It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Road Congestion Charges

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Once again the corrupts British Goverment and its lackies are making moves to fleece the populace out of yet more money with congestion charges. Every year billions are raised from road users and only a small amount of that money is actually spent on the roads and now they want to charge us to drive on certain roads at rush hour times.

The reality is that monies raised in road taxation has been skimmed off and the UK road network has suffered. Now having robbed us of that money and failed to provide what we have paid for they now want more. Public transport is a disgrace, the worst in Europe, private companies only want to run the most profitable routes and take plenty out but do not invest in the services. The railways are at full capacity and some parts of the country do not even have bus services.

Here in Manchester the local council has for years been closing roads to vehicular traffic, now its putting bus lanes everywhere and reducing the number of lanes available to road users. In other words they are helping to cause the congestion so they can have an excuse to charge road users.
This process defies all logic, in a modern city, one which wishes to thrive you improve the services to the city not remove them.

Most of the roads in the UK are Victorian, dig the tarmac up and you will find the original granite setts. So we have roads and streets that are over a hundred years old that have never been widened or improved yet the volume of traffic that uses them has increased a thousand fold.

This whole process is about grabbing our money, we pay several times for the same thing but we do not even get what we pay for. The powers that be arent interested in pollution or road congestion all they want is money so if you can afford to pay you can pollute and congest all you like.

If these charges are introduced one thing will be for sure the money raised will just disapear and we wont feel the benefit of it. The charges themselves will not take into account a persons ability to pay, you will have parents paying to take their kids to School, patients paying to go to Hospital. And of course these charges discriminate, those who have the money can pay and those on the lowest incomes loose out.

If the Goverment actually spent the money raised each year from taxation to improve the road network we would have the best road system in the world within 10 years. The same for the railways, in their hey day every town and village had a train station, now the network is a shadow of its former self.

Countries like Germany, France etc. have great transport systems, trains that run on time, that are clean and safe and are relatively cheap to travel on. So why cannot we do it in the UK, well its as I said before its about grabbing all our money, were like lemons and they just want to keep squeezing us. All road users in the UK should refuse to pay any charges on the grounds that we all ready pay enough to use the roads, after all they belong to us, we paid to have them built, maintained etc. so why should we let the Goverment make us pay for what we already own.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Countries like Germany, France etc. have great transport systems, trains that run on time, that are clean and safe and are relatively cheap to travel on. So why cannot we do it in the UK,


- They do indeed have better integrated transport systems generally speaking......but then they also have higher levels of direct taxes and taxation on things like property capital gains.
I'd be interested in knowing if you're really suggesting a move to the 'Euro' system or just complaining and vaguely cherry-picking, huh?

You'll also note that in any event that many other EU countries also have areas of chronic traffic congestion and are also looking at road pricing.....and they too like to go for pedestrian zoning and keeping the cars out.

Of course we'll be spending more on the various systems of public transport, the country that invented rail travel has a shameful recent record and that will change (but then, like most of the bus network, the railways here are in private hands and not the Governments) .

Ditto with decent modern light city rail & tram projects and buses.

Personally I like it, do what people want; give the towns and cities back to the people and keep cars as few in number as possible and moving slowly if they have to be in there at all so as to reduce those wholly avoidable deaths and injuries.
There's often absolutely no need to allow cars through our population centres.
The 'car culture' is set to change and change dramatically - whoever is in power here.
People like pedestrianisation.

Anyhoo, we don't hypothecate our taxes so there's no point complaining that 'all the tax collected from cars doesn't get spent on the roads'.

In any event there's plenty of other less obvious costs and things they directly cause and are responsible for which need the tax-payer to pay for; things like their effect on pollution & people's health, road accidents, losses not covered by insurances, the disposal of their waste and consumable products and eventually the vehicles themselves etc - and not forgetting their contribution to global warming which they do not do anything positive for.

There's no point moaning about it, the days of carefree and easy motoring are over.
Pity if you are too young to have missed it and all but there you go, facts are facts.

.....and whichever party comes to power in the next 10yrs or so will steadily be changing our cities and towns and introducing charging and clamping down on the private car as we know it today.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I hear what your saying Sminkey but again it comes down to extracting as much money as possible from the people. Yes some European countries have higher taxes but they have better systems, thats my point, they take the money from us but do not spend it on improving the transport system, its frittered away.

There's no point either blaming accidents on all road users, many people that are killed and injured is of their own fault and not the fault of road users. The fact of the matter is that each goverment has failed to use the money it has collected to build the system we need and now there's plenty of vehicles on the road they want to srew us for some more money. As I said its not about pollution or congestion its about taxing us more and it wont improve anything.

Take the recent hike in tax on air travel its got nothing to do with pollution its simply more people are travelling by air so the goverment know's its easy money. If they really believed that increassing taxes would change peoples habits then there would be no tax increases would there. Where do you think they will get tax from if people did stop drinking, smoking and driving. The goverment knows people will not stop hence the tax hikes.

Its rip off Britain and their doing it with eveything, pay for your refuse pay for your health care, pay to park on the roads, pay to park in a hospital well people might not mind paying more if they actually got what they paid for but they dont so why should we keep paying for something we dont get. And what happens to those who cannot pay, they just get shoved further down the ladder, were going back to victorian times when the rich could afford everthing and the poor nothing. The UK has a growing elderly population most of whom are on state pensions, with idea's such as these many will become prisoners in their own homes is that what you call progress for a rich modern country, no its a backward step.


And why do car users not need to go into a city, its just another form of transport, did not canals, railways go into cities. I pay to use the roads so why should I be prevented from using them. Tell you what Sminkey next time you go to the supermarket would you hand over part of your shopping after you had paid for it or you were told you had to pay to enter the store would you think thats ok?

I bet the goverment has a think tank on what they can put a tax on, like lets tax fat people, or lets tax people with pets, lets tax people who ride bikes, I'm sure they will have along list of how they can tax us more. Only those with money or those who will profit from these idea's think they are good.

This is an attack of the rich against the poor, for a wealthy person these taxes mean nothing they never have, they know all the scams to get the money back but for the masses it will mean sacrifing something else in order to pay.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I hear what your saying Sminkey but again it comes down to extracting as much money as possible from the people.


- Given that personal and business taxation in this country is still comparitively and relatively low I just don't accept this.


There's no point either blaming accidents on all road users, many people that are killed and injured is of their own fault and not the fault of road users.


- ......and many more are.


The fact of the matter is that each goverment has failed to use the money it has collected to build the system we need


- Nobody is claiming everybody did everything right at every point, but some of this is self-inflicted.

Perhaps some more of our taxpayers are waking up to and discovering the consequences of electing a Government that for almost 20yrs directed the bulk of whatever additional new economic benefit(s) there were to those already most well off.


As I said its not about pollution or congestion its about taxing us more and it wont improve anything.


- You can reject the notion of global warming and its consequences if you like but you are now in the (powerless) minority, whoever comes into power in the future.

Pretending global warming is a myth isn't keeping your insurance premiums down or meeting the national funding needs for flood defence etc etc.

Deny it all you like but all around the world steps are being taken, whether it's enough is debatable; but it is happening.


Take the recent hike in tax on air travel its got nothing to do with pollution its simply more people are travelling by air so the goverment know's its easy money. If they really believed that increassing taxes would change peoples habits then there would be no tax increases would there.


- I think you'll find this is merely the beginning.
We don't know what the effects in future will be as this grows (as it surely will).
Air traffic accounts for a significant amount of polluting greenhouse gasses and aviation fuel has gone untaxed for decades.


Where do you think they will get tax from if people did stop drinking, smoking and driving. The goverment knows people will not stop hence the tax hikes.


- I know people often parrot out this line but the truth is usually somewhat different; for instance the numbers of people smoking here has declined significantly.


were going back to victorian times when the rich could afford everthing and the poor nothing.


- Well if it's redistribution you want then the only chance of seeing that happen is under a Labour Gov.
(there has been a small but genuine amount of redistribution under this Gov).


The UK has a growing elderly population most of whom are on state pensions


- Technically they will almost all be "on state pensions", it's not a means tested benefit and everybody is entitled to one if they've contributed towards it, regardless of income.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect you mean that you believe that most UK pensioners only get the state pension and are wholly reliant on that.

But actually this is just not true and it is totally wrong.


Incomes of pensioners less than 5 years over state pension age were 43 per cent higher than those where the head of the household was over 75 in 2003/04.

• Average gross incomes in 2003/04 were £244 a week for single male pensioners, and £197 a week for single female pensioners. The lower non-state pension income of women accounted for much of the difference.

Around 62 per cent of pensioner households received occupational pension income in 2003/04 and around 11 per cent received personal pension income.

• Across all pensioner households, the average level of gross income from occupational and personal pensions rose in real terms from £23 per week (at 2003/04 prices) in 1979 to £88 per week in 2003/04.

www.statistics.gov.uk...



with idea's such as these many will become prisoners in their own homes is that what you call progress for a rich modern country, no its a backward step.


- That just ignores the new systems of public transport (brand new modern light rail and tram schemes have been popping up around the country).
It's just not true.

You're also choosing to ignore, or are ignorant of, the single largest practical step any Gov has taken to enable pensioners to access transport.
The nationwide free travel for pensioners was a huge step taken by this Gov.


And why do car users not need to go into a city, its just another form of transport, did not canals, railways go into cities.


- They're pointless, filthy, noisy and a danger.

You can complain all you like about this but you're on the wrong and losing side of this.
People are taking back their living spaces and they like it, it's as simple as that.

Given that with the chronic congestion cars bring they can't even offer the benefits once promised, what use have they in towns and cities?
The idea that more and more road are 'the answer' has been given up by all the serious parties and (independent) commentators - that's not to say some new roads won't be built but claims that they generally offer anything of a solution to grid-lock in themselves is fantasy.

With decent public transport it's utterly unnecessary and undesirable.
London proves you can get most of them out and keep them out.....bringing obvious benefits to everybody.


I pay to use the roads so why should I be prevented from using them.


- Because you live in a democracy and you can't just do whatever you like.

Besides, you don't "pay for the roads".
You pay the taxes due and some of that tax is spent on the roads.
But the people all over the country are electing Governments, Councils and local authorities that want ever greater restrictions on the car.
There's the truth of it.

The day of the car is gone.....and good riddance to it.


Tell you what Sminkey next time you go to the supermarket would you hand over part of your shopping after you had paid for it or you were told you had to pay to enter the store would you think thats ok?


- What, you mean if I had to pay for my parking?
That happens already in loads of places.


I bet the goverment has a think tank on what they can put a tax on, like lets tax fat people, or lets tax people with pets, lets tax people who ride bikes, I'm sure they will have along list of how they can tax us more. Only those with money or those who will profit from these idea's think they are good.


- Well if you say so, ok they're all out to get you and you never see nothing in return for it.

I must admit I'm at a loss to see how wealthy people can "profit" from being taxed.


This is an attack of the rich against the poor, for a wealthy person these taxes mean nothing they never have, they know all the scams to get the money back but for the masses it will mean sacrifing something else in order to pay.


- Like I said, you're ignoring the fact that this is the first Gov in almost 20yrs that had sought to and actually achieved any wealth redistribution from rich to poor, you're also ignoring the fact that living standards have continued to rise under this Government.

Stick to the right-wing propaganda if you like but you'll find no comfort there if the plight & situation of those genuinely on low incomes really does bother you so much.



[edit on 1-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This will be another policy that Labour put in place that will affect the lowest paid people the hardest, there is not a single drop of socialist, working mans labour party left in parliment. I hope I never get posted back to the UK, since being in Germany I've never had it so good!



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Sminkey , you believe all that global warming crap do you, its all the fault of those terrible motorists. Well its not, I cannot believe any inteligent person would swallow that crap. Your anti car I take it so because you dont like it we should get rid of them, and as there is 25 million of them on the road I'm not in the minority.

I know plenty of pensioners who are not rich, you can quote as many figures as you like but its not the reality you think it is. Why dont you go round the inner city poor area's to find out for yourself instead of quoting bogus goverment figures.

I'm sick to death of hearing from people who havent got a clue about real life for many in the UK and all the nimby's who would not change their life style's to prevent global warming, (for the fools who believe in it). They dont practice what they preach. You gonna give up your computer, its made from plastic that pollutes, no your just like so many others who dont practice what they preach. You want others to change their ways but are not prepared to do it yourself.

I would not trust any goverment polls or figures, they cook them up when they want to. If you dont believe me ask the 25 million car owners do they want to pay more tax, bearing in mind the police say there is 5 million who dont pay insurance or road tax so thats 5 mill for a start who would not pay. Thats a poll they wont be carried out will it.

The fact of the matter is that we are paying more tax each year and we get nothing in exchange and this will continue while people allow it to happen.

The next scam in the pipeline is to charge people for their rubbish, same again we pay for it to be collected and disposed of . Now they want to charge more because we generate too much rubbish, well no we dont we are the end users its the manufactures who generate the rubbish. When I was a kid you bought biscuits from tins and got them in a paper bag now their wrapped in 3/4 layes of plastic I did not ask for that. Its the same with all products, in their eagerness for more profit this is what manufacturers/supermarkets have done. Then the goverment blames us and says we have to pay.

How about making the manufacturers etc. more repsonsible, how about making cars cleaner and greener, it wont happen will it while the oil companies are making billions. Its about time we targeted the multi nationals who make billions in profit rather than blaming the customer and expecting them to pay to put things right.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Sminkey , you believe all that global warming crap do you


- Do you think that maybe your obvious, er, 'respect' for others with a different POV is conducive to reasonable debate, hmmmm?


its all the fault of those terrible motorists.


- Actually I never once said it was "all the fault of the motorist".


I cannot believe any inteligent person would swallow that crap.


- I find it hard to believe people can still be so closed minded and patently ill-informed but obviously they can.

My favourite quote is this one -

D. James Baker, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, has said about human contributions to global warming (Washington Post , 11/12/97) that "there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."

www.fair.org...

Scientific consensus on Global warming


Your anti car I take it


- Er, what exactly is that actually supposed to mean?

I'm pro reducing the obvious and manifestly harmful impact of the car in our environment.


I know plenty of pensioners who are not rich


- Feel free to point out where I ever denied the existence of pensioners on low incomes.


instead of quoting bogus goverment figures.


- Well if official stats are so unbelievable then why believe anything?

Anyone could be having you on and just exploiting your own fears and insecurities.
You can't possibly know otherwise or prove the big issues yourself so why believe anything?

Perhaps you ought to think about what paranoia really is.


You gonna give up your computer, its made from plastic that pollutes, no your just like so many others who dont practice what they preach.


- Reducing your 'carbon foot-print' means a hell of a lot more than just giving up a PC.....or a car for that matter.

Just because you (or I) can't attain perfection in this is no reason not to bother at all.

Reduce your carbon footprint


You want others to change their ways but are not prepared to do it yourself.


- What are you on about?


You know nothing of what I do or do not do.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Err Sminkey did you not call me ignorant, and did you not say you hate cars and what they do. well its progress mate everthing we use and have causes pollution. You said they are pointless, filthy and a danger, well get real there are lots of things in our lives that are dangerous but we still have them. They are not pointless they are a tool that serves a purpose and like any tool they can be dangerous when missused. Do you suggest we start living in caves again and do you think you have the right to deny others what we have had. I'm thinking about the billions in the developing countires.

There is still no scientific proof of the real cause to global warming I did not say mans activities would not have an impact on the environment but to follow the agenda of those who wish to use issues such as global warmimg to extract yet more money from people is wrong. Just rememebr who those scientists work for, there not there for our benefit, who pays them to do this work? If mans activities were so damaging you would expect goverments to introduce stiffer measures but they are not are they. What they really are doing is allowing people to pollute and congets but charging them for it. The whole issue is flawed and is about making money.

There are many ways to reduce pollution but its not in the interests of those who make money, they want a throw away society they dont want things to last forever. We have the technology to do much but is controlled by the money men who inturn control goverments.

Every new house built in the UK could have solar panels fitted but they dont, were building bigger and bigger engined cars that we dont need, supermarkets want to package all goods so they can charge more, the list is endless but the goverment dose nothing about it why. its becasue the money men thats why, as I said before why blame the end user and not the manufacturer. You want less cars, well fines lets replace them with hundreds of thousands of fossil fuel burning buses, trains, trams. and taxis thats your answer is it. If you take something away you have to replace it with an alternative, that alternative dose not exist.

And while the poor people will be on the buses the rich will still be in their cars and planes wont they, or do you have a thing about rich people as well as car users. And as far as recycling goes I have been doing it for years, yeras before it became fashionable, but councils only want to collect what is profitable so thats hardly an insentive to get people to recycle. You see we can all do our little bit but we do not control the goverment or the money men.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Err Sminkey did you not call me ignorant


- Er, actually if you look I asked if you were ignorant of a particular fact.

That was not a comment describing you as generally ignorant, per se.


There is still no scientific proof of the real cause to global warming


- That's because such incredibly complex and inter-related systems of the kind this is don't always lend themselves to the sort of black and white easy 'proof' you seem to be demanding.

Like I said go look at the link on the overwhelming level of scientific consensus on global warming.

On the otherhand if you think you know better than the vast majority of prominent global science and that it's all just "crap" then bully for you, you'll neither really understand nor do anything but impotently rage against one of the main courses of global events from now on.
Enjoy.


Just rememebr who those scientists work for, there not there for our benefit, who pays them to do this work?


- So you'd rather listen to the small number of those oil funded critics & nay-sayers?!

You can doubt the huge weight of opinion if you like, just don't pretend there is an even split on this or fool yourself that 'they've all been gotten at'.

Even oilman Bush & Co. are coming around now.


If mans activities were so damaging you would expect goverments to introduce stiffer measures but they are not are they.


- They're starting to (even in the USA).

But it's thanks to the vocal doubters (like yourself) that this message (which even in basic 'clean environment' terms if not actual global warming terms has been being taught in schools for decades) has been so slow to take off.


Every new house built in the UK could have solar panels fitted but they dont, were building bigger and bigger engined cars that we dont need


- Yeah but next moment you'll be pivoting through 180' to tell us all about the perils of "car haters" and "nanny states" and how if you believe you've paid you should be able to do whatever you please.


You want less cars, well fines lets replace them with hundreds of thousands of fossil fuel burning buses, trains, trams. and taxis


- In almost every type of scenario those would indeed be cleaner and more efficient uses of resources, so yes IMO we should be moving to that sort of future more and more.
We used to do it so it is hardly impossible.


thats your answer is it


- Are you trying to tell me or ask me?


If you take something away you have to replace it with an alternative, that alternative dose not exist.


- I don't know what part of the country you live in but there are several light rail and urban tram schemes springing up.
Of course it won't happen overnight but it is simply not true to say nothing is happening.


And while the poor people will be on the buses the rich will still be in their cars and planes wont they, or do you have a thing about rich people as well as car users.


- Er, you're the one who seems to switch from making points about the least well off and then talking about 'freedoms' to do what you like.


You see we can all do our little bit but we do not control the goverment or the money men.


- Well, broadly speaking, we do actually.

At the various election times and if you were to bother to join and influence a political party or respond to any of the public canvassing that goes on
(when, for instance, did you last attend an open council meeting or a planning application meeting, hmmm?).


[edit on 1-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Sminkey your obviously confused re global warming well let me enlighten you. The planet we call home is an unstable terra forming one, one that is undergoing constant change. This planet is affected by our moon, sun, the other planets of the system which in turn is in the arm of a massive spiral galaxy.

The earth continually changes either through these events or contact with celestial bodies. We are at the moment living in a post glacial epoch, one that is continuing to this day. Mans present pre history is littered with myths and legends of massive floods. we know the sea levels have been rising for millenia so to say its our activities alone is ignorant and arrogant of man to think so. This planet will change irrespective of mans activities we are just part of a evolutionary process. The sooner you realise that reality the better you will understand.

And you want me and others to trust those people who gave us the means to destroy ourselves either with nukes, chemical or biological weapons, we should trust these people should we. And who are they working for who pays them and for what reason. I think you will find that they are in the employ of goverments and the multi nationals. Again the great money trap continues its course and those such as you cannot see it, your like so many who wish to believe anything theyu are told incapable of any true thoughts and vision, what a shame.


Edn

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Whats funny is they (want people to think) want people to use public transport yet the Buses here have a peak time charge of 50p on top of the overpriced tickets. Either way you end up paying more not matter what.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
One upshot of increased travel expense is the increase of commuting costs. London Company's already pay huge amounts to their employees to cover the cost of working in the capital. We are moving towards an office based workforce and with the increase in information mobility, it is going to become more viable for companies to employ people to work from home. I personally look forward to that, and to the implications such a move could have on the environment.

The internet revolution means that one very viable future sees us working, shopping and communicating from home only leaving the house for exercise and socialising. Give it fifty years and congestion will be a thing of the past. ( thats of course unless someone makes a cheap flying car, I mean, who doesn't want a cheap flying car ? )



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Sminkey your obviously confused re global warming well let me enlighten you.


- Oh dear, silly patronising now is it?

When even the Telegraph has finally come around to seeing the weight of evidence and opinion on this you really ought to be twigging something by now -


This was the IPCC saying 'We told you so'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor, in Paris
Last Updated: 2:42pm GMT 02/02/2007

Man 'responsible for global warming'

Seventeen years and a zillion computer hours after the world's climate scientists first ran the big calculation, they came up with the same estimate of the warming the planet will see by the end of the century if we go on pouring out greenhouse gases: 5.5°F (3°C).

If a single numeral can be accusatory, this one was. If there are any of our political leaders still snoozing at the back of this science lesson, they stand duly rebuked for not paying attention. In the past 17 years that mankind has squabbled and allowed its greenhouse gas emissions to go on rising the blanket of greenhouse gases that keeps the Earth warmer than space has increased by 7 per cent.

But when you calculate that radiative forcing potential of that seven per cent - its capacity to force the climate to warm - the increase since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's first report in 1990 is 30 per cent.

That, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, pointed out yesterday gives an idea of the urgency of doing something now, before climate change gets beyond our control - and a sense that many opportunities have already been squandered.

The predicament we face if emissions go on rising along the "high" scenario envisaged by IPCC was put colourfully by one of its authors, Kevin Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado yesterday.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/02/02/nclimcomm102.xml

- But you (think) you know best, eh?

Still, it's not like it's unexpected;
even the Telegraph themselves say -


No doubt we will go on hearing grumbles from flat-earthers and paid-up sceptics among economists and in the oil industry,
but science is no longer on their side.


As for the actual thread topic

Enjoy your congestion charges, pollution taxes and traffic restrictions, whoever we have in power in future will be applying them.

It's what the people will be voting for
(and I note your total non-answer when it comes to your own personal involvement with (any) of the political processes......as you sit and complain that no-one listens to you and they're all rigging everything against you).


You prefer to see plots and 'them all out to get you'.
It must be fun.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Actually Sminky I'm involved in many things but thats none of your business. What I want is for people to be told the truth the real truth not the lies and deception that has come out of the mouth of one of the most corrurpt organisations on this planet the United Nations.

And the plot is against all of us not just me, who's patronising now hey Sminkey. Are you one of the thought police, an unelected unpaid mouth piece of those who tell you how to think, what to do and how to live, who's job it is to convince others of the grand plan. I'm more of a live and let live person myself, if you want to drink, drive, smoke, fly, eat meat be a veggie have nuke power etc. then go to it. I dont spend my time ramming my personal views down the throats of others and telling them how they should live and as for not answering your questions I see you have made not real comments to my re our planet.

As your fond of quoting others do you support the idea that we need to reduce the worlds population by foul means or fair to deal with global warming. Are you willing to go that far for your masters.

You see again I have a realistic view I know our planet has endured mass exstinctions, that previous civilisations have been wiped out and this process will continue only the arrogant and the ignorant think they can stop it. But it dose not matter to me we are only mere guests on this planet and when its had enough of us it will shake us of its back, but hey dont have nightmares about it, the worse than can happen is that we will die, so whats the big deal.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
What I want is for people to be told the truth the real truth not the lies and deception that has come out of the mouth of one of the most corrurpt organisations on this planet the United Nations.


- If it was just the UN then some questioning and/or scepticism might be justified but it's not so it isn't.


And the plot is against all of us not just me, who's patronising now hey Sminkey.


- Er, you're the one claiming it's all a plot, you can try to make it as inclusive as you like but that doen't make it anymore real.


Are you one of the thought police, an unelected unpaid mouth piece of those who tell you how to think, what to do and how to live, who's job it is to convince others of the grand plan.


- Oh dear.
These comments just get ever more tragic, bizarre and surreal.

I really suggest you give your paranoia some serious thought.


as for not answering your questions I see you have made not real comments to my re our planet.


- That's because it's mere rhetorical fluff, a statement of the obvious and completely avoiding (as intended) the issue.

scientific consensus on glabal warming


do you support the idea that we need to reduce the worlds population by foul means or fair to deal with global warming.


- Have you really lost your mind completely?


Are you willing to go that far for your masters.


-
, maybe you have.


You see again I have a realistic view I know our planet has endured mass exstinctions, that previous civilisations have been wiped out and this process will continue only the arrogant and the ignorant think they can stop it.


- But perhaps you prefer to remain just arrogant and ignorant enough to consider them always inevitable and never avoidable?


But it dose not matter to me we are only mere guests on this planet and when its had enough of us it will shake us of its back


- More empty rhetoric.


but hey dont have nightmares about it, the worse than can happen is that we will die, so whats the big deal.


- Wow, how laid back of you.

Still, don't forget, it's all a plot and they all out to get you.

Meantime enjoy your taxes and driving restrictions.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Hey sminkey, no tax is going to stop me doing anything and it wont stop anyone else. Its funny how you like to quote scientists when it suits you but you ignore what is the accepted view of the prehistory of our planet. But its alright you have your paranoia and I have mine and I wonder who you are and what your up to.

You seem pro the system so I assume you work on the inside.

Death is inevitable is it not or do you and your masters have a secret plan that your keeping stum on.

Life is bizzare, sureal and tragic is it not



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hey sminkey, no tax is going to stop me doing anything and it wont stop anyone else.


- Well, there are restrictions and they are going to be growing; you can't just do as you like, no matter what you claim.


Its funny how you like to quote scientists when it suits you but you ignore what is the accepted view of the prehistory of our planet.


- Er, I didn't.

.....and the prehistorical record doesn't show what you are trying to claim.

The huge rise in these greenhouse gasses over such a short period is not something found in the 'natural record'.

2500 scientists and 130 Governments agree.

That's not something that happens often (as in it's never happened before on this subject!).

......and tales of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ExxMobil funded think-tank with close links to Bush administration offered tens of thousands of $ to get anyone they can to downplay the report speaks volumes - if you're open-minded enough to hear it.

But you (think you) know best, of course.


You seem pro the system so I assume you work on the inside.


- You want to look at what "assume" did.


Death is inevitable is it not or do you and your masters have a secret plan that your keeping stum on.


- Damn, you found out.

Sadly for you I'm immortal.


Oh well the secret's out now.


Life is bizzare, sureal and tragic is it not


- That's true but thankfully only in places.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Sminkey what do you mean the prehistorical record does not show what I'm trying to claim. What like the earth has never changed, there has been no glacial events, no rise in sea levels, no mass extinctions of animals, no bollide impacts, the dinosaurs died from over eating did they, earthquakes, the shifting tectonic plates, none of this occured or is occuring.

Every year earthquakes take place, volcano's errupt, massive storms roll around the planet, flood plain's are inundated. And what does stupid man do, he builds his cities on top of these sites does he not so why the suprise when the natural events occur, why the shock horror at the loss of life what do we expect would happen.

You see whilst I'm am torn on this subject and agree that we can do better and should, I dont agree weith the reasons being used, can we rely on the evidence that is presented to us, is it real or bogus, how do we decide between what could be a natural change and mans alleged activities. Can we rely on the theories a few thousands individuals who have a conflict of interest.

And why is there an almost homicidal drive to extract money from the people, it defies all logic to state that we are cause of the problem and then allow people to continue on their course as long as they pay. One can only assume that the power mad and super rich want to extract as much as they can before they start the next money making scam.

But we cannot turn the clock back and cannot disinvent things we cannot go back to living in caves. And its interesting is it not that if we are to believe the global warming theory and how concerned goverments are I have not heard of any governents willing to give up WMD's if there so concerned for our future.

So will it be you cannot have a car or smoke but you can fight and die in their wars, we can use all the products of war to pollute the earth, as we continue to do so. Do you understand why people are suspicious and mistrustful of goverments and those in their pay as to their real intentions and motives.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Sminkey what do you mean the prehistorical record does not show what I'm trying to claim.


- You quite clearly implied that global warming (of the kind we are now seeing) was all somehow natural and could be seen in the pre-hisoric record.

It isn't and it hasn't been.


What like the earth has never changed


- If you could just restrain you rhetorical flights of fancy and stick to what I actually said rather than trying to tell me what you think I said, hmmmm?


You see whilst I'm am torn on this subject


- A couple of posts ago you were trying to tell me it was all "crap" and believed by those who "wish to believe anything theyu are told incapable of any true thoughts and vision, what a shame".

Real open mind at work there. Not.


Can we rely on the theories a few thousands individuals who have a conflict of interest.


- What "conflict of interest"?

This is probably the single largest, most independent and diverse group of emminent scientists ever to agree anything -
and publicly say so too, thereby putting their reputations on the line for this.

But nevermind, the oil companies have spent years & millions trying to amplify any tiny shred of doubt since this debate got started and you prefer to go with that.
Good for you.


But we cannot turn the clock back and cannot disinvent things we cannot go back to living in caves.


- No one saying that.

What is being said is that from now on we must adjust our behaviour and direct our efforts to minimising the impact we continue to have on the environment and reduce the duration and/or severity of the problems to come.

It's probably too late to stop a lot of terrible things happening as it is.


And its interesting is it not that if we are to believe the global warming theory and how concerned goverments are I have not heard of any governents willing to give up WMD's if there so concerned for our future.


- What the hell has this to do with the subject at hand?

(but just for your information many WMDs have in fact been "given up" in the last 15yrs by the various Govs concerned.
The UK for instance has no BW weapons and like the USA and Russia has considerably reduced the numbers of nuclear weapon at her disposal)

If you want to talk about the military then you will in fact find several reports, most noteably the Pentagon's recent assessment that Climate Change and the consequent impact on our environment represents the single biggest danger we all face.


So will it be you cannot have a car or smoke but you can fight and die in their wars, we can use all the products of war to pollute the earth, as we continue to do so.


- There are some thing that will be easier to do and have a lasting effect upon than others, of course.
Who said otherwise?
How could it not be so.....other than those advancing the petty & childish 'arguements'?


Do you understand why people are suspicious and mistrustful of goverments and those in their pay as to their real intentions and motives.


- The real intention is to recognise the problem and then to get genuine global agreement on tackling this problem.
The motive is quite obviously the enormous and obvious self-interest in this for us all.

There's a difference between a healthy scepticism and total and outright paranoia.

But I do understand completely that there are some people so consumed and intent on nurturing their paranoia that they see plots and conspiracy everywhere and in everything.
For those people they are simply beyond reason in this kind of thing and it doesn't really matter who says what about what.

Nevermind we have spring in Dec/Jan.

Even the most simplistic logic reveals the truth........show me any scientist who is prepared to publicly claim (and therefore risk their reputation) that pouring hundeds of millions of tons of these gasses into the atmosphere for decades will have no effects whatsoever.

Even the oil majors can't dredge up somebody to back that up.

============================================

To return to topic.

Any actual ideas on tackling the chronic levels of road congestion in many parts of the UK at all then?

......or was this all really just one long barely dressed up moan about the present Gov?



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Yes sminkey I have plenty of idea's but Im sure you will just think its my paranoia or I am doing a u turn.

Invest in the railways to removal all large freight vehicles off the roads, goods go to rail heads and smaller electric powered vehicles distibute the goods to local sores.

Start with a reduction in engine sizes, fossil fuel engines are more powerful than ever before so they do not need to be large. Smaller engines use less fuel-less pollution.

Limit the number of cars per family, folks near me have 4-5 to a family. (some of them)

Force car manufactures to make cleaner vehicles, and to introduce small electric powered cars for use on short journeys and around cities. A greater percentage each year.

Where possible provide people with jobs near to the employment base instead of them expecting to travel tens of miles, its counter productive to employees and employers alike in lost time.

All in the land should have access to a decent, clean and safe transport sytem.

Fares should be controlled by the goverment so companies dont just cream off the profits on the best routes.

Improve the road system where required, if you dont want cars in the cities then provide park and ride scheme's that work. Provide sufficient and low cost parking.

For people such as myself who requires a car for work ( you will be frilled to hear I'm using a much smaller and clean one) again small electric powered cars would be suitable.

Cylists should be made to be safe on their bikes and not pose a threat to pedestrians and road users, they should pay a token tax and have some form of insurance. Have you seen a person hit by a cyclist at 30mph they can inflict alot of damage.

All manufacturers, supermarkets etc. to be made to go green, to cut down on man made plastics etc. No more plastic containers unless they can be cheeply and easily recycled.

All food products in their natural state, such as fruit, veg, pulses, nuts etc to be sold lose and only paper bags used.

No more plastic bags to be used, other materials are available/suitable, again only plastics to be used that are easily recyled etc.

Customers given an incentive to return containers, just like the good old days, threepence on a pop bottle.

The above measures should help to reduce the amount going into bins

All used unwanted items should be recycled at home if possible, and the use of compost bins, educate the public how to recycle, this can start at school.

The above will depend on what type of home you live in but for those living in flats etc community bins can be provided.

Chewing gum should be banned its a curse on society and does a better job as an adhesive on the pavement and under tables etc.

Get manufaturers to produce goods that last and are cheap to repair rather by a kettle for £10 and when the element goes it costs £12 for a new one so you throw it away any buy a new one.

Stop the hard sell on people that they have to change their kitchen/bathroom every 18 months otherwise their out of style.

Improve the quality of homes through better insulation.

You will be squirming when I tell you how well my house is insulated, at my own cost I may add.

More can be done to make homes alot greener and energy efficient.

Invest in more clean fuel sources such as wind power, I love them wind turbines.

If you want to tax, tax the maufaturers they cause the problems, sure they will pass it on to the customer but at leastits indirect and gives people a choice.

That should be enough to keep you going for now, is that enough for your manifesto, if not please u2u me I dont charge that much and I'm sometimes free for special functions etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join