|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 28, 2022 21:29:18 GMT
If you think you can square that circle, good luck! Easy. Stop building more expensive infrastructure for cars and let folk sit in traffic while taxing every car on the road like it's an old range rover. Spend the money on policing so more than a tiny minority of rule breakers get caught. Ban sales of ICE cars much sooner than planned. Take space away from cars, particularly on street parking. I have been reading some information on electric cars and it contradicts your views. Electric cars consume energy even when parked, unlike internal combustion engined cars. The conclusion I came to is that electric cars are most definitely not the answer. I’ll find the links and post them later. I tend to agree that on-street parking should be restricted, you can only own as many cars as you can park on your property. If you can’t park any you may only have one with a restricted width and length. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Dec 28, 2022 22:02:13 GMT
Knocking down an 18th century pub to build a road? Bloody vandals! As long as it makes it easier to go dogging at Birdlip viewpoint!  |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 28, 2022 22:22:10 GMT
Easy. Stop building more expensive infrastructure for cars and let folk sit in traffic while taxing every car on the road like it's an old range rover. Spend the money on policing so more than a tiny minority of rule breakers get caught. Ban sales of ICE cars much sooner than planned. Take space away from cars, particularly on street parking. I have been reading some information on electric cars and it contradicts your views. Electric cars consume energy even when parked, unlike internal combustion engined cars. The conclusion I came to is that electric cars are most definitely not the answer. I’ll find the links and post them later. I don't buy the green EV argument either. They also use energy sitting in traffic and if you couldn't park them near where you wanted to go there would be less reason to use them. Banning sales of ICE cars would restrict growth in the number of cars on the road and lessen the need for new infrastructure to support them. Or just limit the number of new cars that can be sold in the UK regardless of how they are powered. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 29, 2022 10:42:41 GMT
I have been reading some information on electric cars and it contradicts your views. Electric cars consume energy even when parked, unlike internal combustion engined cars. The conclusion I came to is that electric cars are most definitely not the answer. I’ll find the links and post them later. I don't buy the green EV argument either. They also use energy sitting in traffic and if you couldn't park them near where you wanted to go there would be less reason to use them. Banning sales of ICE cars would restrict growth in the number of cars on the road and lessen the need for new infrastructure to support them. Or just limit the number of new cars that can be sold in the UK regardless of how they are powered. Unfortunately banning sales of ICE cars would rapidly result in older, less efficient, vehicles becoming dominant because owners would hang on to them until they fell apart. Think Cuba. Probably better to introduce a stringent test on cars over, say 20 years old, when they change hands. Any faults must be fixed within a specified period or the car scrapped. Limit new cars to 2.0L and impose a weight limit. Increase the driving age to 20 unless there is a very good reason why someone younger needs to drive e.g. their job requires it (police, fire, ambulance, military etc.). If someone starts work knowing that they either live within walking/cycling distance of work or use public transport one would hope they will behave accordingly*. However, making the roads safer for those who will continue to use them shouldn’t be overlooked. The Air Balloon roundabout actually encourages excessive mileage. The proposed “solution” destroys a pub but doesn’t solve the problem. Look at a map and see what you would do. *I am very much aware that, at the age of 20 I couldn’t have used public transport nor could I have afforded to live within walking/cycling distance of work. My suggestion wouldn’t stand a reasonableness test. I included it to encourage lateral thinking. Our infrastructure is predicated on the use of cars. Reducing the number of vehicles on the roads is appropriate but, without massively improved public transport, impractical. |
|
|
|
Post by dorsetmike on Dec 29, 2022 13:59:07 GMT
Knocking down an 18th century pub to build a road? Bloody vandals! Send 'em down Birdlip hill |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 29, 2022 14:34:45 GMT
I don't buy the green EV argument either. They also use energy sitting in traffic and if you couldn't park them near where you wanted to go there would be less reason to use them. Banning sales of ICE cars would restrict growth in the number of cars on the road and lessen the need for new infrastructure to support them. Or just limit the number of new cars that can be sold in the UK regardless of how they are powered. Unfortunately banning sales of ICE cars would rapidly result in older, less efficient, vehicles becoming dominant because owners would hang on to them until they fell apart. Think Cuba. Probably better to introduce a stringent test on cars over, say 20 years old, when they change hands. Any faults must be fixed within a specified period or the car scrapped. Limit new cars to 2.0L and impose a weight limit. Increase the driving age to 20 unless there is a very good reason why someone younger needs to drive e.g. their job requires it (police, fire, ambulance, military etc.). If someone starts work knowing that they either live within walking/cycling distance of work or use public transport one would hope they will behave accordingly*. However, making the roads safer for those who will continue to use them shouldn’t be overlooked. The Air Balloon roundabout actually encourages excessive mileage. The proposed “solution” destroys a pub but doesn’t solve the problem. Look at a map and see what you would do. *I am very much aware that, at the age of 20 I couldn’t have used public transport nor could I have afforded to live within walking/cycling distance of work. My suggestion wouldn’t stand a reasonableness test. I included it to encourage lateral thinking. Our infrastructure is predicated on the use of cars. Reducing the number of vehicles on the roads is appropriate but, without massively improved public transport, impractical. Cuba is an excellent example as, apparently, less than 1% of the population owns a car and while the average mileage on them might be around 250,000 miles it's taken them somewhere around 60 years to rack up those miles. Pretty much everything is recycled too. If there were only half a million or so cars on UK roads and they only did a few thousand miles a year we wouldn't have the problems we do. When I worked in an office in the middle of Edinburgh the car park was full by 7am so instead of getting a car I moved to somewhere with a decent bus service. Having nowhere to park, or it being expensive, does work. |
|
|
|
Post by Kellen on Dec 29, 2022 17:40:52 GMT
This certainly is worthy of grinding, I hope, everyone's gears. This woman in Birmingham is literally being arrested for an Orwellian thought crime. Standing on a sidewalk, praying in silence. No signs. No interfering with other people. No obstructing. No loud protestations. Nothing but stationary silence. Arrested. Is this truly England? I haven't watched the video, but I make a point of not believing, or reacting to a situation like this unless I have researched the circumstances. Let's think logically here for a moment. When a police officer detains a person on the street to ask questions, their purpose is to ascertain whether they are doing anything illegal; their questions are within the context of determining illegal conduct. The source video I previously shared includes clear audio and the police officer asks the woman, " Are you praying?" Think about that. An officer of the law is specifically asking this woman, within the context of ascertaining whether her behavior is illegal, to describe her own silent thoughts. That is indeed Orewellian. Mind you, I am not the religious type, but since when is silent prayer illegal in England? And she was subsequently arrested, as squeamish said, for "public space protection." Exactly what does her own silent praying have to do with public space protection, and why was that deemed a contributing factor of legal concern for the police officer? It is no wonder that reasonable people find this well over the top. Hopefully this is not a broader representation of modern England. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 29, 2022 17:56:34 GMT
Mind you, I am not the religious type, but since when is silent prayer illegal in England? When you are waiting to interfere with someone going for an abortion, potentially. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63302710 |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 29, 2022 17:59:11 GMT
Asking her if she was praying could be (and most likely was) incidental and not fundamental. Silent prayer could be illegal in many circumstances eg a) while standing in the middle of a highway b) (if carrying christian symbols) in a Mosque - likely to be breach of the peace. Edit - Regarding "b)" I should say my Degree is in Scots Law so I am not really up on Breach of the Peace in England.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Dec 29, 2022 18:49:19 GMT
I haven't watched the video, but I make a point of not believing, or reacting to a situation like this unless I have researched the circumstances. Let's think logically here for a moment. When a police officer detains a person on the street to ask questions, their purpose is to ascertain whether they are doing anything illegal; their questions are within the context of determining illegal conduct. The source video I previously shared includes clear audio and the police officer asks the woman, " Are you praying?" Think about that. An officer of the law is specifically asking this woman, within the context of ascertaining whether her behavior is illegal, to describe her own silent thoughts. That is indeed Orewellian. Mind you, I am not the religious type, but since when is silent prayer illegal in England? And she was subsequently arrested, as squeamish said, for "public space protection." Exactly what does her own silent praying have to do with public space protection, and why was that deemed a contributing factor of legal concern for the police officer? It is no wonder that reasonable people find this well over the top. Hopefully this is not a broader representation of modern England. This isn't aimed at reasonable people - it's a piece of propaganda intended to influence a particular group - religious antiabortion people - and it presents a slanted view. |
|
|
|
Post by Kellen on Dec 29, 2022 20:48:19 GMT
Let's think logically here for a moment. When a police officer detains a person on the street to ask questions, their purpose is to ascertain whether they are doing anything illegal; their questions are within the context of determining illegal conduct. The source video I previously shared includes clear audio and the police officer asks the woman, " Are you praying?" Think about that. An officer of the law is specifically asking this woman, within the context of ascertaining whether her behavior is illegal, to describe her own silent thoughts. That is indeed Orewellian. Mind you, I am not the religious type, but since when is silent prayer illegal in England? And she was subsequently arrested, as squeamish said, for "public space protection." Exactly what does her own silent praying have to do with public space protection, and why was that deemed a contributing factor of legal concern for the police officer? It is no wonder that reasonable people find this well over the top. Hopefully this is not a broader representation of modern England. This isn't aimed at reasonable people - it's a piece of propaganda intended to influence a particular group - religious antiabortion people - and it presents a slanted view. Huh? Help me understand. I fail to see how a video, lacking in commentary of any kind, and even devoid of contributory comments on YouTube (where it is housed), can be "slanted." It is a source video, meaning it is merely an unedited audio/visual recordation of what actually transpired. How does a source video warrant the moniker "slanted"? |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 29, 2022 21:30:13 GMT
Kellen. If you are anti abortion why not just say so instead of spouting [whatever] about the right to silently pray in public.
In the interests of fair play I did watch the friggin video. I trust you that she was asked if she was praying but in watching the friggin video I missed it which re-inforces my view that any such question was incidental. If you care to watch the video you will see and hear that the arrest was for the current and previous actions. It was also a completely by the book arrest by police officers who obviously were aware they were being videod by a fellow anti abortion activist.
Once more if your axe is anti abortion why not just play straight say so? Still it does not matter who hurt you it matters more who healed you.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 29, 2022 21:51:54 GMT
This isn't aimed at reasonable people - it's a piece of propaganda intended to influence a particular group - religious antiabortion people - and it presents a slanted view. Huh? Help me understand. I fail to see how a video, lacking in commentary of any kind, and even devoid of contributory comments on YouTube (where it is housed), can be "slanted." It is a source video, meaning it is merely an unedited audio/visual recordation of what actually transpired. How does a source video warrant the moniker "slanted"? She wasn't arrested for "silently praying". The title of the video should have read "Woman arrested for failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order". |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 29, 2022 21:59:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 29, 2022 22:00:03 GMT
Yee haa.
|
|
