Forum menu
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?
We really need a campaign to get more of those being loosely described as ‘immigrants’ into mountain biking, starting with trail centres.
So, I hear there is an election on....
A more likely outcome is that the drive to manage costs and effeciency is lost
Costs and efficiency? With Privatisation? Ha Ha. You sound like you still believe its a good idea from the 1980's, when sensible people will have seen in the intervening years its been anything but.
Actual Privatisation has landed a killing blow on the ideology of privatisation.
Costs and efficiency? With Privatisation? Ha Ha. You sound like you still believe its a good idea from the 1980’s, when sensible people will have seen in the intervening years its been anything but.
Actual Privatisation has landed a killing blow on the ideology of privatisation.
I think there are some rose-tinted glasses regarding public ownership on this thread. Remember BL for instance?
Public ownership tends to result in stupid bureaucracy, jobsworth employees and a backwards attitude towards change and innovation. I witnessed this firsthand when I worked in HE and managed staff who were remnants of LEA control, from the time that the university was a college of HE. They were universally awful in a thoroughly institutionalised way.
A friend of mine is currently working on a major project with the civil service. He comes from the tech sector and can't believe how many barriers the civil service place in the way of seemingly simple decisions. I think a quote from Futurama sums it up:
"Don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in... We kept it grey!"
Funnily enough, I've never been an advocate of privatisation, especially of natural monopolies like water, but I'm also pragmatic and sensible enough (unlike some on here) to see that nationalisation isn't some sort of panacea.
JP
Question:
Is Johnson’s bridge to Northern Island getting the same attention and criticism as Corbyn’s takeover of OpenReach to make it deliver the infrastructure we need across the UK?
Public ownership tends to result in stupid bureaucracy, jobsworth employees and a backwards attitude towards change and innovation.
No, these happen because of idiot people at the top of organisations, as pretty much anyone who's ever worked in a large multinational can attest to, everything you describe of publicly owned is true of privately owned as well.
Well, it’s true of OpenReach for sure.
This single policy could win the election. If it doesn’t, then people are even more stupid than I thought.
I thought it was the least thought out, most ridiculous notion I had ever heard. I couldn't believe anyone could fall for such tosh; clearly designed to distract from real policy.
But there you are.
Services need to be in the public interest for them to be in state/public ownership, end of. For which I would decree that utilities and transport (rail, bus/coach) are brought under the public ownership banner first.
Someone above cited British Leyland and there are two key reasons why nationalising the British car manufacturing industry was a bad idea: Firstly, shite management - people promoted to levels of incompetence which is still endemic in business and commerce today. Secondly, the British work ethic, it’s pants and still is, it’s all about minimum input for maximum output. Both of these conspired at a time when the unions were also quite militant and created a toxic brew.
I’m not sure about bringing the monopoly that is BT under public ownership, I’m not sure what that would achieve apart from letting the private investors off the hook. Let them pay.
As for Royal Mail, bunch of **** wits, they completely missed the boat with email 20+ years ago and then spent years trying to compete by making first class mail unviably cheap. ****ers.
Can’t remember what else Labour are suggesting for nationalisation but I do believe that a good economy would have a healthy mix of private and state owned services, whereby the state ones are, as I said earlier, in the public interest to do so.
The Observers latest polling today has the Tory’s with a 16 point lead over Labour
A quite staggering achievement by Grandad and the assorted gaggle of clueless, voter-repelling muppets around him
Surely that must be a deliberate Partridge
LOLZ/TEARS
I’m not sharing any more of the interview, as I want people voting Labour. The “do you want the UK to Leave the EU” question and ‘answer’ section was particularly painful to watch.
That you double down on your stupidity is rather telling.
You utter retard.
Watch out! The politics of inclusion is here!
Which side is called the Nasty party? I've forgotten....
Snowflake.
Secondly, the British work ethic, it’s pants and still is, it’s all about minimum input for maximum output.
Perhaps if the notion of a fair days pay for a fair days work backed up with fairness in every other aspect wasn't so alien to many UK companies, then the workforce would be more invested in the companies they work for.
You utter retard
Kinder,gentler, politics coming through a bit there.
It’s not pretty, is it. Focus on something else.
Can’t remember what else Labour are suggesting for nationalisation but I do believe that a good economy would have a healthy mix of private and state owned services, whereby the state ones are, as I said earlier, in the public interest to do so.
You know, I agree with you there. But before I went around taking anything else into public ownership, I'd like to see the state make a success of the bits they already control. The utilities may not be perfect but they'll do as they are. Social care, parts of the health service, roads, policing,etc etc all need a lot more spent on them before we start taking anything else into public ownership.
I've never seen anyone from the North Western subcontinent of India at CyB?
I spent last night next to our MP, Conservative Steven Kerr of Stirling watching a kids music orchestra. The kids were great, he less so.
Thankfully he didn't ask how I was voting, and I didn't have the bottle to ask him his plans post election.
(we had less than 200 votes in it last time, and SNP are going to get it this time)
Social care, parts of the health service, roads, policing,etc etc all need a lot more spent on them before we start taking anything else into public ownership.
Social care is mostly privately supplied, at the moment, no? Are you suggesting nationalisation there, or more state owned providers competing against the private providers, or simply putting more money into the private provision? It’s a tough area to sort.
The OpenReach thing is about sorting out infrastructure that the country needs for economic reasons, not just social ones. It’ll cost the government to do it, but it’ll cost the country not to do it.
Dazh talking about free broadband :-
This single policy could win the election. If it doesn’t, then people are even more stupid than I thought.
Its people like me Labour should be targeting if they want to gain in the forthcoming election. I'm firmly remain at heart, strongly resent both the direction of the Conservative party and Boris's role in swinging the referendum result to leave. I'm a socially liberal, economically conservative, globalist, centre right voter. But I now have nobody to vote for, other than reluctantly voting Lib Dem. A labour party led by someone as radical as Corbyn with so many anti business policies and foolish nationalisation plans is a total anathema to me. Saving £30 a month on my bills isn't going to make a difference. Whereas I might well have held my nose and voted Labour if it was something like it was in the Blairite years.
Social care is in large part funded by local government is it not. It clearly needs more funding, I think the private sector is perfectly capable of providing the care, but it has to be paid for, for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves.
I take you point about a lack of infrastructure for broadband provision - although I think some here are overstaing the problem. But looking at the state of the roads as an example, I've no confidence that taking it into public ownership is going to help at all.
I suppose that highlights another issue for with the UK system, central government can selectively cut local council funding, then blame local councils for not making good use of the money.
That seems to be a popular tory trick.
My old man keeps banging on about sadiq Khan in London about knife crime and his failure to deal with it, whilst conveniently forgetting slashed budget's from the government.
But looking at the state of the roads as an example, I’ve no confidence that taking it into public ownership is going to help at all.
Broadband roll out also has lots of public money already going into it. That’s the thing, for so many services there is a different mix of public funding with private provision that may or may not work. With OpenReach, a near monopoly private provider, that takes public money, isn’t delivering what the country requires to play a leading role… but for so many people it is just a knee jerk reaction that taking it into full public ownership and control must be a “bad thing”, where, objectively, that might not be the case in this instance.
As a counterpoint to “roads”, I’d give you “Corrilian”. But as it happens, I personally approve of the idea of additional roads being built and maintained privately, and a toll charged.
There are plenty of other areas Labour have been taking the wrong approach about ownership of companies, for me, but I strongly suspect they might be dropped on Thursday.
My old man keeps banging on about sadiq Khan in London about knife crime and his failure to deal with it, whilst conveniently forgetting slashed budget’s from the government.
It's ok - the Tories have swept in with a genius plan to put knife crime advice on takeaway chicken boxes
And promising that they’ll fund the huge cost of training some new police recruits to replace some of the experienced staff they’ve been getting rid of.
Oh, but Scotland didn’t make the cuts to Police Numbers the Tories did in England and Wales. Let’s compare London & Glasgow for knife crime increases… shall we…
All these Conservative Party pledges to either undo the damage they’ve done, or to do what they promised in the last few elections but still haven’t delivered on, assume we have the memory of Goldfish.
Kelvin
In my opinion, the problem with many areas of capitalism today is not that they are inherently bad or inefficient but that new business methods and network effects, partly related to globalisation but also related to new technology have meant the the systems of control that worked for most of a century are now outdated and can easily be circumnavigated by the likes of Amazon, for example. So build new regulations and controls, that work for society overall in today's technological and geopolitical situation, without unnecessarily constraining the businesses or their profit seeking aims. The last few governments have been very bad at that, Labour's solution seems to try to destroy capitalism. That's not whats required - without capitalism we might all be a lot more equal but we would all be a lot poorer - I can't recall exactly who, but it was an Indian economist who once said - " Grinding poverty is perpetually sustainable." And without capitalism, we'd all be grindingly poor.
There's an awful lot you could do with ofcom to get openreach to sort their shit out, without the expense of re-nationalisation. They'd whinge like stuck pigs, obviously, but a private operations primary responsibility is to it's shareholders. Put the legislation in place and the shareholders will have to suck it up.
As for this being a policy that could win them the election - hahaha!