms, they are second
after motorcyclists.

Motorcyclists are simply known as organ donors, cyclists are a sub
category, defined as pedal powered. In particular for both groups, those
without helmets are most likely to qualify. Both groups tend to be
younger, so they are more eligible than pedestrians and car drivers.

On 08/04/15 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/15 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:03:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its possible to live very comnfortably an a 6' x 4' cell.

Good to hear from one with first hand experience.

Have to admit, I never had TurNiP down as having been a member of a
monastic order.

Might explain his fascination with Brian Cox. ;-)

Er you are the one who is fascinated, not moi.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the reason for my reference to him went
straight over your head. So much does.


I generally find that the utterings and witterings of the partially
brain dead are not worth trying to see deep meaning in, since there
seldom is any.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 08/04/2015 15:04, Capitol wrote:
....
Motorcyclists are simply known as organ donors, cyclists are a sub
category, defined as pedal powered. In particular for both groups, those
without helmets are most likely to qualify. Both groups tend to be
younger, so they are more eligible than pedestrians and car drivers.

Most motorcyclists I see these days (and there were a few hundred about
over the Bank Holiday weekend) seem to sport bushy grey beards.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 15:19:49 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 08/04/2015 15:04, Capitol wrote:
...
Motorcyclists are simply known as organ donors, cyclists are a sub
category, defined as pedal powered. In particular for both groups, those
without helmets are most likely to qualify. Both groups tend to be
younger, so they are more eligible than pedestrians and car drivers.

Most motorcyclists I see these days (and there were a few hundred about
over the Bank Holiday weekend) seem to sport bushy grey beards.

But how many shades of grey beards were there.

On 08/04/2015 10:30, Bod wrote:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

Even with a helmet you can get mashed but you're far more likely to
survive...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...illed-him.html

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 15:04, Capitol wrote:
...
Motorcyclists are simply known as organ donors, cyclists are a sub
category, defined as pedal powered. In particular for both groups, those
without helmets are most likely to qualify. Both groups tend to be
younger, so they are more eligible than pedestrians and car drivers.

Most motorcyclists I see these days (and there were a few hundred about
over the Bank Holiday weekend) seem to sport bushy grey beards.

I agree there are a lot of those about. However they hopefully have
learned survival skills (or been badly frightened) so are less likely to
be culled.

On 08/04/2015 17:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote



http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...network/galler

y/


2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619

I2


Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

Most cyclists I see, do not wear Lycra etc. I certainly don't.
On hot sunny days I just wear a pair of shorts and I've never worn a
helmet.

You must live somewhere where it's possible for a normal human to make
useful use of a bike. Round here, the star-wars extras are the only
ones to be seen. And they seem to hunt in packs.

Yes, we are surrounded by farms/country roads etc. Civilised people live
here. I've never seen a Lycra clad cyclist around here either.

On 08/04/2015 17:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...work/gallery/2

015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2


Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of The
Netherlands, or even Belgium.

What's it like just for England and Wales? Scotland is quite a large
chunk with a small population.


England considered as a separate country would be the 30th most densely
populated territory in the world (413/sq km), the place currently held
by The Netherlands (406/sq km). Wales (149/sq km) is marginally more
densely populated than China (142/sq km)

--
Colin Bignell

"john james" wrote in message ...



"Andy Cap" wrote in message
news:XradnXghkqtKbLnInZ2dnUVZ8kOdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
On 08/04/15 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:

Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

Is not independence a perfectly legitimate political aim,

Yes.

especially as
we were blatantly lied to when voting on the EEC/Common market?

You're always free to leave.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It's the non-Britons who should leave
first, after all, their ilk are the source of the population woes.


Bet not enough want to do that.

Why should we?

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:47:55 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of The
Netherlands, or even Belgium.

What's it like just for England and Wales? Scotland is quite a large
chunk with a small population.

England considered as a separate country would be the 30th most densely
populated territory in the world (413/sq km), the place currently held
by The Netherlands (406/sq km)

And, to localise that even further, the local authority areas most
representative of that population density are Tendring, Essex (Frinton-on-
Sea, Clacton, Harwich) and Mid-Sussex (E. Grinstead, Haywards Heath).

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

Hardly inner-city hellholes with people crammed on top of each other, are
they?

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 17:23:11 +0100, Richard wrote:

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It's the non-Britons who should
leave first, after all, their ilk are the source of the population woes.

Surely it should be whoever doesn't want to put up with "here", as it is
now, who should find somewhere more to their liking?

But, actually, it isn't "their ilk".

The difference between the number of births and the number of deaths in
England and Wales alone is around the same - ~300k - as the annual net
migration for the whole of the UK.

So, perhaps, if those who thought the UK was so overpopulated hurried up
and died, preferably without breeding first, it'd help to achieve their
aims.

On 08/04/2015 13:40, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:10:37 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:56, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar, Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.
There are many other large areas that are suitable for building houses
on.

But do we want every square mile of the contry covered in houses ?

Of course not, but there's still plenty of room for many more houses
without taking too much of the green belt.
There also many brownfield sites to be built on.
A heck of a lot of rich landowners need to release the land that they are
sitting on and waiting for a profit. They own lots of land that is doing
nothing.

Define "nothing".


I just explained;
"A heck of a lot of rich landowners need to release the land that they
are sitting on and waiting for a profit"

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:10:37 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:56, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of
The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar, Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.

That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet, but perfectly habitable.
There are many other large areas that are suitable for building houses
on.

But do we want every square mile of the contry covered in houses ?

Of course not, but there's still plenty of room for many more houses
without taking too much of the green belt.
There also many brownfield sites to be built on.
A heck of a lot of rich landowners need to release the land that they are
sitting on and waiting for a profit. They own lots of land that is doing
nothing.

Define "nothing".

earning an EU subsidy for being left empty

tim

On 08/04/15 17:56, tim..... wrote:


earning an EU subsidy for being left empty

tim

Which is no use if noone can build on it.


People seem to be confusing a few rich blokes buying a few 1000 London
homes with "greedy landowners with vast tracts of fields".

There's a reason farm land is cheap compared to residential land.

On 08/04/15 17:23, Richard wrote:

You've got the wrong end of the stick. It's the non-Britons who should
leave first, after all, their ilk are the source of the population woes.


Yes. Damn those saxons and romans and normans and viking types.

Mind you if everyone left how had a gene from one of those, the country
would be pretty empty.

On 08/04/2015 19:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 17:02, Tim Streater wrote:

What's it like just for England and Wales? Scotland is quite a large
chunk with a small population.

England considered as a separate country would be the 30th most
densely populated territory in the world (413/sq km), the place
currently held by The Netherlands (406/sq km).

Come again? The second part of that sentence makes no sense (or is
incomplete).


The Netherlands is currently the 30th most densely populated country in
the world. if England were to be considered as a separate entity, it
would be 30th and The Netherlands 31st.

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/04/2015 11:08, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:02, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:09, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote


http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...twork/gallery/






2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2







Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

Most cyclists I see, do not wear Lycra etc. I certainly don't.
On hot sunny days I just wear a pair of shorts and I've never worn a
helmet.

In my terms, you're a pedal powered organ donor!

Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049


In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

But which group are the main "organ donors"? which was the incorrect
statement I was replying to. The poster was totally incorrect to say
that it is cyclists.

The ambulance service would disagree. mobile organ donors is exactly
what the medics call them.

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

On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote


http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...twork/gallery/

2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2


Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

I love Clarkson's description; Dressed like an extra in a gay rave movie.

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

On 08/04/2015 18:34, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:08, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:02, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 10:09, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote


http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...twork/gallery/







2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2








Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!

I'd be gloomy if I dressed up like an extra in a Star Wars film and
then had to ride a bike.

Most cyclists I see, do not wear Lycra etc. I certainly don't.
On hot sunny days I just wear a pair of shorts and I've never worn a
helmet.

In my terms, you're a pedal powered organ donor!

Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049


In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

But which group are the main "organ donors"? which was the incorrect
statement I was replying to. The poster was totally incorrect to say
that it is cyclists.

The ambulance service would disagree. mobile organ donors is exactly
what the medics call them.

So the 107 cyclist fatalities are classed as donors and 883 car
fatalities are not considered as donors.....hmm!

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).


That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/04/2015 18:59, Bod wrote:

So the 107 cyclist fatalities are classed as donors and 883 car
fatalities are not considered as donors.....hmm!

car drivers aren't as generous as cyclists.

On 08/04/2015 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:34, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2




Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

UKIP have some excellent policies;

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of
red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road
courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party
liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate
registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to
cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should
also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle
theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of
cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP
supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic



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

On 08/04/2015 20:54, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:59, Bod wrote:

So the 107 cyclist fatalities are classed as donors and 883 car
fatalities are not considered as donors.....hmm!

car drivers aren't as generous as cyclists.

How uncharitable.

On 08/04/2015 21:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:54, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:59, Bod wrote:

So the 107 cyclist fatalities are classed as donors and 883 car
fatalities are not considered as donors.....hmm!

car drivers aren't as generous as cyclists.

How uncharitable.

What do you expect? I'm a car driver.

On 08/04/2015 21:31, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 21:30, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:54, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:59, Bod wrote:

So the 107 cyclist fatalities are classed as donors and 883 car
fatalities are not considered as donors.....hmm!

car drivers aren't as generous as cyclists.

How uncharitable.

What do you expect? I'm a car driver.

:-)

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 11:53:15 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 11:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/04/15 11:03, Bod wrote:
Of course not, but there's still plenty of room for many more houses
without taking too much of the green belt.
There also many brownfield sites to be built on.
A heck of a lot of rich landowners need to release the land that they
are sitting on and waiting for a profit. They own lots of land that is
doing nothing.

I am sure they'd love to - if planning permission were available for
housing.

Fix that and there'll be no shortage of land.


It's well known that there are many rich landowners deliberately sitting
on land and they own many houses that are never lived in and with no
intention of building houses, they simply buy and wait for the right
time to cash in. In London alone, there are thousands of empty houses
for those very reasons.

yes and quite a number owned by the 'govenrment' .

I can't quite work out whether or not it is good for the 'average person'
that people are buying up properties in London (or anywhere) and leave
them empty for years and refuse to rent them out.

That obviously depends on how tight the rental market
is and whether the average person rents or buys.

When you hear that most of the builds are spit
between those said to be 'affordable' and the rest.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"john james" wrote in message ...



"Andy Cap" wrote in message
news:XradnXghkqtKbLnInZ2dnUVZ8kOdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...
On 08/04/15 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:

Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

Is not independence a perfectly legitimate political aim,

Yes.

especially as
we were blatantly lied to when voting on the EEC/Common market?

You're always free to leave.

You've got the wrong end of the stick.

Nope, you have. I meant free to leave the EU.

It's the non-Britons who should leave
first, after all, their ilk are the source of the population woes.


Bet not enough want to do that.

Why should we?

Because you want to.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 09:48, Dennis@home wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:34, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 08:27, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2




Even sillier than you usually manage.

Britain in a few years due to immigration?

Not a chance.

Agreed.
Why is it that there are so many sad doom and gloom posters in this
newsgroup and uk rec cycling!



There is an election coming up and they want you to vote for BN^W UKIP.

UKIP have some excellent policies;

Pity nowhere near enough will ever vote for them
for them to ever be able to implement any of them.

10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and
responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red
lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

Easy to waffle like that with no mention of how to do it better.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of

Why didn't they get off their lard arses and do that already ?

minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple
annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to
cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected.

Even for little kids ? Barking mad.

The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will
help counter bicycle theft,

Even sillier than they usually manage.

and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour.

Even sillier than they usually manage.

We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made
mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities.

So much for their claim to be for less govt.

UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

Bet that will have them swooning in the aisles.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a
‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety
concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where
the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable
delays to traffic

So much for their claim to be for less govt.

Just more utterly mindless polly bull****/lies.

On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything.

Nope.

The UK's total material requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750
million tonnes - 31.3 tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million
tonnes - 27 tonnes per capita.

That's a drop.

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:28, Huge wrote:
On 2015-04-08, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 09:05, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 07/04/2015 23:50, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...MCNEWEML6619I2



Britain in a few years due to immigration?

We have a long way to go before reaching the population density of The
Netherlands, or even Belgium. Some of the most densely populated
countries and territories in the world are Monaco, Gibraltar, Vatican
City, Bahrain, Malta, Jersey and Guernsey.


Hong Kong.

All of which are unrepresentative due to being tiny.



They still demonstrate that, give a high enough per capita income, it is
possible to live very comfortably with high population densities.


Yes but we just don't want it. We don't want to build over our green
fields just to house a load of Pakistanis. We don't the cultural values
of this country changing to suit Islam.

Bill

Andy Cap wrote:

The point is though, that most of the world's population have a pretty
poor standard of living. If they all quite justifiably demand what the
West has, which they will,

They can demand all they like, but they have to set up their own
industry and infrastructure in order to get the benefits. There's no
reason why we should share with them the benefits of our industriousness
and civilised ways. They can bugger off.

Bill

charles wrote:


That's because we have mountainous regions which are not suitable for
housing.


We have boundless acres of flat farmland, but that's no reason to let
foreigners come to live on it. I'd rather drive past acres of turnips
than acres of Pakistanis. At least turnips lead quiet inoffensive lives.

Bill

Bod wrote:

Dartmoor/Exmoor/Yorkshire moors. These are all vast areas, largely
unpopulated yet,

So let's keep them that way.

Bill

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.


Yes but things are lighter nowadays.

Bill

On 09/04/15 01:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 08/04/2015 20:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 08/04/2015 20:05, Tim Streater wrote:
..
As I thought: this is an overcrowded country. Anyone who says it isn't
doesn't drive on our motorways (f'rinstance).

That is more a measure of relative affluence and social expectations.
The population density of the UK is just 12% higher than it was in the
1960s, when I once travelled from London to Whipsnade along the M1
without meeting a single car going in the same direction.

So the population was too high then, also. Just that we didn't notice.

If we didn't notice, it couldn't have been too high.

So people used less of everything and it just about worked.

Actually, we used more of everything. The UK's total material
requirement in 1970, when records began, was 1,750 million tonnes - 31.3
tonnes per capita. In 2013, it was 1,730 million tonnes - 27 tonnes per
capita.

which juts goes top show how little we are now making in terms of ships
and aircraft and how little we are investing in infrastructure...
...and how much lighter software is compared to a tractor..


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll