 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / May 2008UK population to rise to 108 million
News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who already battle their way to work in London and the South East. Within two years, England will overtake Holland as the most populous major country - and it will get progressively worse. According to the Office for National Statistics, England's population will rise to 521 people for every square kilometre by 2056, compared with 390 individuals per sq km in 2006. England is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world, let alone in Europe. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, four times that of France and 12 times that of the USA. The main driver for this increase is immigration, which has also produced higher levels of childbirth. More people are also living to a ripe old age. If current trends continue, then the UK population could rise to 108 million in a lifetime. Until fairly recently, demographers believed the population would stabilise at around 60 million and then decline. In other words, there was no long-term policy planning for the population we have today, let alone what we now face. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06/dl0602.xml On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:25:43 -0700 (PDT), =?UTF-8?B?4peEIGlhbXRoZXdpdG5lc3MuY29tIOKWug==?= <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> wrote: >News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in >western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06/dl0602.xml What do you recommend - a Great Plague? > What do you recommend - a Great Plague?- We already have one - it's called Gordon Brown. >> What do you recommend - a Great Plague?- > >We already have one - it's called Gordon Brown. He won't last long. I don't remember an unhealthier looking PM. >>> What do you recommend - a Great Plague?- >> >> We already have one - it's called Gordon Brown. > > He won't last long. I don't remember an unhealthier looking PM. Agreed. He's about 60 isn't he (a Wikipedia check tells me he is only 57). Boy he's in a bad way. > > What do you recommend - a Great Plague?- > > We already have one - it's called Gordon Brown. Putting a ceiling on immigration - say no more in a year than the number who emigrated in the previous year - would be a start. >> > What do you recommend - a Great Plague?- >> >> We already have one - it's called Gordon Brown. > > Putting a ceiling on immigration - say no more in a year than the > number who emigrated in the previous year - would be a start. That requires leaving the EU. Most immigrants are from the EU and have the right to come here. > On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:25:43 -0700 (PDT), > =?UTF-8?B?4peEIGlhbXRoZXdpdG5lc3MuY29tIOKWug==?= [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > What do you recommend - a Great Plague? 5 million one way ticket to asia and eastern europe, and make socialism a war crime. >> alone what we now face. >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06/dl0602.xml > > What do you recommend - a Great Plague? Could we not think the unthinkable and get a grip on immigration? Or do we just sit back and tell ourselves this being overcrowded is really good? Bear in mind that a lot of the people responsible for it will still have their quiet retreats, here or abroad. >>> alone what we now face. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >really good? Bear in mind that a lot of the people responsible for it >will still have their quiet retreats, here or abroad. What we are actually experiencing is not so much out-of-control immigration as a change in the ethnic/social mix. Don't forget that there is also large scale emigration from the UK - usually by white people and to destinations such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. >>> alone what we now face. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > really good? Bear in mind that a lot of the people responsible for it > will still have their quiet retreats, here or abroad. Don't worry. When England becomes such a shithole it is shunned even by Congolese, immigration will cease.  SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London >>>> alone what we now face. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When England becomes such a shithole it is shunned even by Congolese, > immigration will cease. Market forces eh? > News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in > western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06/dl0602.xml On May 6, 9:25 am, ◄ iamthewitness.com ► <dfgsdgt546456...@googlemail.com> wrote: > News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in > western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06... This is of course an extrapolation on an extrapolation. The actual projections http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Population_Trends_131_web.pdf http://tinyurl.com/5bgx5b themselves only go to 2031 and even these must be regarded as speculative. All projections must be based upon assumptions. We are making assumptions here as to what might happen over the next 32 years (33 from the comparison date) The whole thing has to have a crystal ball dimension. according to the above, "69 per cent of projected population growth in the period to 2031 is attributable, directly or indirectly, to [continuing] migration" [my brackets] Thus any source of error must lie wthin this factor. The question to be asked therefore surrounds continue net migration. Will it continue at current or even greater levels or will it tail off. This is a question that statistics cannot by themselves answer. Will future immigrants find it easier or more difficult to settle here whether through government facility/restriction or prevailing conditions here? Will future immigrants continue to be attracted here? Immigrants surely come not for the intrinsic delights of this country or Europe but for economic opportunities offered. All the global economic indicators show that the strongest economic growth is going to be found outside Europe in places like India, China nad Brazil. Within Europe the most likely areas of strongest growth are in the east. 33 years is a long time. 53 years is even longer. The Telegraph figures indicate a population size of a tad under 81m. in 2051 some 10m over the projected total in 2031 20 years earlier which themselves are 10m over the actual total 25 years earler that. If we are talkiing of the length of a lifetime being 25yrs further on still (2076) than we are (according to the Telegraph) of some 24m extra still. This would suggest a exponential function to me. In reality exponential growth rates tend to become self limiting >> News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in >> western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > In reality exponential growth rates tend to become self limiting Like Hong Kong, standing room only, or Japan 90 million plus ,or Bangladesh >"Mel Rowing" <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> In reality exponential growth rates tend to become self limiting >Like Hong Kong, standing room only, or Japan 90 million plus ,or Bangladesh japan has well over twice the land area of the uk and it has a shrinking population Signatureweb site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick. good people do nothing [] trust actions not words only when it's funny -- roger rabbit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>"Mel Rowing" <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > japan has well over twice the land area of the uk and it > has a shrinking population Japan has over 90 million people the land suitable for people to live on is a third of what the UK has, currently japan does not even have enough space to grow dairy cattle and for the fioirst time since WW 2 dairy products are unavailable. >>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to grow dairy cattle and for the fioirst time since WW 2 dairy products are >unavailable. The Japanese aren't that keen on dairy products. It's what they say makes Westerners smell! >> News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in >> western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > In reality exponential growth rates tend to become self limiting Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over the real point with this sort of nonsense. > Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over the > real point with this sort of nonsense What "real point"? You've never made one in your life! >> Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over the >> real point with this sort of nonsense > > What "real point"? You've never made one in your life! Maybe, but I think I've got you sussed nevertheless! >>> Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over the >>> real point with this sort of nonsense >> >> What "real point"? You've never made one in your life! > > Maybe, but I think I've got you sussed nevertheless! So what is the 'real point' ? >>>> Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over the >>>> real point with this sort of nonsense >>> What "real point"? You've never made one in your life! >> Maybe, but I think I've got you sussed nevertheless! > > So what is the 'real point' ? There's a clue in the title of the thread - seeing as you don't appear to have one. >>>>> Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over >>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There's a clue in the title of the thread - seeing as you don't appear to > have one. Why stop at 108 million? 'If current trends continue. . . ', the UK population could end up at 250 million, or 1 Billion or whatever you please. In truth, of course, current trends are most unlikely to continue - for lots of reasons. >>>>>> Oh that's alright then. Why did I guess that *you* would gloss over >>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In truth, of course, current trends are most unlikely to continue - for lots > of reasons. The 'real point' is that current trends are inevitably going to continue unless we do something fairly soon to reverse those trends. I am not thinking about actual figures when I say that - most of that is at best meaningless guesswork. Whatever the figures, it is difficult to see anything other than an ever upward spiral of population growth in our, already overcrowded, country. But population growth is only one aspect of the problem. The 'real point' is the ethnic mix of that population. There is a clear agenda - actively supported by a number of bogus posters here - to replace the native people of these islands (yes I know, you've all got a pat answer to that one, but a thousand years or so qualifies as native in my book). >. There is a clear agenda - actively supported by a number of bogus posters >here - to replace the native people of these islands Loony. >> . There is a clear agenda - actively supported by a number of bogus posters >> here - to replace the native people of these islands > > Loony. I would be if I couldn't spot just exactly what your game is. >>> . There is a clear agenda - actively supported by a number of bogus >>> posters here - to replace the native people of these islands >> >> Loony. > > I would be if I couldn't spot just exactly what your game is. Oh, do enlighten everyone - what is my 'game' ? ◄ iamthewitness.com ► <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The main driver for this increase is immigration, which has also > produced higher levels of childbirth. More people are also living to a > ripe old age. If current trends continue, then the UK population could > rise to 108 million in a lifetime. News for you... The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise to 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? > ◄ iamthewitness.com ► <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise to > 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? Because it makes the place worse. And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected govt. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> News for you... >> >> The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise >> to 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? > Because it makes the place worse. Whereas the rest of the world can support that big a rise in population quite easily? Would you be happy if the extra 40m people were all born here? > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Whereas the rest of the world can support that big a rise in population > quite easily? Theoretically, yes. In fact, the UK is worse placed to feed itself than many Third World nations. We may yet come to notice that fact. > Would you be happy if the extra 40m people were all born here? No. Would you be happy if nations that managed to reduce their birthrate had to take excess population from those that didn't? Because if so, what's the incentive for reducing the birthrate at all? SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Would you be happy if the extra 40m people were all born here? No. People should limit the number of children they have. > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Would you be happy if the extra 40m people were all born here? A good chunk of them would be... 60 million uk current population, predicted 100 million. 6 billion world population predicted 10 billion. Anyone else spot a similar trend? Fod "friendsofderek@googlemail.com" <friendsofderek@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> News for you... >> >> >> The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to >> >> rise to 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in >> >> proportion? >> > Because it makes the place worse. >> Whereas the rest of the world can support that big a rise in population >> quite easily? >> >> Would you be happy if the extra 40m people were all born here? > A good chunk of them would be... 60 million uk current population, > predicted 100 million. > 6 billion world population predicted 10 billion. > > Anyone else spot a similar trend? ITYF I already mentioned that... The assumption by some is clearly that all of those 40m UK population would be migrants. > "friendsofde...@googlemail.com" <friendsofde...@googlemail.com> gurgled > happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The assumption by some is clearly that all of those 40m UK population > would be migrants. Probably a large chunk would be children of migrants. They tend to have larger families. Which poses a problem for those shouting send them back from where they came from. Erm, the kids came from here... Ultimately we're all migrants if you go back far enough... Thats what always cracks me up about Americans who scream blue murder about people entering their country illegally. Fod "friendsofderek@googlemail.com" <friendsofderek@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> The assumption by some is clearly that all of those 40m UK population >> would be migrants. > Probably a large chunk would be children of migrants. They tend to have > larger families. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ultimately we're all migrants if you go back far enough... Quite true. I doubt there's anybody in this country without at least one migrant in their family tree over the last couple of centuries. > Thats what always cracks me up about Americans who scream blue murder > about people entering their country illegally. Indeed. That really is the arch-hypocrisy. >> ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, >> sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected > govt. You mean you want the government to control birth rates ? Like in China? >>> ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, >>> sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You mean you want the government to control birth rates ? Like in China? No need. Without immigration the UK population would be falling. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London >>>> ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled >>>> happily, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No need. > Without immigration the UK population would be falling. That's as maybe, but without immigration we wouldn't be able to staff the NHS or pick and process 'cheap' home-grown food . I just want to know whether you think the government 'should' be able to control birth rates? >>>>> ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled >>>>> happily, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's as maybe, but without immigration we wouldn't be able to staff the > NHS or pick and process 'cheap' home-grown food . Or get cheap burger bar employees, and waiters, and chambermaids, and domestic sweatshop workers, and... However, do let's stripmine the Third World of skilled medical staff so that we can have a cheap NHS. It's not as if those 'darkies' need medics, is it? > I just want to know whether you think the government 'should' be able to > control birth rates? No I think the govt does far too much already, generally to the detriment of our people. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London > And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected > govt. How? Are we going to adobt the Chinese solution for childbirth? SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >> govt. >> > How? Are we going to adobt the Chinese solution for childbirth? I suppose there's a very much milder version: no child tax credits, child benefits, etc. for the third child; loss of existing tax credits and benefits for a fourth or subsequent child, etc. -- obviously to be brought into effect ten months after the announcement to avoid penalising those who're already pregnant, but minimise the risk of a "child rush". Families settling in the UK from abroad (if normally entitled to such benefits) would have these measures applied immediately on entry, effective at the date of announcement, to discourage either "benefits migration" or use of emigration-immigration to dodge the measures. [Note that I'm absolutely not _endorsing_ these ideas, just putting them up for a theoretical debate.] Jon SignatureSPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. >>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jon Seems sensible to me >>>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Seems sensible to me Agreed here too. Signaturehttp://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A fellow picked up a girl in a bar and took her home with him. After some preliminary drinks and talk, they got undressed, climbed into bed and generally got organized for a leg over. After a few minutes, the girl started laughing. The fellow asked her what she found so amusing. "Your organ," she replied. "It's a bit on the small side." Hurt, he replied: "It's not used to playing in cathedrals." >>>>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>>>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Agreed here too. Breeding should no longer be an automatic right. It should be earned. >>>>>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>>>>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Breeding should no longer be an automatic right. It should be earned. Not just earned. Regulated and taxed! >> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >> govt. >> > How? Are we going to adobt the Chinese solution for childbirth? Already answered that one. Britain's increase in population is immigrant driven. No immigrants and UK population would start to fall. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London > >> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected > >> govt. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Britain's increase in population is immigrant driven. > No immigrants and UK population would start to fall. But half a million people a year are leaving. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >>>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > But half a million people a year are leaving. Yes, many native British getting out precisely because of immigration - not that most of them would be prepared to admit it! Farmer Giles <Giles@nospam.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Yes, many native British getting out precisely because of immigration - > not that most of them would be prepared to admit it! Well, of course not. Because that would be to admit to rank hypocrisy, wouldn't it? "We don't like immigrants. In fact, we dislike them so much, we're going to become immigrants somewhere else." > Farmer Giles <Giles@nospam.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "We don't like immigrants. In fact, we dislike them so much, we're going > to become immigrants somewhere else." White Flight SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Yes, many native British getting out precisely because of immigration >>> - not that most of them would be prepared to admit it! >> Well, of course not. Because that would be to admit to rank hypocrisy, >> wouldn't it? >> >> "We don't like immigrants. In fact, we dislike them so much, we're >> going to become immigrants somewhere else." > White Flight Funny, I thought the migrants being moaned about were white. > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Funny, I thought the migrants being moaned about were white. People who are like each other *generally* prefer each others company. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London >>>> And because it is theoretically totally under the control of the elected >>>> govt. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > But half a million people a year are leaving. So much the better. When UK population is around 10m I'll be a lot happier. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London On May 8, 2:04 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <68eataF2semu...@mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > > says... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe you will but what happens if there is a dead sea effect? Regards, Max > ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise to > 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? England is overcrowded already. >> ? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled >> happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> proportion? > England is overcrowded already. And has been for centuries. Guess it must be a good place to be if so many people want to come here. >â—„ iamthewitness.com â–º <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, >sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise to >10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? The countries with uncontrolled birth rates should bear the burden. >? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The world's population is currently around 6bn. It's forecast to rise to > 10bn. Why _should_ this country's population not rise in proportion? Because this is an island with finate space and resources, at 60 million people we even now dont have enough houses, schols, hospitals, road and rail systems, we are building uninsurable house on flood plains, we already have sreious social and ethnic unrest, we like many other island nations are fuill up. "\"The Rifleman\"" <survivor@northland.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, >> sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Because this is an island with finate space and resources And the rest of the world isn't? > at 60 million people we even now dont have enough houses, schols, > hospitals, road and rail systems <shrug> Easy to rectify. > we are building uninsurable house on flood plains whilst leaving plenty of brownfield sites fallow, having a major glut of unlettable office space and building developments of large "executive homes" > we already have sreious social and ethnic unrest, we like many other > island nations are fuill up. Small detail - the people who are choosing to get off their arses, come here and work are propping up the ones who are already here but choose to contribute nothing. I know which _I'd_ rather share an island with. >>? iamthewitness.com ? <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> gurgled happily, >> sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >sreious social and ethnic unrest, we like many other island nations are >fuill up. The fact that this is an island isn't really material. Landlocked countries are just as likely to have finite space and resources. The distribution of population in the UK is the problem. > Because this is an island with finate space and resources, at 60 million > people we even now dont have enough houses, schols, hospitals, road and rail > systems, we are building uninsurable house on flood plains, we already have > sreious social and ethnic unrest, we like many other island nations are > fuill up. WRONG WRONG WRONG. That's true about the South East. The rest of the country isn't like that. I suggest you look at some population density figures. Especially where it shows the SE is more than 10 times more densely populated than where I live. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > I suggest you look at some population density figures. Especially where > it shows the SE is more than 10 times more densely populated than where > I live. True. The population in some parts of the SE is very dense indeed. I mean ... Boris as Mayor? *grin* Jon SignatureSPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. > > I suggest you look at some population density figures. Especially where > > it shows the SE is more than 10 times more densely populated than where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jon Did you watch Dom Joly's "Complainers"? He basically said Londoners are stupid. They live in an overcrowded shithole and put up with paying a congestion charge to then pay for expensive parking to go buy stuff in an expensive shop. He showed things like the £9 pint, the £35000 cocktail, the £4 tube ticket for a 250 yard journey that equates to £65 a mile and £56 to go see "Dirty Dancing" in a theatre. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > He basically said Londoners are stupid. They live in an overcrowded > shithole <chuckle> Says the man who lives on the edge of Hull... > and put up with paying a congestion charge to then pay for expensive > parking to go buy stuff in an expensive shop. Yes, well... > He showed things like the £9 pint I could point you to several very good pubs that charge not much more than £2/pint, slap bang in the middle of London. > the £35000 cocktail Yes, well... > the £4 tube ticket for a 250 yard journey that equates to £65 a mile But which you could pay £1.50 for - and which could take you clear across the centre of the city. > and £56 to go see "Dirty Dancing" in a theatre. Yes, well... > Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <chuckle> Says the man who lives on the edge of Hull... 28 miles away is hardly on the edge of. Can't see it, can't hear it. :) It's like saying Leicester and Nottingham are one city. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > > and £56 to go see "Dirty Dancing" in a theatre. > > Yes, well... is that the entrance fee for Peter Stringfellows club or have i got my wires twisted? Fod He basically said Londoners are stupid. They live in an overcrowded shithole and put up with paying a congestion charge to then pay for expensive parking to go buy stuff in an expensive shop. He showed things like the £9 pint, the £35000 cocktail, the £4 tube ticket for a 250 yard journey that equates to £65 a mile and £56 to go see "Dirty Dancing" in a theatre. SignatureConor He is right. >> Because this is an island with finate space and resources, at 60 million >> people we even now dont have enough houses, schols, hospitals, road and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's true about the South East. The rest of the country isn't like > that. Wrong Wrong Wrong I live in the North East and area with a falling population and theres still almost no suitable land available for building on, The experts said over 10 years ago this island can sustain a pop of bewtween 47 and 55 million people MAX, before irreparable damge is dont to the environment and the quality of life begins to decay. Only the dumbest in life want to live in termite colonies like London, dirty overcrowded, crime infested expensive, slums for worker drones to go to and fro in. > > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" > > says... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > population and theres still almost no suitable land available for building > on, The north east used to have a lot of heavy industry didn't it? Is the lack of land more due to people being unwilling to clean up brownfield sites? Fod In article <f6bf6570-636d-4cf2-89c4-d573dac43906 @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, friendsofderek@googlemail.com says... > The north east used to have a lot of heavy industry didn't it? Is the > lack of land more due to people being unwilling to clean up brownfield > sites? Like in Dinnington near Sheffield where the former coal pit site now has housing and an industrial park built on it? Quite a few former industrial estates are now housing. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > In article <f6bf6570-636d-4cf2-89c4-d573dac43906 > @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, friendsofde...@googlemail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Quite a few former industrial estates are now housing. That encouraging to hear. I wasn't sure what the answer would be but its nice to see them tidying up such sites. Fod Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> The north east used to have a lot of heavy industry didn't it? Is the >> lack of land more due to people being unwilling to clean up brownfield >> sites? > Like in Dinnington near Sheffield where the former coal pit site now has > housing and an industrial park built on it? > > Quite a few former industrial estates are now housing. Indeed. But "quite a few" is a long way from being "all". >> > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" >> > says... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Fod No not really most of the Brown field site for example in the tees valley are still surrrounded by large petro chem industries, We still had to build a huge great pair of new towns called Inglby Barwick and Coulby Newham, some of the brown field sites are just in exclusion zones around volatile or explosive factory complexes, much of the area outside the three deltas Tyne, Wear and Tees are green belt or wedge, military training areas, national parks or basically uninhabitable upper moorland. You could in theory build 1000s of homes in the upper dales but their absolute no social infrastructure in place, and they are basically only good for grazing hill sheep. the main urban developments of Newcastle/ Gateshead, Sunderland and Middlesbrough/ Stockton are jusy about fully built up now. > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" > says... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it shows the SE is more than 10 times more densely populated than where > I live. Looks out of the window at the miles of fields. Yep, pretty empty up here as well. I'm less than a 1 min walk from both my work and home to get a view of miles and miles of fields... Fod > > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" > > says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Yep, pretty empty up here as well. I'm less than a 1 min walk from > both my work and home to get a view of miles and miles of fields... ..which are used to grow food, so it's not a good idea to build on them if you expect to eat. >> > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" >> > says... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you > expect to eat. Grow food, soak up rainwater to prevent flooding, produce oxygen, soak up CO2, etc etc. On May 7, 4:09 pm, "Grumpy Old Voter" <v.meld...@i.do.not.believe.it> wrote: > "friendsofde...@googlemail.com" <friendsofde...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > In article <54mdnU9O3rTd_rzVnZ2dnUVZ8tChn...@bt.com>, "The Rifleman" [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ..which are used to grow food, so it's not a good idea to build on them if you > expect to eat. <Looks again> From my work half of them are growing crops. Of which half are food. From my house its about 3/4 with grass and 1/4 with crops ( again 50% food) Mind you I'm in a country with a declining population so its a different set of problems. Fod =?UTF-8?B?4peEIGlhbXRoZXdpdG5lc3MuY29tIOKWug==?= <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> wrote in news:e88d2b05-08ac-4c41-820d-9213fa8d5e61@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > News that England is poised to become the most crowded nation in > western Europe will come as little surprise to the millions who > already battle their way to work in London and the South East. > > Within two years, England will overtake Holland as the most populous > major country - and it will get progressively worse. They've always been pretty close in population density, and one or other has always been the most densely populated. Non story. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.