The horrors of biofuels.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nick Finnigan on 29 Apr 2010 18:40 ash wrote: > On 29 Apr, 17:24, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> ash wrote: >>> On 28 Apr, 17:28, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> ash wrote: >>>>> On 27 Apr, 17:41, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> ash wrote: >>>>>>> BNF went bankrupt twice in the last 5 years and had to be bailed out >>>>>>> for about �1/2 billion last time before being given away to the >>>>>>> French. >>>>>> Do you mean British Energy? >>>>> Sorry, BNFL (typo) which then became British Energy before being >>>> No, it didn't. >>> British Energy was not a viable concern when using private investors >>> money to dabble with Nuclear power generation, that is why it was >>> bailed/bought out in 2003 by the UK government after a very short >>> existence as an energy producer. BNFL was also owned and run by the UK >>> government to manage the Nuclear power generation from the beginning >>> of the 70s. >> No, it wasn't. >> >> Whilst BNFL was run down in the 90s and its assets >> >>> virtually given away to British Energy, >> No, it wasn't. > > Look it up, and then come back with something of substance. BEs AGRs and PWR were not previously run by BNFL.
From: DavidR on 29 Apr 2010 19:02 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > Many/most of the disabled are no in a position to ride any kind of bike > Doug. As usual, you think of no one except yourself. If a blind person rides on the back of a tandem cease to qualify as disabled? Or a one legged cyclist? How about the people with back, hip or knee problems that struggle to walk a few yards but can easily ride a bike?
From: Doug on 30 Apr 2010 02:49 On 30 Apr, 00:02, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > Many/most of the disabled are no in a position to ride any kind of bike > > Doug. As usual, you think of no one except yourself. > > If a blind person rides on the back of a tandem cease to qualify as > disabled? Or a one legged cyclist? How about the people with back, hip or > knee problems that struggle to walk a few yards but can easily ride a bike? > Its because they are tarred with the same derogatory brush as cyclists in general. The disabled must either be seated in a wheelchair or a car to qualify. The fact that a wheelchair could do 20mph on a pavement doesn't matter. Its the image that counts. Anyone on a bicycle must be fighting fit and able bodied and lawless by definition. There can be no exceptions and that is why they are not allowed on pavements or railway platforms. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's regime.
From: Brimstone on 30 Apr 2010 02:52 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:a0aec45d-9f49-4989-b0e3-4649b90e0c17(a)w36g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On 30 Apr, 00:02, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > Many/most of the disabled are no in a position to ride any kind of bike >> > Doug. As usual, you think of no one except yourself. >> >> If a blind person rides on the back of a tandem cease to qualify as >> disabled? Or a one legged cyclist? How about the people with back, hip or >> knee problems that struggle to walk a few yards but can easily ride a >> bike? >> > Its because they are tarred with the same derogatory brush as cyclists > in general. The disabled must either be seated in a wheelchair or a > car to qualify. The fact that a wheelchair could do 20mph on a > pavement doesn't matter. Its the image that counts. Anyone on a > bicycle must be fighting fit and able bodied and lawless by > definition. There can be no exceptions and that is why they are not > allowed on pavements or railway platforms. > Doug, how many times do you have to be told. Bicycles are not allowed to be ridden on railway platforms for the safety of the rider and other people.
From: mileburner on 30 Apr 2010 04:31
Brimstone wrote: > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:a0aec45d-9f49-4989-b0e3-4649b90e0c17(a)w36g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... >> On 30 Apr, 00:02, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >>> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> >>> >>> >>>> Many/most of the disabled are no in a position to ride any kind of >>>> bike Doug. As usual, you think of no one except yourself. >>> >>> If a blind person rides on the back of a tandem cease to qualify as >>> disabled? Or a one legged cyclist? How about the people with back, >>> hip or knee problems that struggle to walk a few yards but can >>> easily ride a bike? >>> >> Its because they are tarred with the same derogatory brush as >> cyclists in general. The disabled must either be seated in a >> wheelchair or a car to qualify. The fact that a wheelchair could do >> 20mph on a pavement doesn't matter. Its the image that counts. >> Anyone on a bicycle must be fighting fit and able bodied and lawless >> by definition. There can be no exceptions and that is why they are >> not allowed on pavements or railway platforms. >> > Doug, how many times do you have to be told. Bicycles are not allowed > to be ridden on railway platforms for the safety of the rider and > other people. The risk is fairly obvious. The danger is that rider or pedestrian could topple off the edge and get seriously squished. |