A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Here's a good idea



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 10th 17, 09:36 PM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Andrew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Here's a good idea

On 10/02/2017 21:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.


Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover the
entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with change
to spare.

Andy


The only figure that you need to pay attention to is the amount of
money the government collects every year, from all sources.
How much it spends, and from those how much it needs to borrow
to add to the national debt.

We still borrow £70 billion every year to carry on deluding
ourselves that we are rich country.
  #12  
Old February 10th 17, 10:21 PM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Here's a good idea



"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 10/02/2017 21:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.


Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover the
entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with change
to spare.

Andy


The only figure that you need to pay attention to is the amount of
money the government collects every year, from all sources.
How much it spends, and from those how much it needs to borrow
to add to the national debt.

We still borrow £70 billion every year to carry on deluding
ourselves that we are rich country.


You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

  #13  
Old February 11th 17, 07:40 AM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Woody[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Here's a good idea


"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 08/02/2017 21:27, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:20:11 -0000, "Phil L"
wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come
over
here for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would
be
that department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it
it
would reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be
inflated to well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would
relieve
the NHS staff of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of
difference if
OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn
sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill
would stay
the same, or likely, go up.
This is because Government works like this: make Joe Public pay
over and
above what we actually need, then we can spend the extra trillions
on ****
no one hears about or understands, if they ask, we'll give em some
easy
answers to keep the brain dead arguing amongst themselves, and by
the time,
or if they ever realise, they'll be too old to be believed.
Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which
colour badge
they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots)
there's only
one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every other ****
who goes
out and gives it to them so they can continue ripping everyone off
and
spending it on whatever they like.


So true.


I pay 900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times
for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as
it's
hardly ever full. 53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining
about some
fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?


Doesn't your council tax cover other things like sewage, pavements,
roads, raid
furniture, street lights,







"the cost of cutting down trees",


So you have been to Sheffield then?


Brilliant place. Every road and pavement is going to be resurfaced
and any trees in the way will be chopped down and any protesters
that object to a tree being cut down will be arrested under the
Trade Union Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-38892263

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241






I am surprised Sheffield City Council has not been sued for damage to
vehicle suspension from those using Button Hill. I have to say it is
one of the worst road surfaces that I have ever seen.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com


  #14  
Old February 11th 17, 09:49 AM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Here's a good idea

On 10/02/2017 22:20, ARW wrote:

Every road and pavement is going to be resurfaced and
any trees in the way will be chopped down and any protesters that object
to a tree being cut down will be arrested under the Trade Union Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-38892263


Being arrested is rather different from being convicted. That section
of the Act is in the section on Trade Union led Industrial Disputes.
Individuals taking action are by definition not part of a Trade Union
led Industrial Dispute.

This action is a convenient way of removing people from a place where
they are causing a hindrance to work planned, but it leaves the council
and police exposed to civil damages for false imprisonment.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241


You need to read the whole section, not just a single clause quoted out
of context.

Jim
  #15  
Old February 11th 17, 07:19 PM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Vir Campestris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default Here's a good idea

On 10/02/2017 21:52, Tim Streater wrote:
The County (or unitary authority) manages local roads repair and
certainly is responsible for fixing of potholes. Are you saying they
all get a grant from central govt for that purpose?


No, I'm saying that the taxes on motorists are big enough to cover it.

LAs do get central grants, and do have other sources. It's not possible
to say which tax money went where. Except that the taxes on motorists
are enough to pay for the buses and railways too, which implies not all
of it ends up in the roads budget.

Andy
  #16  
Old February 12th 17, 10:45 AM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Andrew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Here's a good idea

On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

An FWD car joining a main road accelerates as it turns,
so the driven wheels are exterting a tearing effect on
the road, whereas a RWD car has its driven wheels
kept parallel (assuming a live axle), and the front
wheels are just rolling along the road.
  #17  
Old February 12th 17, 11:01 AM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Andrew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Here's a good idea

On 10/02/2017 23:21, wrote:


You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.


Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

If you had bothered to pay attention during the run up to the
2010 election, when Gordon Browns *deficit* had exceeded the
annual cost of the 'free' NHS, you might have heard reference
to the 'structural deficit'.

This is the amount of impossible growth that the economy
would need to achieve to remove that deficit. Hence the
the so-called 'cuts', which aren't cuts at all. Hardly
anything has been cut. You need to see what Healey was
forced to do in 1976 after the IMF bailed us out to
understand what 'cuts' means. That will happen again.

The basic rate of tax would have to be 40% to get rid
of that deficit. Try plugging that into the treasury
model to see the effect on the economy.

And of course such tax increases would not be paid by
the 20 Million people living off the Labour partys
gerrymandering handouts like Housing Benefit, 'free' NHS
'free' prescriptions; 'free' motability cars, 'free'
child benefit with no upper limit and of course pensions.

On a recent BBC R4 World at one someone from Ffylde was
being interviewed about the so-called NHS 'crisis'. He said
the just 3% of the local population are responsible for 50%
of their costs. many of them repeat 'offenders' with weight
problems, type2 diabetis and all the ensuing complications,
and of course substance abusers and LOL's blocking beds.

  #18  
Old February 12th 17, 11:28 AM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Here's a good idea

On 12/02/2017 11:45, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.


You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

My theory is slightly different. Before we joined the Common Market,
the legislated standard road weight limit was 24 tons [1] (apart from
overweight loads, which had to have a police escort) and the roads were
built with the expectation that the number of occasions where they had
to carry more than 24 tons were few and far between. Heavier loads were
routinely carried by rail. Those rail routes were decimated by
Beeching's axe because Beeching worked for a man who owned a road
building company and wanted to spend the money on motorways instead.

After we joined the Common Market, we were not allowed to impose our
standards on anyone else, but we had to adopt theirs. At that time the
default for most of the Common Market was 38 tons. Our weight limit was
revoked, but no special work was carried out on British roads to make
their foundations prepared for increased weight; that only happened
when new roads were built or existing roads were overhauled. Meanwhile
the transport industry stopped buying the home grown Bedford, Guy and
Commer lorries designed for 24 tons, and started buying Scania, Iveco,
Daf, Volvo etc which were bigger then, and got even bigger later, and
now we have lorries routinely weighing 48 tons on our roads some of
which are still designed for half that weight, along with bendy-buses
which break up the road surface at every bus stop they use.

Meanwhile, local authorities try to skimp on repairs by patching the top
surface when ideally it is the road foundations that need to be
strengthened.

No wonder our roads are falling to pieces.

[1] The road haulage lobby asked for this limit originally, to halt the
incursions into their business model of (eg Foden) steam lorries which
could haul huge loads at low speeds.

Jim
  #19  
Old February 12th 17, 01:18 PM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Woody[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Here's a good idea


"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2017 11:45, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.


You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain
wear and tear away from corners and junctions.

My theory is slightly different. Before we joined the Common
Market, the legislated standard road weight limit was 24 tons [1]
(apart from overweight loads, which had to have a police escort) and
the roads were built with the expectation that the number of
occasions where they had to carry more than 24 tons were few and far
between. Heavier loads were routinely carried by rail. Those rail
routes were decimated by Beeching's axe because Beeching worked for
a man who owned a road building company and wanted to spend the
money on motorways instead.

After we joined the Common Market, we were not allowed to impose our
standards on anyone else, but we had to adopt theirs. At that time
the default for most of the Common Market was 38 tons. Our weight
limit was revoked, but no special work was carried out on British
roads to make their foundations prepared for increased weight; that
only happened when new roads were built or existing roads were
overhauled. Meanwhile the transport industry stopped buying the
home grown Bedford, Guy and Commer lorries designed for 24 tons, and
started buying Scania, Iveco, Daf, Volvo etc which were bigger then,
and got even bigger later, and now we have lorries routinely
weighing 48 tons on our roads some of which are still designed for
half that weight, along with bendy-buses which break up the road
surface at every bus stop they use.

Meanwhile, local authorities try to skimp on repairs by patching the
top surface when ideally it is the road foundations that need to be
strengthened.

No wonder our roads are falling to pieces.

[1] The road haulage lobby asked for this limit originally, to halt
the incursions into their business model of (eg Foden) steam lorries
which could haul huge loads at low speeds.


Beeching was a Physicist and worked from the early 50's for ICI. He
was never involved with road building.

Also ITYWF that the truck weight limit for UK roads is 44 tonnes
provided it has a minimum of six axles, and not 48.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com


  #20  
Old February 12th 17, 04:03 PM posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,016
Default Here's a good idea

On 12/02/2017 14:18, Woody wrote:

Beeching was a Physicist and worked from the early 50's for ICI. He
was never involved with road building.


For his review of the railways he was employed by Ernest Marples (of
Marples Ridgeway) who was transport minister from 1959 to 1964.

You are right about the 44 ton limit though.

Jim
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.