On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:52:57 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:

Those children will pay your pension and healthcare costs when you are old!

And the Belgium taxpayers are paying for free commuting which benefits
their environment, their health and their children's safety by having
fewer cars on the roads.

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:26:02 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:39:02 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Er, my council tax pays for schools. I don't have any children. Go
figure!

Presumably you accept that the taxes you pay also contribute to
hospitals, which you rarely use? As far as I'm concerned if one of my
family is in need of urgent attention then I'm happy to pay a
contribution to ensure that an ambulance turns up.

Of course I accept it! I am not the one arguing against free commuting
in Belgium! I am all in favour of it here as well.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:19:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mal" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

More misconceived ********. Modern house are not hutches. Many
inter-war
house are hutches

Does a modern house have more, or less,
living space than houses built
in earlier decades?

yes.

Yes they have less living space?

They have more living space.

This cannot possibly be the case. Check your figures, please. They are
wrong.

Are the ceilings lower or higher in modern houses?

Not an issue as ceilings needed to be higher for gas lights. Insert
electric lights can be fitted into ceilings.

It is an issue, since rooms with high ceilings are more pleasant to
live
in.

Having the "impression" of higher ceilings is what matters.

I suppose one could paint an impression of the sky on the ceiling to
make it seem further away...

You should look at the TV prog with the American lady with the turn in her
eye.

Are modern houses always structurally sound?

Yes. Foundations are far superior as is the concrete and cement.
Bricks
are far less porous than older bricks.

How is it that so many houses fail their "medical" with the NHBC then?
On average a new house has 106 snags.

100% of those are minor points: cracks, plumbing, etc, not the structures.

Do modern houses offer
large gardens?

Some do. Some don't, some are average.

None has a large garden anymore - unless you're paying over a million
for an executive "home". Most of the council houses where I live have
massive back gardens and quite respectably sized front gardens, too.

This is nonsense.

Most are tiny.

Nonsense! most are bigger.

Only if you are comparing 4-bed houses of today with 3-bed houses of a
few decades ago. You got a funny ruler, or something? (I don't mean
Tony Blair.)

I am on about the average family house. 70 years ago it was 3 beds, now it
is 4 beds, en-suite bathroom, built-in wardrobes, downstairs toilet, utility
rooms, etc. No comparison, the modern is much superior with state of the
art plumbing, electric, heating, etc.

Are modern houses never built close to railway lines,
motorways, or supermarkets?

Not really. Older house were butted right up to factories, rail
lines,
etc.
I was reading about football stadia the other day. Everton FC in 1906
built
a double decker stand around the corner of an end gable of terraced
houses.
There was a distinct triangle intrusion into the stands seats. Try
doing
that today.

It works the other way round these days.
Now they would build houses right up to a stadium that previously stood
in
an empty field.

They would not.

Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

They do not look as *solid* as older houses.

They do.

Also, when we had the
gales in 1987, as I drove home from work and had to make numerous
detours because of fallen trees, I passed many modern houses with half
the roofs gone. My 1950s ex-council house, right on top of a ridge,
was missing a few tiles only. Cost me all of forty quid the next day
to get a roofer up there. How much did the newer builds cost the
insurance companies?

I recall most Victorian houses around me had all their tile ripped off.

Ha Ha - they might try, but they fail dismally.

Have you ever seen a modern house.

Well, one has to be quick! What with global warming and frequent gales
they can be gone in a flash. Whoosh!

You know nothing of modern construction.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building
regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

How much then?

Get the loft to at least 250mm and have an insulated sealed hatch door.
Have sealed double glazing and insulated exterior doors. Fill the
cavities
with insulation. Dig up the floor and insulate under and then relay.
That
is just to get it to today's standards.

How much then?

More than £300

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:51:02 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Of course I accept it! I am not the one arguing against free commuting
in Belgium! I am all in favour of it here as well.

Sorry, I guess IMM has been at his tricks again. One of these days I
must read his responses, but it's much more fun twit-filtering him and
then trying to figure out what he's said when someone else responds

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

"PoP" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:51:02 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Of course I accept it! I am not the one arguing against free commuting
in Belgium! I am all in favour of it here as well.

Sorry, I guess IMM has been at his tricks again.

What the hell are you on about?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:02:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

£300 to insulate an uninsulated house properly to currenbt building
regs,
never mind the 2007 regs? Get real!

How much then?

Get the loft to at least 250mm and have an insulated sealed hatch door.
Have sealed double glazing and insulated exterior doors. Fill the
cavities
with insulation. Dig up the floor and insulate under and then relay.
That
is just to get it to today's standards.

How much then?

More than £300

How much more?

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

And the Belgium taxpayers are paying for free commuting which benefits
their environment, their health and their children's safety by having
fewer cars on the roads.


NO! There is no such thing as good free public transport. Providing it at
the expense of the majority taxpayers, simply distorts the market and
enables an elite minority to continue with an unsustainable way of life. The
number of cars on the road decreases by a negligible amount. The much
vaunted London congestion charge only increased rush hour bus usage by 111
people per day( if I have done the sums correctly). If you wish to live in
a socialist state, where everyone WILL use public transport, then take the
honest solution and ban personal ownership of any means of transport
(including bikes) and increase income tax to pay for it! Then try to get
re-elected!

As a further comment, how many people become sick from say colds as a result
of using public transport and what does this cost? It is reckoned that the
infection rate on a transatlantic jumbo jet is close to 100%!

The problem is not public transport, but centralised employment! Public
transport is an uneconomic patch applied to cover up the real problem.

In 1970, 90% of people in new towns worked locally. Today, it's less than
30% as a result of employment instability together with lack of housing
mobility. Public transport has no hope of providing the transport routes
required!

Regards
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...

snip drivel
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

And the Belgium taxpayers are paying for free commuting which benefits
their environment, their health and their children's safety by having
fewer cars on the roads.

My God such illogical clap-trap...

NO! There is no such thing as good free
public transport. Providing it at
the expense of the majority taxpayers,
simply distorts the market and
enables an elite minority to continue with
an unsustainable way of life.

Public transport reduces pollution levels, which saves people's lungs.

What is being subsidised to the hilt is vehicles. If vehicle users paid the
full amount for their usage and ramifications, fuel would be twice the
amount. They do not pay the full cost of traffic police, health due to
accidents and pollution, lost working days due to accidents etc.

Vehicles are clearly not in the free market, no more than public transport,
but public transport saves lives.

The number of cars on the road decreases
by a negligible amount. The much
vaunted London congestion charge only
increased rush hour bus usage by 111
people per day( if I have done the sums correctly).

Probably not. It also keep 100s of cars out of the centre reducing air and
noise pollution and less accidents. Ken is right! Extend the congestion
zone.

If you wish to live in
a socialist state, where everyone WILL use
public transport, then take thehonest solution

Even in extreme right wing regimes, they realise public transports is a
necessity and subsidise it.

snip drivel

I detect some sense...

In 1970, 90% of people in new towns
worked locally. Today, it's less than
30% as a result of employment instability
together with lack of housing mobility. Public
transport has no hope of providing the transport
routes required!

Capitol wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...


And the Belgium taxpayers are paying for free commuting which benefits
their environment, their health and their children's safety by having
fewer cars on the roads.



NO! There is no such thing as good free public transport. Providing it at
the expense of the majority taxpayers, simply distorts the market and
enables an elite minority to continue with an unsustainable way of life. The
number of cars on the road decreases by a negligible amount. The much
vaunted London congestion charge only increased rush hour bus usage by 111
people per day( if I have done the sums correctly). If you wish to live in
a socialist state, where everyone WILL use public transport, then take the
honest solution and ban personal ownership of any means of transport
(including bikes) and increase income tax to pay for it! Then try to get
re-elected!

As a further comment, how many people become sick from say colds as a result
of using public transport and what does this cost? It is reckoned that the
infection rate on a transatlantic jumbo jet is close to 100%!

The problem is not public transport, but centralised employment! Public
transport is an uneconomic patch applied to cover up the real problem.

In 1970, 90% of people in new towns worked locally. Today, it's less than
30% as a result of employment instability together with lack of housing
mobility. Public transport has no hope of providing the transport routes
required!



Hear hear!

Its also worse than that, the real problem is that car being up till now
ceap and convenient, and towns being expensive and dificult tpo park in,
most major large volume ot latge o]bject stores now have to be placed on
or near arterial roads, this increassing traffic levels enormously.

Instead of driving into town, parking by teh electrical shop, one
drivbes miles into the nearest Curry=s, to find they haven't got what
you want in stock, don't understand your questions, and in any case will
have to arrange to have it delivered sometime next year.

I teh beginning, we had towns with roads going through them, As
journeys increased in length, we built roads around them. This was the
last sesnible idea road planners had.However since then we have ben not
releiving traffic in towns, but banning it altogether , thus forcing
intra town traffic, and most of the shops at which you need to load
goods directly into the car, not to mention businesses, out along the
places you are stil allowed to drive - the by passes. The net result is
that we have reversed the trend of separating localised traffic from
arterial traffic, and every major road near any major town is now
blocked up by short haul traffic.




Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

And the Belgium taxpayers are paying for free commuting which benefits
their environment, their health and their children's safety by having
fewer cars on the roads.


NO! There is no such thing as good free public transport. Providing it at
the expense of the majority taxpayers, simply distorts the market and
enables an elite minority to continue with an unsustainable way of life.
The
number of cars on the road decreases by a negligible amount. The much
vaunted London congestion charge only increased rush hour bus usage by 111
people per day( if I have done the sums correctly). If you wish to live
in
a socialist state, where everyone WILL use public transport, then take the
honest solution and ban personal ownership of any means of transport
(including bikes) and increase income tax to pay for it! Then try to get
re-elected!

As a further comment, how many people become sick from say colds as a
result
of using public transport and what does this cost? It is reckoned that the
infection rate on a transatlantic jumbo jet is close to 100%!

The problem is not public transport, but centralised employment! Public
transport is an uneconomic patch applied to cover up the real problem.

In 1970, 90% of people in new towns worked locally. Today, it's less than
30% as a result of employment instability together with lack of housing
mobility. Public transport has no hope of providing the transport routes
required!

Regards
Capitol


I would agree that public transport is a public health issue.

During my career, I have sometimes had jobs where I needed to use public
transport (train into London, follwed by a tube trip), and some where I have
to drive.

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

If ever something infectious is released on the Underground, you can be sure
most of London will catch it.

Mal

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:17:09 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

Both Capitol and you seem to think it is a bad thing to get a cold and
challenge the immune system. Britain has the highest rate of childhood
asthma in the world! We need to stop using crap like antibacterial
washing up liquid and eat a peck of dirt a day. (Actually, a peck
might be a bit too much, but you know what I mean.)

Not only does public transport strengthen your immune system for later
life when, faced with things like cancer or other horrid diseases,
we're all going to need a healthy immune system, but also you get to
mix with other members of society and have to adapt to their funny
little ways, just as they adapt to yours. This is another healthy
aspect which Britain is missing more and more. And we all know what
huge problems we have in Britain trying to establish a cohesive
society, when that daft old bat Thatcher tried to pretend there was no
such thing.

Moreover, on public transport, especially trains, you can read a book
or the newspaper (and get up to date on current affairs), you can do
some work, perhaps write a novel. Cooped up in private cars we are
continually faced with danger, it is unhealthy, antisocial, dangerous
to kids and the elderly and costs the NHS millions to patch up all the
injuries cars cause. Sure, lorries also cause accidents, but most
lorry drivers have had to have extra training to drive their lorries
and are more responsible drivers by and large (excluding white van
man, of course - they should all be dragged to the side of the road
and bludgeoned to death with a pickaxe).

MM

In article , IMM
writes
Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

You must be joking. Try taking those rose-tinted spectacles off
sometime.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:11:00 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , IMM
writes
Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

You must be joking. Try taking those rose-tinted spectacles off
sometime.

I don't think he can! They're made by WimpeyVision or BarrattSavers...

MM

"Mal" wrote in message
...

snip

I would agree that public transport is a public health issue.

During my career, I have sometimes had jobs where I needed to use public
transport (train into London, follwed by a tube trip), and some where I
have
to drive.

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I
have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

If ever something infectious is released on the Underground, you can be
sure
most of London will catch it.

Mal



True, there are potential public health issues, but they are not unknown and
in themselves are not an argument for not using and developing a public
transport system. The risks of infectious agents being released on the
tube network are certainly known about by the security services, they've
been talked about often enough.

Despite the presence of infectious diseases in London (TB, for instance)
evidence does not back up the various catestrophic predictions, because the
majority of people using transport systems do remain healthy and free from
serious infection. If what "might" happen was actually "likely" to happen
then surely this would not be the case? (and I know that TB is a serious
health issue, and that numbers of sufferers in large cities such as London
are growing, but it is not at serious epidemic proportions, and if public
transport networks were such high risk places then the numbers would have
grown at an unstoppable rate).

A few years ago I remember listening to one of the 5-minute pieces on R4
Today programme (I think). A research paper apparently showed that
extroverts were less likely to suffer from common colds and other infectious
diseases than introverts. The conclusion of the paper was that the more
people you came into contact with then the more your body's immune system
was able to deal with potential infections. Isolating yourself from the
masses would in that case be a strategy of folly in the long run.

A doctor of my acquaintance a number of years ago was convinced that another
winning strategy for avoiding nuisance infections was simply to wash your
hands when you first arrive at work each morning and at home in the evening.
Reasoning went that a lot of infections are contracted through contact.
Person with a cold hurries to the tube station in the morning. Has slight
runny nose, gets wiped with hands. They hang onto the straps (handrails
now) and a few minutes later you hang onto the same strap. You get to work,
pick up your pencil, chew the end of it, or wipe your mouth or another such
contact. Cold virus now introduced quite happily into your body. Washing
your hands reduces your chances of this (no need for any of this
anti-bacterial paranoia handwash stuff - normal soap is fine).

Whether this has any basis in fact or not I couldn't tell you, but it's a
reasoned line of thinking, and is after all a similar basis to the practise
of surgeons scrubbing up before performing surgery.


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:17:09 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work,
I have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had
to
drive, I had no colds at all.

Both Capitol and you seem to think it is a bad thing to get a cold and
challenge the immune system. Britain has the highest rate of childhood
asthma in the world! We need to stop using crap like antibacterial
washing up liquid and eat a peck of dirt a day. (Actually, a peck
might be a bit too much, but you know what I mean.)

Not only does public transport strengthen your immune system for later
life when, faced with things like cancer or other horrid diseases,
we're all going to need a healthy immune system, but also you get to
mix with other members of society and have to adapt to their funny
little ways, just as they adapt to yours. This is another healthy
aspect which Britain is missing more and more. And we all know what
huge problems we have in Britain trying to establish a cohesive
society, when that daft old bat Thatcher tried to pretend there was no
such thing.

Moreover, on public transport, especially trains, you can read a book
or the newspaper (and get up to date on current affairs), you can do
some work, perhaps write a novel. Cooped up in private cars we are
continually faced with danger, it is unhealthy, antisocial, dangerous
to kids and the elderly and costs the NHS millions to patch up all the
injuries cars cause.

The NHS will recoup the cost from the driver's insurance company.

Neil

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"Mal" wrote in message
...

snip

I would agree that public transport is a public health issue.

During my career, I have sometimes had jobs where I needed to use public
transport (train into London, follwed by a tube trip), and some where I
have
to drive.

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I
have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

If ever something infectious is released on the Underground, you can be
sure
most of London will catch it.

Mal



True, there are potential public health issues, but they are not unknown
and
in themselves are not an argument for not using and developing a public
transport system. The risks of infectious agents being released on the
tube network are certainly known about by the security services, they've
been talked about often enough.

Despite the presence of infectious diseases in London (TB, for instance)
evidence does not back up the various catestrophic predictions, because
the
majority of people using transport systems do remain healthy and free from
serious infection. If what "might" happen was actually "likely" to happen
then surely this would not be the case? (and I know that TB is a serious
health issue, and that numbers of sufferers in large cities such as London
are growing, but it is not at serious epidemic proportions, and if public
transport networks were such high risk places then the numbers would have
grown at an unstoppable rate).


TB cases will probably grow. Spitting seems to be a major cause of
transmissionm, and it seems to be on the increase.

A few years ago I remember listening to one of the 5-minute pieces on R4
Today programme (I think). A research paper apparently showed that
extroverts were less likely to suffer from common colds and other
infectious
diseases than introverts. The conclusion of the paper was that the more
people you came into contact with then the more your body's immune system
was able to deal with potential infections. Isolating yourself from the
masses would in that case be a strategy of folly in the long run.


There are more than 250 variations on the cold virus - you won't become
immune to them all in an entire lifetime.

A doctor of my acquaintance a number of years ago was convinced that
another
winning strategy for avoiding nuisance infections was simply to wash your
hands when you first arrive at work each morning and at home in the
evening.
Reasoning went that a lot of infections are contracted through contact.
Person with a cold hurries to the tube station in the morning. Has slight
runny nose, gets wiped with hands. They hang onto the straps (handrails
now) and a few minutes later you hang onto the same strap. You get to
work,
pick up your pencil, chew the end of it, or wipe your mouth or another
such
contact. Cold virus now introduced quite happily into your body. Washing
your hands reduces your chances of this (no need for any of this
anti-bacterial paranoia handwash stuff - normal soap is fine).

Whether this has any basis in fact or not I couldn't tell you, but it's a
reasoned line of thinking, and is after all a similar basis to the
practise
of surgeons scrubbing up before performing surgery.


Makes perfect sense, and probaby works too.

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:17:09 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I
have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

Both Capitol and you seem to think it is a bad thing to get a cold and
challenge the immune system. Britain has the highest rate of childhood
asthma in the world! We need to stop using crap like antibacterial
washing up liquid and eat a peck of dirt a day. (Actually, a peck
might be a bit too much, but you know what I mean.)


I believe in freedom of choice for the individual. I am perfectly happy for
you to travel on unreliable, uncomfortable, filthy, unhygienic public
transport. Please feel free to get as many colds etc as you wish. I would
not deny you this vital opportunity. However, I would ask you to pay the
full costs of travelling in this manner and not ask those of us who do not
wish to join, to pay for your enjoyment. When you are faced with meeting
the true costs, you may wish to pursue gainful employment in another
location and discover the joys of reliable, comfortable and clean, personal
transport locally.

Regards
Capitol

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:48:50 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:17:09 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work,
I have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had
to
drive, I had no colds at all.

Both Capitol and you seem to think it is a bad thing to get a cold and
challenge the immune system. Britain has the highest rate of childhood
asthma in the world! We need to stop using crap like antibacterial
washing up liquid and eat a peck of dirt a day. (Actually, a peck
might be a bit too much, but you know what I mean.)

Not only does public transport strengthen your immune system for later
life when, faced with things like cancer or other horrid diseases,
we're all going to need a healthy immune system, but also you get to
mix with other members of society and have to adapt to their funny
little ways, just as they adapt to yours. This is another healthy
aspect which Britain is missing more and more. And we all know what
huge problems we have in Britain trying to establish a cohesive
society, when that daft old bat Thatcher tried to pretend there was no
such thing.

Moreover, on public transport, especially trains, you can read a book
or the newspaper (and get up to date on current affairs), you can do
some work, perhaps write a novel. Cooped up in private cars we are
continually faced with danger, it is unhealthy, antisocial, dangerous
to kids and the elderly and costs the NHS millions to patch up all the
injuries cars cause.

The NHS will recoup the cost from the driver's insurance company.

One in twenty drivers are uninsured.

MM

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:42:22 -0000, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote:

"Mal" wrote in message
...

snip

I would agree that public transport is a public health issue.

During my career, I have sometimes had jobs where I needed to use public
transport (train into London, follwed by a tube trip), and some where I
have
to drive.

Every winter that I have had to use public transport to get to work, I
have
had 3 or 4 bad colds, and at least 2 days off work. Every year I had to
drive, I had no colds at all.

If ever something infectious is released on the Underground, you can be
sure
most of London will catch it.

Mal



True, there are potential public health issues, but they are not unknown and
in themselves are not an argument for not using and developing a public
transport system. The risks of infectious agents being released on the
tube network are certainly known about by the security services, they've
been talked about often enough.

Despite the presence of infectious diseases in London (TB, for instance)
evidence does not back up the various catestrophic predictions, because the
majority of people using transport systems do remain healthy and free from
serious infection. If what "might" happen was actually "likely" to happen
then surely this would not be the case? (and I know that TB is a serious
health issue, and that numbers of sufferers in large cities such as London
are growing, but it is not at serious epidemic proportions, and if public
transport networks were such high risk places then the numbers would have
grown at an unstoppable rate).

A few years ago I remember listening to one of the 5-minute pieces on R4
Today programme (I think). A research paper apparently showed that
extroverts were less likely to suffer from common colds and other infectious
diseases than introverts. The conclusion of the paper was that the more
people you came into contact with then the more your body's immune system
was able to deal with potential infections. Isolating yourself from the
masses would in that case be a strategy of folly in the long run.

Of course! Look at the American Indians and many other ethnic
communities where Britain sent its colonial "missionaries" - and
promptly gave the indigenous population a disease which their immune
system had not yet encountered. They dropped like flies. I believe it
is vital that we mix as much as possible. Who remembers the dances at
the Hammersmith Palais and other venues? They really got the germs
a-flyin'! Along with the arms and the legs and the inhibitions.

A doctor of my acquaintance a number of years ago was convinced that another
winning strategy for avoiding nuisance infections was simply to wash your
hands when you first arrive at work each morning and at home in the evening.
Reasoning went that a lot of infections are contracted through contact.
Person with a cold hurries to the tube station in the morning. Has slight
runny nose, gets wiped with hands. They hang onto the straps (handrails
now) and a few minutes later you hang onto the same strap. You get to work,
pick up your pencil, chew the end of it, or wipe your mouth or another such
contact. Cold virus now introduced quite happily into your body. Washing
your hands reduces your chances of this (no need for any of this
anti-bacterial paranoia handwash stuff - normal soap is fine).

That's another thing I do, too. Always be aware that the person before
you, serving you, giving you change etc may have just returned from
Number Twos without washing the hands. I never touch the faceplate or
handles on doors in public spaces, such as multistorey car parks, but
look for an area to push or pull that is less likely to be
contaminated.

Whether this has any basis in fact or not I couldn't tell you, but it's a
reasoned line of thinking, and is after all a similar basis to the practise
of surgeons scrubbing up before performing surgery.

How many people wash their hands before eating a sandwich at lunch?
That is, they could have just shaken hands with the flash salesman
from the London branch, who only a few minutes before was fondling the
office bike in the stationery cupboard. Chlamydia with that BLT,
anyone...?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:48:50 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:



The NHS will recoup the cost from the driver's insurance company.

One in twenty drivers are uninsured.

MM

Which is why we have the Motor Insurers Bureau.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes
Do modern houses
have character?

They look the same as older houses.

You must be joking. Try taking those rose-tinted spectacles off
sometime.

You are right, modern houses look better.