You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
street lights ‘Communism’?
Indeed, not to mention all those communist roads they light up. Imagine how much efficient it would be if we went back to a fully privatised road system.
Fire Service - ‘Communism’?
Job seekers allowance – ‘Communism’?
OAP bus pass - ‘Communism’?
Anyone still doubt the institutional bias at the heart of the media?
To be fair to the BBC it was a direct quote from a director at BT.
Indeed, not to mention all those communist roads they light up. Imagine how much efficient it would be if we went back to a fully privatised road system.
Have you seen the state of most private access roads?
You'd need an enduro bike to ride most of them.
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1195367786396164096?s=21
Time for Labour to back Freedom of Movement, to enable the “new close deal” with the EU&EEA they are proposing. Make that a meaningful policy, by removing the biggest red line blocking a close relationship, while also protecting the rights of our workers beyond these little islands.
It’s telling that BT’s shares haven’t moved on news that Labour intends to nationalise it.
Thats how certain the markets are that its not something that’s ever going to happen
Don't think the future is good for BT anyway.
They won't be nationalising BT - just openreach BTW as I understand it. Telegraph managed to report a slide in BT shares though.
There's eff all competition anyway - most service is average as is speed. The prices all similar and the customer service woeful of most providers.
Most of the providers are owned by BT anyway (including one I can’t tell you about as I signed something)… the competitive aspect of Broadband is almost non-existent… BT used OpenReach (before they were forced to separate it off) to make things hard for competitor brands and take them over, or push them aside. You can call it “the advantages of vertical integration” all you like - but it comes down to the abuse of near monopoly power. If they’d also delivered on their promises to improve UK infrastructure, they’d be left alone. But they’ve concentrated on reducing competition and failed to invest, despite subsidies. There is a sound market failure case for taking OpenReach back into public hands and investing in it directly, to the benefit of smaller businesses, less well off households, and promote economic growth in regions away from where most business is currently concentrated.
Yeah, you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you! It’s not all in one place and it moves around, but it’s there. (Rain forest was cut down to provide some of it.)
So when someone comes to the UK most of their 1.5 acres is scattered around the globe and only a small proportion is actually required here?
So when someone comes to the UK most of their 1.5 acres is scattered around the globe and only a small proportion is actually required here?
1.5 acres of productive land is the bare minimum if you want to feed them without importing food, which may be desirable since we have few mineral resources to trade for food and our skills/talents which we've able to sell worldwide for decades have now been duplicated throughout the world.
If you want to maintain the existing population density then they need to bring 1/279th of a Km2.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while[1] they might need to bring far more than that.
It's subjective, it all depends what you want, but 1.5 acres is a pretty good starting point AFAIC. (Until the phosphates crisis kicks in when it's going to more than double.)
[1] During dry daylight hours.
There’s eff all competition anyway – most service is average as is speed. The prices all similar and the customer service woeful of most providers.
They're all selling the same thing from the same seller and have the same costs. So no wonder they all end up the same. So much for privatisation eh?
Walk around any new estate. 20pc of those properties will be rented “affordable” housing. Guess which houses are the ones with the garden looking a state and with a sofa dumped on the front lawn and guess which ones are pretty well looked after.
They built a new estate in the field that backs on to my garden. Amongst the £500/600k detached houses are the required amount of 50/50 housing association properties and a certain amount of council flats. Apart from a few fancy wall ornaments or posh garden furniture they all are kept in very similar fashion.
Come and have a look if your weird and misplaced prejudice will allow you. Actually, I withdraw that as you come across as a bit of a nasty piece of work and we don't want your sort around here.
Really feel like Labour have scored a significant victory today. Johnson was on the Radio for an hour this morning, and for once didn't say anything totally daft, and I reckon the Tories were ready to roll with it all day, and then...
Feels like a turning point, everyone has had/has rubbish broadband and the companies that supply it don't ever seem like they give a hoot, that's the story on the radio phone ins all day...Free proper fast broadband for everyone really makes everyone sit up and take notice, Whoever thought it up deserves a pint.
1.5 acres of productive land is the bare minimum if you want to feed them without importing food, which may be desirable since we have few mineral resources to trade for food and our skills/talents which we’ve able to sell worldwide for decades have now been duplicated throughout the world.
If you want to maintain the existing population density then they need to bring 1/279th of a Km2.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while[1] they might need to bring far more than that.
It’s subjective, it all depends what you want, but 1.5 acres is a pretty good starting point AFAIC. (Until the phosphates crisis kicks in when it’s going to more than double.)
[1] During dry daylight hours.
Genetic modification and phosphate recovery methods will see to it that the land requirements do not double.
Well I’m pretty sure that someone who actually knows and has experienced what people at the bottom have to put up with would be better placed to run the country than someone who puts his **** into a dead pigs head to impress his mates at an upper class party.
And yeah, I am more like Rayner than Boris and very proud of it. Obviously the main thing you miss out on by not going to public school is the lesson in knowing your place.
You avoided the question, why do you think Rayner is more qualified than Cooper? Inequality in society is a single topic issue that can be dealt with by a group of special advisers and select MP's who hold the trust of the Prime Minister - in that role, Rayner would likely be very good. However, the job of the Prime Minister is to also steer the countries relationship and find our place within a deeply complex world and rapidly changing geopolitical landscape and make decisions that could effect this country for centuries to come - that is why Cooper is the sensible choice for PM unless you are biased and prejudiced yourself against her background and education. Rayner is simply not up to the job of the latter, if we end up with her as PM it will be just another sign that we are withdrawing from the world into a little Britain mindset.
2 families here sharing a single phone line with at most 1.8 mbs, often less when the weather is bad. 6 mile journey to send a text, and a further 4 miles to get 4G signal. Anyone who promises free highspeed broadband gets my vote by default! And if it does away with those tw*ts at Openreach then even better in my book.
The point is outofbreath, as you stated, that land is scattered around the world, it isn't all where the person lives. So an immigrant moving to the UK does not require 1.5 acres here.
Precisely, it's only a problem if world war 3 breaks out or we get embargoed by the United States Navy and we don't have access to food. If that happens we have bigger things to worry about.
The former pay for themselves
In one sense they pay for themselves and bring advantages of all kinds. What they don’t do is bring 1.5 acres of new land in per person.
The point is outofbreath, as you stated, that land is scattered around the world, it isn’t all where the person lives. So an immigrant moving to the UK does not require 1.5 acres here.
I didn't say they 'require' I said they don't bring.
If it *were* possible to bring more land how much you'd want to bring is subjective.
If you want to maintain the existing population density then they need to bring 1/279th of a Km2.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while[1] they might need to bring far more than that.
So ok, you wouldn't want 1.5 acres, that's great. What do would you want? Your answer will differ from someone else's. The whole idea is hypothetical anyway, you can't move land around to any large degree.
[1] During dry daylight hours.
2 families here sharing a single phone line with at most 1.8 mbs, often less when the weather is bad. 6 mile journey to send a text, and a further 4 miles to get 4G signal.
Chapeau for the humblebrag!
Immigrants mostly move to built up cities, I doubt anyone on here really notices the difference in population density except on certain commuter trains and roads. Very few are likely to be mountain bikers or to drive out to where the mountain biking is. How many immigrants do you see in Coed-Y-Brenin?
Answer - ****ing none.
There's some debate to be had around the effects of large scale immigration to single areas - displacing local communities due to native or white flight. land density however, isn't really an area that matters. The debate should be around how we integrate everyone and make everyone feel British and in it together, coupled with sensible non-discriminatory migration that balances our ability to integrate people with a system that doesn't punish or split families up or those getting married.
Lots of immigrants working in the hospitality trade, so in places where there are lots of tourists. That includes more rural locations like Kendal and Aviemore. Maybe you don't notice them because they don't have dark skin? Try visiting the local Tesco.
Lots of immigrants working in the hospitality trade, so in places where there are lots of tourists. That includes more rural locations like Kendal and Aviemore. Maybe you don’t notice them because they don’t have dark skin? Try visiting the local Tesco.
Not exactly London levels of immigration though is it. Oh noes, won't someone think of the land density issues in Aviemore!
Tell me, out on the trail in Aviemore can you tell who is a tourist and who is an immigrant?
Tell me, out on the trail in Aviemore can you tell who is a tourist and who is an immigrant?
You were the one saying
immigrants do you see in Coed-Y-Brenin?
Answer – **** none.
So I assume you have some foolproof method you can use to identify those foreign types? With that talent I am sure you can spot the tourists. Care to let us into your secret?
land density however, isn’t really an area that matters.
It doesn't matter to you, it *does* matter to me and from the strong local opposition to development of land pretty much anywhere outside of cities it matters to a lot of people. It does matter that kids are being brought up in flats or houses with tiny gardens because land is so scarce. There's so little land left they're building an estate down the road form me on flood zone 2 land with the communal openspace in flood zone 3. This is less than 2m above sea level with a stream through it, with rising sea levels it could be literally under water on Spring tides before some of the mortgages are paid off! In my home town they've granted planning permission to build on land that is literally under water tonight! This does not feel like a sparsely populated country to me, it feels like a country that is maxed out with development and then some.
Do you think China went with a one child policy for a laugh? They have half the population density of the Uk.
HOWEVER, if you think population density isn't important, how about we change the planning system so any objection of any kind from 4 or more people halts any development? That way no land that anyone GAF about gets lost to development. As long and we're not overcrowded few people will care about losing land and loads of developments will get built...
How many immigrants do you see in Coed-Y-Brenin?
Answer – **** none.
All relative isn't it? I reckon a 10th generation Welsh hill farmer in the area would tell you most everyone around there is an immigrant. And they don't even make the effort to speak the local language like most immigrants to England do.
So I assume you have some foolproof method you can use to identify those foreign types? With that talent I am sure you can spot the tourists. Care to let us into your secret?
+1
free broadband
I've missed the critical bit of this story. Who is going to be paying for free broadband in the UK? Is it the Swiss? Wouldn't surprise me, they've always seemed nice to me. Whoever it is I'm sure British people will be very grateful - free stuff is always welcome.
I met three blokes up in the woods above Wylie. One of them turned out to be foreign and knew all the trails better than the local two. Showed me a brilliant descent.
@outofbreath - a new tax on internet giants was mentioned. I guess the proposition to Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ali, NetFlix, .. POrnHub etc is that funding fast interwebs for plebs in the UK is actually more like investing in a slave than paying a tax.. perhaps.
As much of the media seems to have missed the point, the Government is already paying Openreach huge sums of money to install broadband.
It's an interesting idea. Normally corporation tax is profit-based to encourage re-investment. But Google don't invest in the UK or in any particular country in which they do business, do they? Where are their datacentres and R&D? Taxing internet-based services on a different basis would make more sense.
And it also would have the knock-on effect of driving business for those very companies. Netflix would get more subscribers, but probably not £40bn worth (or whatever it is). Good broadband is essential infrastructure that would benefit the country just like rail and road. A better economy would also ultimately drive business for the internet companies.
Plus, even if taxed here it's still worth their while doing business. Their costs won't change much.
@timescorbyn
Worth a look.
The Jezziah in his true colours.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while
See you on the trials! Smile when you see us! Or hide in your cave.
the Government is already paying Openreach huge sums of money to install broadband.
And they never deliver what they promise. They are holding us all back.
Do you think China went with a one child policy for a laugh? They have half the population density of the Uk.
China only has half the density when you include places like the middle of ****ing nowhere in Inner Mongolia. That is a piss poor use of statistics. They didn’t do the one child policy for density reasons, they did it to try and stop a demographic timebomb.
HOWEVER, if you think population density isn’t important, how about we change the planning system so any objection of any kind from 4 or more people halts any development? That way no land that anyone GAF about gets lost to development. As long and we’re not overcrowded few people will care about losing land and loads of developments will get built…
What land do you care about losing? The homogenous farm land with little biodiversity that dominates much of the UK?
Inequality in society is a single topic issue that can be dealt with by a group of special advisers and select MP’s who hold the trust of the Prime Minister
Thank Christ you were to solve that - thought it was going to be complicated. Fancy having a crack at peace in the middle East when you've got 5 minutes?
Taxing internet-based services on a different basis would make more sense.
I imagine they are thinking a tax on revenue generated in a country from data/advertising in that country, even if the money went out of the country. Makes a certain amount of sense, given the nature of the industry. Taxing profits was always a bad idea. To easy to come up with ways not to make any profit in one place while making a lot in another, with lower taxes.
It does matter that kids are being brought up in flats or houses with tiny gardens because land is so scarce. There’s so little land left they’re building an estate down the road form me on flood zone 2 land with the communal openspace in flood zone 3. This is less than 2m above sea level with a stream through it, with rising sea levels it could be literally under water on Spring tides before some of the mortgages are paid off! In my home town they’ve granted planning permission to build on land that is literally under water tonight! This does not feel like a sparsely populated country to me, it feels like a country that is maxed out with development and then some.
To add to what I posted before, Liverpool and Glasgow have half the population that they had at their heights during the early-mid twentieth century.
London is also the lowest density mega city on the planet.
I call hysterical nonsense.
So I assume you have some foolproof method you can use to identify those foreign types? With that talent I am sure you can spot the tourists. Care to let us into your secret?
No but I don’t assume there are more people on the trails because....immigrants. There are more people on the trails because idiots (and I count you as one of them seeing as you are attempting to defend this) that think it’s all the immigrants fault have money and have decided to take up the sport, maybe we should ban them.
Also make sure you don’t have kids, I don’t want to share the trails with more of your sorts. Cheers.
Are any parties offering eugenics as a policy? If so, they have my vote.
the free internet thing is interesting, could it be rephrased as free cable tv for everyone ?... we kinda have free broadcast tv for everyone (though you have to have a tv license to tune in). Means the death of broadcast tv and radio and satellite, Free phone for anyone in an urban environment (every house/business with an open wifi connection). Would mean some interest business model changes for sky/bbc/itv.
They didn’t do the one child policy for density reasons, they did it to try and stop a demographic timebomb.
No they went with it to avoid overpopulation according to all the sensible sources. It was known that it was liable to create a demographic timebomb. So aside from getting it completely wrong you are close.
No but I don’t assume there are more people on the trails because….immigrants.
Logic would tend to suggest that there is (chances of some immigrants riding fairly high so then it comes down to whether others stop riding because of them which I reckon is fairly low so overall I would tend to assume some increase). I think what you might be trying to get at is there is no significant impact.
and I count you as one of them seeing as you are attempting to defend this
Oh? How exactly?
I was questioning your ability to recognise immigrants which you announced you had.
Are any parties offering eugenics as a policy? If so, they have my vote.
That really doesnt surprise me. You come across as one of those Dunning-Kruger types firmly believing you will be the selected one.
Free stuff! Free stuff!
its awful isnt it? We should just be giving the money to BT so they can spaff it on bonuses instead.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/15/boris-johnson-children-wheels-on-the-bus
I do enjoy Marina Hyde's opinion pieces. 🙂
I was an immigrant for 20 years and I used a few trails in the UK.
What about my 1,5 acres, what happens to that when I married a UK girl and had 3 kids?
What made me laugh is that Bt have commented to Labours predicted maintenance costing needing to be double of that which they’ve mentioned. I’ve worked with BT IT in the past on several occasions so I know that’s at least true, and based on my experience it’s likely to be even more costly than that 😀
The nroadband announcement is a real win from Labour it's really popular
https://twitter.com/richardosman/status/1195273468167806976?s=19
I happen to know some immigrants who ride the trails near me, so I do recognise them. There's lots of room for more of them too, even when the area is busy with tourists. I'm still waiting to hear what the foolproof method of recognising those I don't know is. Of course, I'm even more interested in this idea that this island is bursting at the seams due to overpopulation.
Whoever it is I’m sure British people will be very grateful – free stuff is always welcome.
I"ve been wating for you to come along and slag this off. Clearly paying £30 a month for unbelievably shit internet speeds and a dodgy connection to a monopoly provider who literally shrug their shoulders when you ring up to complain is all that we can hope for in this country. By any measure, this policy is a good one. It would be different if the privatised providers had done their job, but they evidently haven't. We're behind Madagascar for average speeds FFS.
Last time I checked It was going to cost 5k to connect my house to the local junction box with a fibre cable to replace the shit copper phone wire it currently depends on. I'm sure there are millions like me. This single policy could win the election. If it doesn't, then people are even more stupid than I thought.
Dazh - assuming labour win and give you your free broadband - who do you think will provide it and how will their service magically become better than what we have?
Itll be the same providers on the same infrastructure subsidised by the government, that’s all.
I live rurally and I have a "shit copper phone wire" connection to the junction box.
Download 22mb, upload 8mb. More than enough for me for streaming, teleconferencing while working at home etc,. I don't need more than that but the people in areas of the country who are getting <1mb clearly have problems. Looking at it more simplistically the effort should be putting into ensuring everyone has an acceptable level and ensuring the companies are providing that legally.
Nothing wrong with things being run privately, the key is the governance and policies from government and ensuring the providers meet a minimum standard for 100% of people.
Yesterday I was trying to work at home with 0.8mb down and 0.2 up, and counted at least half a dozen dropouts. They already had my vote, but if labour want to pay someone to fit a fibre cable to my house I'd be voting for them no matter what my political views are. Given the alternative would be me getting the train into manchester and wasting 2 hours commuting there are ovbvious environmental and economic benefits to this too.
I can't imagine that there will ever be enough evidence to actually make this stick but it'll be entertaining to see how Boris and his mates spin this:
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-tories-being-economical-with-the-truth-over-brexit-party-jobs-denial-11862595
Dissonance, they implemented the one child policy for a few reasons - none of which were related to population density. One was a misguided view of overpopulation, influenced by views of organisations such as the Sierra club - the other was for demographic reasons. Overpopulation is not the same thing as population density - going by the Sierra Clubs interpretation of overpopulation we need to cull 30 odd million people.
Logic would tend to suggest that there is (chances of some immigrants riding fairly high so then it comes down to whether others stop riding because of them which I reckon is fairly low so overall I would tend to assume some increase). I think what you might be trying to get at is there is no significant impact.
Precisely, you can’t tell who is and is a ****ing immigrant on the trail. The vast majority of the increase in people on the trails has been caused by an increase in MTB popularity - in that regard immigration is likely utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You total and utter tool.
That really doesnt surprise me. You come across as one of those Dunning-Kruger types firmly believing you will be the selected one.
Why do you think you have some implicit right to shit out as many kids as you want, as opposed to letting immigrants in? Why should I have to pay taxes for you to have children, as you’d just be adding to our population density issues.
Yesterday I was trying to work at home with 0.8mb down and 0.2 up, and counted at least half a dozen dropouts. They already had my vote, but if labour want to pay someone to fit a fibre cable to my house I’d be voting for them no matter what my political views are
I don't doubt for a minute that you'd be happy for somone else to pay the 5k for your shiny new internet connection. Did it occur to you to check what it might be like before moving in?
It's a bit like moving in to a house 25 miles away from where you work, and complaining about the commute.
Interestingly, a few years ago the government announced a 3k assistance package to help business install broadband. It was quite opportune, as we'd just moved in to a new office. We'd got a quote before the announcement, then checked it afterwards. It had gone up by 3k...
I’m still waiting to hear what the foolproof method of recognising those I don’t know is.
Onions round neck, stripy sweater, cheat lines = French. Deffo.
Elon Musk will have deployed around 12k Starlink satellites by 2025, with a further 30,000 deployed on the decade after that.
Its low orbit means that starlink will be high bandwidth and low latency - offering almost universal coverage without any roads being dug up.
Labour are effectively offering to dig up the road outside ever household in the country and maintain it for £8 per household per year.
The realistic build cost is somewhere between £50-100b and the operating costs including depreciation will be somewhere around £5b a year. Most of the costs in the papers fail to account for depreciation of the assets.
Each £b of spend works out as tax of around £33 per household, so the build cost is between £1700 and £3400 per household and the operating costs is at least £150 a year on top of that.
They won’t raise anything significant from Facebook et al because it requires a coordinated change of global accounting standards and transfer pricing rules, and in the process they will have put many other network businesses into insolvency and many thousands of employees at Virgin, Sky, City Fibre etc etc on the dole.
Labour are effectively offering to dig up the road outside ever household in the country and maintain it for £8 per household per year.
With a bit of luck someone might have the good idea of installing all the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles at the same time.
The sort of joined up thinking that governance appears incapable of.
Still the FC must be rubbing their hands together at the idea of all these trees they'll be planting.
Dissonance, they implemented the one child policy for a few reasons
None of which was your claim about about a demographic timebomb.
Do you ever accept you are wrong?
As for the relationship with population density. At a country level it does become rather more important. Especially in a country which had somewhat strained relations with other countries.
Precisely, you can’t tell who is and is a * immigrant on the trail.
And yet you announced with certainty
How many immigrants do you see in Coed-Y-Brenin?
Answer – * none.
Which was what I was querying you muppet. You claimed you were capable of recognising those immigrants in order to discount them being there.
. You total and utter tool.
Coming from you I take that as a compliment.
Itll be the same providers on the same infrastructure subsidised by the government, that’s all
But the emphasis of profit is moved so the governments incentive is to provide a better service.
Governments spend first and tax later. There is no issue of affordability. As long as the resources are there to take up the spending.
Doh.
“But the emphasis of profit is moved so the governments incentive is to provide a better service.“
A more likely outcome is that the drive to manage costs and effeciency is lost - not least when the unions get to decide how its run. And then it just costs a lot lot more with no focus at all on service.
Except that's not a given. As I seem to be saying a lot - East Coast Line.
Edit : TBF, I think this is a pretty awful policy idea.
Much wind baggery on this thread over the last couple of days; you know who you are.
Carry on chaps; you are not informing anyone.
As for the relationship with population density. At a country level it does become rather more important. Especially in a country which had somewhat strained relations with other countries.
WTF are you even waffling on about here.
Which was what I was querying you muppet. You claimed you were capable of recognising those immigrants in order to discount them being there.
No one is going to notice immigrants in Coed-Y-Brenin because realistically no one stops to say - “oh yeah mate, are you one of them ****in immigrants?”. They therefore to all intents and purposes, don’t exist. And, the vast majority of sales growth in MTB in the UK has been with white British customers.
The fact that you are defending this utterly cretinous idea that immigrants are somehow the cause of our trails being clogged up is (and I’ve edited this to be polite) ridiculous.
Do you ever accept you are wrong?
Seeing as I’m not the one trying to defend daft claims such as immigrants blocking our trails, no I don’t - because usually when someone makes such an outrageously stupid claim on singletrackworld, I can be fairly sure that taking the opposite side will automatically be the right one. In fact you’d do well just to just assume I’m right next time.
Do you ever accept you are wrong?
Nope - not even when its proven in black and white. the Dunning Kruger is strong in this one
Just checking, you are referring to yourself there tjagain? 🙂
There is a certain level of irony in TJ’s post.
The Great Myth of Urban Britain - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
An article from 2012 from the BBC about the (very small) amount of land in Britain that is built up. I was so surprised when I read it I bookmarked it way back then.
Just to help the debate along a little.
Briefly -
"Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).
The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."
And
"In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…
… 2.27%."
There is a certain HUGE level of irony in TJ’s post.
FTFY
Elon Musk will have deployed around 12k Starlink satellites by 2025, with a further 30,000 deployed on the decade after that.
You can't not invest in projects just because someone else says they're going to do something.
My work is a prime example of that, we have had no investment at all over the last few years because we're waiting to be amalgamated with several other labs in the area. We've been waiting for 15 years so far and as a result we have no technology to work with, we're struggling to meet demand and national standards and the quality of the results we send out is becoming increasingly questionable.
But you know, we'll be collaborating soon so just hang on in there...... For another 15 years.
Clearly paying £30 a month for unbelievably shit internet speeds and a dodgy connection to a monopoly provider who literally shrug their shoulders when you ring up to complain is all that we can hope for in this country.
We had 3Mb copper in our street despite living in a city surrounded by fibre. We asked if we could have fibre and were told it wasn't commercially viable. **** capitalism. We got eventually got the Welsh government to pay for it after a huge effort by some neighbours and commitments from the residents. Why should we have to jump through hoops like this? We were lucky that we met the criteria for the grant and business in the street committed, it wasn't a given.
Idiocy.
The fact that you are defending this utterly cretinous idea that immigrants are somehow the cause of our trails being clogged up is (and I’ve edited this to be polite) ridiculous.
Luckily I am not you muppet.
The closest anyone has come to making that claim was OutOfBreath and even then you need to twist the context somewhat.
I purely responded to your claim about there being no immigrants at cyb.
If you are now trying to change that to be not being able to recognise them then that is an improvement. However it does render it as a response utterly meaningless to what outofbreath was saying.
We asked if we could have fibre and were told it wasn’t commercially viable. * capitalism.
Don't be daft, obviously you should have been more careful in choosing where you live. One of my mates used to live in a house that was completely off grid and self-sufficient for water and energy. That wasn't a surprise though as he lived halfway up a welsh mountain 10 miles from the nearest village. I however live a 10 minute walk from the centre of a decent size town only 20 miles outside Manchester. Despite it being a steep sided narrow valley, 19th century engineers managed to build a canal, a railway (including the world's longest tunnel at the time) and a major road through it. Yet today, well into in the 21st century, we are told it's not economically viable or possible to connect new cables to every home to provide fast internet? Like you said, * capitalism.
And, surely, the whole point is that if ‘we’ carefully choose where we live, just to get a connection good enough to partake in the modern world, what happens to all those that can’t afford to make the same choices? OpenReach have had forever to connect the country up… instead much of the UK is a backwater in European terms when it comes to our digital infrastructure. And those thinking we should depend on Musk or the Chinese to step in and fill all the gaps OpenReach are leaving, you’re still not thinking about the cost to the user of that. Those bills for access might just be part of your outgoings, but they are ruinous for some people, and we shouldn’t be leaving them and their children in the 20th Century connection wise.
I purely responded to your claim about there being no immigrants at cyb.
If you are now trying to change that to be not being able to recognise them then that is an improvement.
Long hair, bushy tache, smoking a joint..... Dutch. Every time.
Corks strung around bike helmet, saying word like ‘cobber’ and swigging from a tinny..... Australian.
Piece of piss.
More difficult with the asian types though because they all look the same.
I purely responded to your claim about there being no immigrants at cyb.
No you weren’t - no sensible person digs at minor details like that, not even TJ when he’s on form.
If you can’t tell who is and isn’t an immigrant, then either A) There aren’t any on the trail or B) There is no way you can assume that is what is driving increased trail use.
Every time I go into the cafe there - I never here anything but English and Welsh accents by the way. Shall we start a demographic poll at the top of the trails to satisfy racists like yourself, to see if it really is the immigrants that are clogging up the trails or just idiots with too much money?