Anyway, speed limits are not just for 'safety', they can be imposed to reduce road noise.
I'm sure taking an extra 70 yards to slow down in the early evening caused great pain and disruption to the local community.
|
I'm sure taking an extra 70 yards to slow down in the early evening caused great pain and disruption to the local community.
Don't you possibly think that an extra 70 yards could have caused great pain and suffering to a child or any person, dog, horse etc.
Have a little more consideration for others.
How much time does it actually save you, probably a couple of seconds.
|
I'm sure taking an extra 70 yards to slow down in the early evening caused great pain and disruption to the local community.
Don't you possibly think that an extra 70 yards could have caused great pain and suffering to a child or any person, dog, horse etc.
How often does that actually happen though? Children usually get killed because they run out from between parked cars. Dogs just run out into the road regardless, and horses ridden by riders can usually be seen far ahead.
There would be less fatalities and accidents if people actually used their eyes more and read the road ahead rather than doing their hair and make up, gibbering down their mobile phones or texting.
Less camera's, more responsibility. It's not going to happen though. The standard of driving gets worse by the year, and I find myself increasingly surrounded by talentless apes.
|
|
If there were no cameras, a proportion of the population wouldn't slow much, if at all. There is the occasional police driver, but they are a dwindling resource.
|
"If there were no cameras, a proportion of the population wouldn't slow much, if at all."
I agree.
What the whole argument about speed cameras comes down to, in my opinion, is personal responsibility. Previously, if you were a good driver you were aware of road conditions, you were observant of other drivers and considerate of them and you knew what your vehicle was capable of and you adapted your speed accordingly. Of course, a proportion of drivers never reached this standard.
Now, because of the sheer numbers of cars on the road, plus a general decline in people's sense of responsibility, together with a sense of invulnerability induced by a huge advance in car safety design, the significance of accidents seems that much greater.
Speed camers are a very blunt instrument. I have no doubt they do curb at least some irresponsible driving, but they also penalise responsible drivers who are basically safe, but who make a small error of judgment, or simply fail to be observant enough to spot the camera.
|
|
|
I'm sure taking an extra 70 yards to slow down in the early evening caused great pain and disruption to the local community.
I suppose if you don't care about anyone else then you can take that attitude. If the speed limit was to keep noise down, then hey who gives a damn if the residents suffer excessive traffic noise. If the limit was there because there is a hidden hazard, such as a hidden driveway, then hey who cares about the safety of the residents.
Don't you possibly think that an extra 70 yards could have caused great pain and suffering to a child or any person, dog, horse etc.
Have a little more consideration for others.
How much time does it actually save you, probably a couple of seconds.
The problem with your response is that we know that quite often, but by no means always, the speed limit starts on a stretch of road with no fixed hazards and good visibility. We have a 40 that starts where there is woodland on one side and a parallel road on the other side, with houses. But the limit is soon reduced to 30mph which is appropriate. So in this case doing as per Jamie would be anti-social but not dangerous, assuming there weren't hazards such as horses, dog walkers etc about of course.
|
|
|
Anyway, speed limits are not just for 'safety', they can be imposed to reduce road noise.
I'm sure taking an extra 70 yards to slow down in the early evening caused great pain and disruption to the local community.
By the way, given that you did not see the new limit until you were almost on it, what chance is there that you would see hazards, such as pedestrians or horse riders in dark clothing? So I think thre is good reason for you to obey the limit since you have already demonstrated poor observation skills. (Not that I always spot the limit, of course. Some signs are obscured by vegetation, or damaged. That is my excuse anyway. )
|
They sorted it in our village. They moved the limit signs back 200 yards or more at both ends. Then they posted camera vans regularly at each end and made a fortune.
Not as many doing 60 or more as they pass the start of the houses now.
Great improvment.
|
Didn't a Gubbermint not unlike ours say recently that Labours' war on the motorist was over?
Perhaps they meant to say a whole new wave of Tory terror is to sweep over the land to help us pay for windy mills and chavs, both of which don't actually work and our funding of foreign corrupt regimes and dictators thereof.
Well if it's war they want we'll see how tough they are when they are wanting us to vote them back into their over paid little jobs. Ditto local poly trickans.
|
Didn't a Gubbermint not unlike ours say recently that Labours' war on the motorist was over?
Perhaps they meant to say a whole new wave of Tory terror is to sweep over the land to help us pay for windy mills and chavs, both of which don't actually work and our funding of foreign corrupt regimes and dictators thereof.
Well if it's war they want we'll see how tough they are when they are wanting us to vote them back into their over paid little jobs. Ditto local poly trickans.
We are building windmills to satisfy EU emissions regs. Failure would mean fines. The funding for problem families is having success, and should pay back in terms of less problem families, less crime etc.
Well at least Labour did not take us to war in far off countries ... oh hang on a minute ...
Can't say I'm keen on Cameron, but is Wallace aka Milliband any better? Do you trust the party that wants to increase spending when we earn less than we spend as it is?
|
We are building windmills to satisfy EU emissions regs. Failure would mean fines.
Which is why we need to leave the European Union as soon as possible. Their bonkers emission laws are already driving industry to India and the EU's economic output is declining every single year. Since when could a great, proud, historic nation like ours be fined by anybody? Makes you sick doesn't it, especially as none of us have ever voted for it.
Do you trust the party that wants to increase spending when we earn less than we spend as it is?
No but the problem is you're talking about all three main parties there. The Conservatives are also committed to spending more than we earn. The differences between the three parties is incredibly marginal, just three brands of social democracy run by three career politicians who've never done a days work in their lives. They play up their tiny differences but on the big issues they're all the same.
With that in mind I'll be voting UKIP next time round, even if it does engineer a Labour win because...well...what difference would it make anyway?
|
Jamie obviously thinks we have a Conservative Governement
We do not.
As for UKIP? Al and Di from the Aldi advert on Home and Away make more sense.
|
Jamie obviously thinks we have a Conservative Governement
Hardly. If you read what I actually wrote you'll see I described the Conservatives as another brand of social democracy. I said all three main parties are essentially identical and it makes no difference which one wins.
I used to mock UKIP but the days of Kilroy-Silk are over, Farage has done a very good job and they're the only party broadly saying what I think. The status-quo establishment do their best to destroy them, obviously, because UKIP are a threat to the establishment so they'll rally to convince you there is no alternative to the LibLabCon.
That tactic has been played throughout history and always by desperate oligarchs who are running scared. I'm not falling for it. Are you?
|
I wonder if you go on a political forum they talk about motoring.
|
Unfortunately it's not a huge leap from speeding fines to politics;
Speeding fines - money - Government revenue - politics.
|
Nigel is perhaps so comfortable as an MEP in enemy territory that he doesn't seem to want to contest Eastleigh. Opportunity missed? Or acknowledgement that life is so much more rewarding on an MEP salary with EU special tax rates and expenses. The work he carries out as an MEP is hardly demanding, as he rarely attends. Leaving room to play the nearly man. Surrendering the sinecure on one hand, and making a risky bid for a UKIP seat in the HP is not to be taken lightly for a leader, n'est pas? Just suppose he stood, and the voters say non. The "establishment" won't destroy him: the electorate might.
|
Or acknowledgement that life is so much more rewarding on an MEP salary with EU special tax rates and expenses.
A) MEPs don't get expenses, they get allowances and every MEP of every party gets exactly the same.
B) Nigel Farage used to be a City trader and earned a damned sight more there than the 70k odd pre-tax you get as an MEP - and probably put in far fewer hours.
The work he carries out as an MEP is hardly demanding
You could say that about every MEP, yet I don't see you complaining about Labour/LibDem/Tory MEPs who are all there just to pick up the money.
as he rarely attends.
The more time you spend in Brussells - the more allowances you receive. You're incentivised to stay out of your constituency and in Belgium, hence why MEPs refer to it as SISO - Sign In and Sod Off.
Farage probably does more travelling, campaigning and actual work than any other MEP we send to that mysterious place. Do you even know the name of any Labour/Tory MEP?
This 'UKIP are just in Brussells for the money' line has been used by the establishment for years, they accused Alex Salmond of the same thing when he was in the House of Commons campaigning for his country to not be part of it.
UKIP voters want Farage in Brussells because frankly he's more use there than in Eastleigh.
The "establishment" won't destroy him: the electorate might.
The electorate gets what it deserves then. If you feel our interests are best served by the LibLabCon - who are all exactly the same party - then you go ahead and vote for them.
|
"UKIP voters want Farage in Brussells because frankly he's more use there than in Eastleigh."
Why? Do you think he has any, any, influence in the EU? If Nigel wants power, he'd better start at home. Just because he got a seat in a barely contested election doesn't mean he can where the other parties lay into his lack of support other than the mayflies he currently attracts.
|
can where the other parties lay into his lack of support other than the mayflies he currently attracts.
Why do Ukip's detractors always want to play the man rather than the ball? There's always the snide suggestion that anyone who dares to express doubts about the glorious European Project must be a xenophobic 'fruitcake' ormerrie Englander. Perhaps it's because the list of the EU's tangible achievements is rather small. In fact, since the failure of the Euro, all the Europhiles have left is scaremongering and unfalsifiable claim such as:
"If it weren't for the European Union, there would be another war in Europe"
(Conveniently ignoring all the years following the end of WWII when there wasn't an EU or a war in Europe.
or,
"If we withdraw from the EU, British trade would suffer"
(Conveniently ignoring the fact that most of our trade with Europe is imports. I can't really see France refusing to sell us wine, or the Germans refusing to sell us cars)
Then there's the spurious claim that the British are 'bad' Europeans. How many Poles are there in 'good' European countries like France or Germany? Not many, because they're not permitted to work there The only countries which upheld the principle of free movement of people were Ireland and the UK.
If it weren't for the fruitcakes, we too would be stuck in the quagmire that is the Euro.
|
Why do Ukip's detractors always want to play the man rather than the ball?
Because if we play the game with the ball then UKIPs arguments actually win. For the first decade the establishment just ignored them, when that ceased to be possible they set about denigrating UKIP (loonies, fruitcakes, closet racists etc).
"If it weren't for the European Union, there would be another war in Europe"
(Conveniently ignoring all the years following the end of WWII when there wasn't an EU or a war in Europe.
They ignore the fact stable democracies don't shoot each other, they believe the existance of individual countries causes war so we must break them up and live as one. There was no prospect of a post-war, democratic Germany invading anybody, frankly. I find that line quite insulting to the good people who have run Germany since 1945.
The establishment claiming 'without this, everything would be worse' is hardly new. Afterall they did that with slavery and the corn laws.
"If we withdraw from the EU, British trade would suffer"
(Conveniently ignoring the fact that most of our trade with Europe is imports. I can't really see France refusing to sell us wine, or the Germans refusing to sell us cars)
We are the EU's biggest export market in the World. If they tried to put up trade barriers to stop BMW selling cars here then BMW would bring down the German Government inside about 3 minutes. You don't need politics to do business. Switzerland and Norway have free trade with the EU without being members paying £50m a day.
However massive British corperates might suffer. Afterall, EU membership makes tax avoidance much easier, hence why the congolomerates mouthpiece, the CBI (who advocated joining the Euro in 2001) claim we'd lose jobs without EU membership.
Edited by jamie745 on 13/02/2013 at 21:01
|
Nigel is perhaps so comfortable as an MEP in enemy territory
Not exactly the best advert is he, sitting in a cushy euro seat with nice pay, and not doing much.
|
|
|
No but the problem is you're talking about all three main parties there. The Conservatives are also committed to spending more than we earn. The differences between the three parties is incredibly marginal, just three brands of social democracy run by three career politicians who've never done a days work in their lives. They play up their tiny differences but on the big issues they're all the same.
With that in mind I'll be voting UKIP next time round, even if it does engineer a Labour win because...well...what difference would it make anyway?
They are different, but yes they are career politicians, too many lawyers and marketing peeps rather than business peeps and scientists. UKIP must be sponsored by Labour.
|
Why? Do you think he has any, any, influence in the EU? If Nigel wants power, he'd better start at home.
He has no influence in the EU because the EU is run by unelected people. His influence is in hammering the Eurocrats and it ending up on Youtube, attracting followers and hopefully turning into votes back at home to get us out of the EU.
Nigel doesn't want power, if he wanted power he'd have sat at the back of the room in the Tory party and just quietly wandered into a job. Nigel wants the country to have a referendum on EU membership and doesn't really care which party gives it to us.
Not exactly the best advert is he, sitting in a cushy euro seat with nice pay, and not doing much.
You can say that about every MEP from every party, yet you only target one? What do you suggest he does instead? Tiny parties can take several decades to break through under FPTP in the UK and UKIP needed a platform so they targeted the European Parliament where they lead it's first ever opposition. You say 'nice pay' but I wouldn't do the hours he does, with the agro he gets for 70k a year pre-tax.
You say he doesn't do much, but if it wasn't for UKIP we wouldn't even be talking about the EU in this country and Cameron wouldn't have been forced into that speech a couple of weeks ago.
UKIP must be sponsored by Labour.
Oh I'm sure, but Labour don't realise many 'old labour' people have gone UKIP as well, but they are a bigger threat to Cameron obviously. Camerons own fault, if he wants to shoot UKIP dead then call the referendum before 2015.
|
Cameron won't need to worry too much about UKIP as the media will do it for him. Those who remember the referendum of whether or not to stay in the Common Market may recall the polls a few weeks before the referendum showed a huge majority for leaving it.
However a vast effort by the media reversed this and the staying in vote won by a huge majority. Already planning will in be play to discredit Nigel and UKIP. They will get my vote of protest anyway as I vowed years ago never again to vote for any of the main parties.
wemyss
|
If "He has no influence in the EU because the EU is run by unelected people." were true, which is absurd, why does Farage take part in it, and claim allowances and expenses from a tainted source? BTW, his allowances and expenses seem to have remained opaque despite promising to post details on his website. Too busy perhaps?
Re "UKIP needed a platform so they targeted the European Parliament where they lead it's first ever opposition." Rubbish. There are 7 groupings, some of which have had major disputes amongst themselves. They don't need UKIP for that.
|
If "He has no influence in the EU because the EU is run by unelected people." were true, which is absurd,
It is true. The Commission has the power and no citizen of Europe has voted for any of those people to have those jobs. The 'European Parliament' is a sham as it's the unelected Commission which reserves sole right to propose legislation. President Barroso even boasted that he was 'elected' by the European Council via a secret ballot.
why does Farage take part in it, and claim allowances and expenses from a tainted source?
Why did Alex Salmond sit in Westminster for years while campaigning for Scotland to leave it?
What would you have Farage do instead exactly? Have you never heard of keeping your enemies closer or joining something to bring it down? The European Parliament gives his cause the biggest platform he could get. He gives the anti-EU movement a voice from exactly where the EU don't want it - in their own back yard. They absolutely hate him which must be a good sign.
From there he's been able to start a debate which the LibLabCon don't want to have, he's denied the Tories a majority in 2010, taken his minority party to solid 3rd in the opinion polls and forced a PM to make a speech on Europe for the first time in 40 years. Could he have done that as a councillor in some Surrey backwater or constantly coming third in by-elections?
BTW, his allowances and expenses seem to have remained opaque despite promising to post details on his website. Too busy perhaps?
It doesn't really matter if they're published because every MEP gets the same amount in a lump sum anyway. As I said, the fact he doesn't attend Brussells that often - something you criticise him for - means he's actually missed out on allowances.
Nigel Farage is someone who in the early 90s decided he couldn't vote for anyone on the ballot list so rather than doing nothing - like you - he decided to stand himself, even though it meant giving up a career with a better wage than any MEP. I can always respect someone who got off their a*** and fought for what they believe in, rather than sitting in their armchair and just throwing abuse at everyone else - like you.
People like you will sit in your armchair, slate everybody who says something you find uncomfortable and keep voting for the LibLabCon MEP's to transfer power from Britain to Brussells every single day. I don't want to be asked by my grandson in 60 years time why I did nothing to stop Britain becoming part of a European Superstate with people like Barroso at the top.
|
Legislation is proposed by the Commission. European Parliament decides, and debates the issues. Farage just a noise and is an embarrassment. When UKIP puts up for Parliament they will be part of the formal political process, or not. The only abuse here comes from the usual source.
|
The point is only the unelected Commission can propose legislation and once it's become law, there is nothing you or me can do in any general election to change it, unless you vote for a party which will leave the EU. I'm not interested in arguing how the institution works because I want my country out of it, I don't really care how the EU controls our lives, I just care that it does.
No wonder turnout is less than two-thirds in general elections now, our Government controls extremely little so we may as well vote for that penguin for all the difference it makes.
Farage just a noise and is an embarrassment.
The embarassments are the people who invented the Euro and still claim it's a success. People like David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and the rest of the political class who have constantly lied to us and given away our democratic control of our country are the real embarassments.
The only abuse here comes from the usual source.
My great-grandfather died for my liberty and freedom, as did many other great men twice in the last century. Our political class have given much of that liberty and freedom away to the EU and although times have changed and it's not the Nazi police or the Soviet gulags, it's still an erosion of democracy which I find disgusting. If you're standing in my way of getting that back then I can have no respect for you as a person, sorry.
|
Legislation is proposed by the Commission. European Parliament decides, and debates the issues.
Indeed. However, does anyone know who the MEPs are, what they are debating, and what they decide? The answer is no, they don't. Which means that they are not held to account, and in many respects the EU is no more than a junket for many MEP's, and for others it is a power trip. They make laws, and feel self important. In practice many laws are plain stupid (such as requiring cars to carry spare bulbs, even though many can only be replaced by a garage) and others result from horse trading i.e. we pass this law which suits your country, if you pass that law which suits us. There is at present an attempt to destroy the UK banking industry, because we dominate banking in Europe. The accession of Eastern European countries was encouraged by bribing the new entrants, legally of course, in order to make the EU commissioners even more important. We no longer have control of our borders, we do not have ultimate control over our laws, the EU is moving towards political union, it just gets worse.
Farage just a noise and is an embarrassment. When UKIP puts up for Parliament they will be part of the formal political process, or not. The only abuse here comes from the usual source.
Yes, Farage is an embarrassment.
|
Why? Do you think he has any, any, influence in the EU? If Nigel wants power, he'd better start at home.
He has no influence in the EU because the EU is run by unelected people. His influence is in hammering the Eurocrats and it ending up on Youtube, attracting followers and hopefully turning into votes back at home to get us out of the EU.
The EU is run by elected MEPs. However, no-one really knows who they are, what they do, and what the EU does, so in many respects the EU is anti-democratic, and pro self interested bureacrats.
Not exactly the best advert is he, sitting in a cushy euro seat with nice pay, and not doing much.
You can say that about every MEP from every party, yet you only target one?
Because of hypocrisy. He argues against the EU, and yet he is an MEP and has a dismal voting record, preferring to take the money and not participate fully, even if only to argue against the EU. His verbally abusing Von Rumpuy was childish.
You say he doesn't do much, but if it wasn't for UKIP we wouldn't even be talking about the EU in this country and Cameron wouldn't have been forced into that speech a couple of weeks ago.
Sadly that is true. Or perhaps not sadly, it is about time we actually debated the EU beyond the facile sound bite-ism of Labourites. "Oooh, if we leave the EU, the economy will collapse, companies will pull out of the EU, the earth will open up, flames will leap out of the depths and consume anyone not wiped out by plaque and pestilence, and if we stay it will be all cuddly, lovely and soooo nice darling, care for some more avocado dip?." Or something like that, I'm sure the actual Labour response would make the preceding sentence sound sensible.
Oh I'm sure, but Labour don't realise many 'old labour' people have gone UKIP as well, but they are a bigger threat to Cameron obviously. Camerons own fault, if he wants to shoot UKIP dead then call the referendum before 2015.
I don't believe Reds would go UKIP.
|
The EU is run by elected MEPs.
No it's not. Only the unelected Commission of Civil Servants can set the agenda, propose the creation and repeal of legislation. The EU has already removed elected leaders in Eurozone countries so I'd argue the EU hates the very notion of democracy.
Because of hypocrisy. He argues against the EU, and yet he is an MEP
So in your world you're only allowed to be an MEP if you 100% agree with the entire project?
He became an MEP to find out what goes on 'over there' where nobody is looking and report back here. He's there to give a voice of opposition. Alex Salmond sat in the Commons for years while campaigning for his country to not be under its rule. There is plenty of historical precident of people joining Parliaments they don't want to be in so can we drop this ridiculous 'hypocrisy' argument please?
Have you never heard of keeping your enemies closer or joining things to bring them down? His MEP status gives him the biggest possible platform for the anti-EU message and brilliantly that platform is where the EU least want it - their own backyard.
and has a dismal voting record, preferring to take the money and not participate fully
Good. I don't want him participating in the project. If he participated then you could accuse him of hypocrisy but thankfully he always votes against the EU or doesn't vote at all. His voters put him there because they want us out of the EU, not because they want Farage to make it work better for us.
I'd say the LibLabCon, who take the money while going out of their way to destroy British democracy, jobs and industry are even more of an insult than someone who just takes the cash and causes us no harm.
His verbally abusing Von Rumpuy was childish.
It was no worse than what you see in the Commons every week.
I don't believe Reds would go UKIP.
Well that depends. Don't forget as recently as 1983, withdrawal from the EEC was in the Labour manifesto. In the 70s they were the opposition to us joining the common market, they said it'd damage jobs and democracy and they were right.
The Labour leadership (much like the Tories) is now so far removed from it's general voting base it's unreal. It's traditional, patriotic working class Labour who see the effects of uncontrolled, mass immigration every day and list it as one of their biggest concerns. The Labour Party left those people behind a long time ago.
|
The EU is run by elected MEPs.
No it's not. Only the unelected Commission of Civil Servants can set the agenda, propose the creation and repeal of legislation.
No they don't. They implement the decisions of the elected representatives. Or at least that should be the case, assuming the elected reps take the lead as they are supposed to. I suppose you might get the "Oui M. le ministre, cela est une decision tres brave" ...
The EU has already removed elected leaders in Eurozone countries so I'd argue the EU hates the very notion of democracy.
I agree with that. The founders of the EU knew it was to be a political union, and not to tell the public as they would not agree to that.
I don't believe Reds would go UKIP.
Well that depends. Don't forget as recently as 1983, withdrawal from the EEC was in the Labour manifesto. In the 70s they were the opposition to us joining the common market, they said it'd damage jobs and democracy and they were right.
The Labour leadership (much like the Tories) is now so far removed from it's general voting base it's unreal. It's traditional, patriotic working class Labour who see the effects of uncontrolled, mass immigration every day and list it as one of their biggest concerns. The Labour Party left those people behind a long time ago.
Nonsense. So why do Labour lead the polls by a large margin? Why has Dead Millipede stated that Labour got it wrong on immigration?
|
No they don't. They implement the decisions of the elected representatives. Or at least that should be the case
It should be but it isn't. Everybody - except the EFD group lead by UKIP - is a total fanatic supporter of the concept of political union and a federal Europe. Everybody agrees. The Commission holds the power, some of whom are former communists from the Soviet regime and none of whom have been elected by the public.
In Westminster, elected people set the agenda and the civil servants carry out their instructions. In Brussels it's the other way around.
Nonsense. So why do Labour lead the polls by a large margin? Why has Dead Millipede stated that Labour got it wrong on immigration?
Labour lead because people want the free money taps turned back on and they think Labour is the only alternative. Interestingly those same polls say the public still trust Osborne more than Balls on the economy, so that huge lead is soft.
Labour did get it wrong on immigration but as EU members no British Government can change those rules so his speech is worthless. Labour left their patriotic working class behind when they signed up to Eastern European expansion and told us we need them because the British working class are useless, feckless and lazy. That's when they left those people behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|