Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Restaurant damaged by car.
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: BrianW on 23 May 2010 16:56 On May 22, 9:11�pm, Marie <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On May 22, 3:58�pm, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > On 22 May, 10:14, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:> Doug wrote: > > > > Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, > > > > Here we have a motorist MP in a motorist dominated parliament in a > > > > motorist dominated country turning a blind eye to all the harm and > > > > nuisance caused by motorists and letting them off lightly, as do the > > > > cops and the courts. > > > > Not fond of democracy, then? > > > Certainly not fond of what pretends to be democracy.. > > > -- > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net > > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob. > > But Doug, you don't want democracy, you are an anarchist. > An anarrchist who wants more laws for some parts of the comunity bur > not for others. > You tell us that democracy is 'mob rule' & you don't want that. > But you are very happy for your art's mates to try to rule by a mob & > CM is mob rule. > > Doug why don't you just admit it you don't know what you want, you > don,t understand anything you want, in fact your knowledge of the > world is about as much as a slugs. > > Go away until you know what you are talking about. Oh, that's not fair. Doug does know what he wants, and with an impressive level of detail. He wants the right for him and his mates to do whatever they like. And for the rest of us to do what Doug and his mates like. The only bit he gets wrong is the name. He calls it "anarchism". The rest of the world knows it as "Stalinism".
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 24 May 2010 05:21 On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:28:29 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> but that defeats the object if 11.30 represents leaving a pub. >>> Does it? >> >> yes. > >I don't understand. I often leave pubs and drive home at that time or later. I think you do. >What am I doing wrong? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 24 May 2010 05:30 On Sat, 22 May 2010 18:37:34 +0100, Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: >> I live in London where the PT is probably the best and the congestion >> the worst. If going into the centre I take the train, all other >> journeys are quicker by car by at least 50%. > >That would depend entirely on how close you are to a station etc and how >easy parking is at the other end. Of course it would be easy to find an >example of a cross town route where a car might be quicker - but equally >easy to find plenty where it's not. parking round this part of London is a non issue and there are no tubes. So its nearly always quickest by car unless the journey matches up with the radial nature of the transport.The nearest station is a 15 minute walk. My partner can drive to work in 30 minutes, it took a colleague 90 by PT using the route she would have to use (into the centre and out again). We tend to be either going to the centre on a train or moving around the outer suburbs in a car. As does pretty much everybody who can drive. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 24 May 2010 05:34 On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:47:21 +0100, "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >Indeed, and on the contrary, if you *do* like driving, then do just it and >leave it at that. There is no need to turn it into some kind of religion or >human right and at the same time delude yourself in thinking that it *has* >to be done. I know nobody who does that in the way you describe >>>but even when I do choose to drive >>>(even though I don't actually want to) I don't delude myself in thinking >>>that I had no choice. There is always a choice. >> >> but as has been said, when people say "I have to drive" they almost >> never mean what you say above. It is shorthand for "to live this >> lifestyle I need to drive", almost everybody understands this. > >There was me thinking that when people say "I have to drive" they actually >meant it. Silly me. Perhaps people should be a bit more honest with >themselves. No, you should "read for sense", they are not being dishonest, you are willfully misunderstanding them. >Having to drive may considerably increase cost, stress, and the time >dedicated to work etc. my extensive experience of commuting by PT cased lots of cost, stress and lost time too. >I would have thought that anyone with a bit of savvy >would build those factors into any decision they make about jobs and career >decisions. they do. >SWMBO has turned down plenty of temp work where she would "have" >to drive, see, even you say it, pity you do don't see the "" when others say it. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 24 May 2010 05:37
On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:32:55 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >But then no one is fond of your preferred style of government. Even our >current system is better that dictatorial rule by someone like Stalin, >Hitler, that's it, we got to nazis. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |