Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:38 PM GMTSo they could build more houses and destroy more of the environment?
I don't even know what you're saying there. You think people living in the countryside means building more houses? The countryside should be empty, and only used for transport links?
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:43 PM GMTSo you want to turn the entire country into an industrial wasteland covered in factories and train tracks?
The country is already covered in train tracks and their environmental impact is minimal. When we finally get transporter technology and the railway tracks are taken away, what will happen to the countryside? Oh, it will go back to normal as if nothing had happened.
BTW, they are not concreting all of the countryside in Britain - quite the opposite, they're going to be knocking down houses made of concrete already blotting the landscape.
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:46 PM GMTI don't even know what you're saying there. You think people living in the countryside means building more houses? The countryside should be empty, and only used for transport links?
That is exactly what I mean. The suburbs create far more environmental damage then all the cars, planes and toxic factories combined. What was once natural land has been destroyed so people who don't want to live in the city can send their chavvy kids to all white schools in the hopes they won't become drug addicts.
You clearly know more about the area I grew up in than I do. It's not affecting the centuries-old villages after all, just a bunch of concrete houses, apparently.
Silly me!
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:48 PM GMTYou clearly know more about the area I grew up in than I do. It's not affecting the centuries-old villages after all, just a bunch of concrete houses, apparently.
Silly me!
The centuries-old villages have grown beyond their borders and an entire road network has been created to deal with this ever increasing population growth - including the constant builing of new Tescos, B&Qs, etc.
If you want to keep the countryside natural, then everyone should be forced to live in a city.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:48 PM GMTThat is exactly what I mean. The suburbs create far more environmental damage then all the cars, planes and toxic factories combined. What was once natural land has been destroyed so people who don't want to live in the city can send their chavvy kids to all white schools in the hopes they won't become drug addicts.
I don't think you quite understand what the countryside entails. I'm not talking about the suburbs, I'm talking about villages which have been there for hundreds of years. And fields, and farms.
Maybe you should get out of London a bit more.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:51 PM GMTIf you want to keep the countryside natural, then everyone should be forced to live in a city.
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:52 PM GMTMaybe you should get out of London a bit more.
On second thoughts, please don't.
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:52 PM GMTI don't think you quite understand what the countryside entails. I'm not talking about the suburbs, I'm talking about villages which have been there for hundreds of years. And fields, and farms.
Maybe you should get out of London a bit more.
I have been outside of London and every single piece of the countryside I've seen has been altered and managed by man.
This Last of the Summer Wine / James Herriot view you have of the countryside is woefully outdated. Particularly if you go to Kent or Essex, where all of the villages just seem to be a loosely connected network of larger suburbs.
Now, it would be nice to think that similar connurbations won't occur in the rest of Britain, but that is a naive point of view. We are a tiny island nation with an ever increasing population and a failing agricultural economy. It won't be long before most of the countryside becomes suburbs.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:43 PM GMTHas video conferencing stopped the halt of traffic on our roads? Has email stopped people from sending packages through the post? Will an estimated increase in the UK population stop people from using trains?
Aside from trains, the only other option to get people moving around Britain quickly are planes. But every time a new runway is suggested, people go ape shit, so it has to be a high speed rail network.
Obviously e-mail has not stopped people sending parcels, er how could it? but it has stopped people sending letters, hence the Royal Mail being in such dire straits.
Traffic on the road could most effectively eased by putting resources into improving existing public transport infrastructure, though in fact the cost of fuel is already reducing motorists' annual mileage and the price of fuel is only going to go up, so congestion on the roads is likely to become a decreasing problem. The challenge of the future will be finding money to upkeep the existing rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
Video conferencing - coupled to tighter budgets - is already significantly reducing business travel, certainly in the public sector. As people get out of the habit of attending meeting sin person and the technology improves so it feels like you are in the same room, face to face meetings will become increasingly rare.
If increasing population is the issue how about we invest the money in immigration controls?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:57 PM GMTThis Last of the Summer Wine / James Herriot view you have of the countryside is woefully outdated.
I'm from the f**king countryside you numpty.
I can't be bothered to talk about this anymore. Especially to idiots.
No offence and all that.
Quote: Timbo @ January 10 2012, 4:58 PM GMTTraffic on the road could most effectively eased by putting resources into improving existing public transport infrastructure, though in fact the cost of fuel is already reducing motorists' annual mileage and the price of fuel is only going to go up, so congestion on the roads is likely to become a decreasing problem.
Except, upgrading the existing transport infrastructure will grind Britain to a halt and will cost far more then building a new high speed network. Anyone who has had to deal with the current London Underground upgrade knows just what a butt ache this has become.
As for decreasing congestion on the roads - well the Hammersmith Flyover, an existing piece of infrastructure, is being upgraded at the moment and West London has turned into a car park.
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 5:00 PM GMTI'm from the f**king countryside you numpty.
I can't be bothered to talk about this anymore. Especially to idiots.
No offence and all that.
'numpty', 'idiot', 'no offence'.
Yes, well argued, I concur. 
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 10 2012, 4:51 PM GMTIf you want to keep the countryside natural, then everyone should be forced to live in a city.
I saw Babe2 didn't work out so well...
Quote: sootyj @ January 10 2012, 5:15 PM GMTI saw Babe2 didn't work out so well...
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 5:00 PM GMTOoh arr I'm from the f**king countryside me lover.
I can't be bothered to talk about this anymore. Especially to idiots.
No offence and all that.So I'm going to drink a flagon of scrumpy hop on my tractor ride over to your farm and give you both barrels.
Get orf moi land!
A most bucolic post.
The country side is nice to look at. But it's full of poverty, pollution, racists, chavs, nimby wankers, guardinista nimby hypocrite wankers, Hugh Fernley Shittingballs, Hugh Fernley Shitting Bulls vast smug self satisfied f**king face and psychiatric hospitals rammed full of paedophile cannibals.
No one should live there. It should exist as a vast safari park for people to look at, but never ever get out of their cars.
Quote: sootyj @ January 10 2012, 5:20 PM GMTpsychiatric hospitals rammed full of paedophile cannibals.
A couple of HS2 protestors.
Quote: zooo @ January 10 2012, 4:34 PM GMTIt's truly unnecessary. If it was shaving a couple of hours off travel time, maybe I could SLIGHTLY see the point. But it's 30 minutes. It's pathetic.
Isn't the current journey time under an hour and a half? 30 minutes off that is rather significant.
It takes me 2.5 hours to get to London from where I am now. a) it actually goes pretty quickly, b) I wouldn't want to ruin miles and miles of countryside just to make it 30 mins faster. In fact that would horrify me.