|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:54:33 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:07:09 on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, News remarked: With only about 7.5% of the land settled, 7.5%? Where did you get that figure from? I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me. Do farms not count as settled? In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it. Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean the house it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't count gardens as settled land either. As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry. So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens? Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask themselves where the food is to come from. Read my post on this. All there. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message , at 18:06:55 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, News remarked: As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry. So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens? Does it matter! Yes, if you can't answer the question it looks rather like you are making the numbers up. -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 17:55, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:04, News wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 12:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit. London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it. Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's limit. No. There are still pouring money into the place at the detriment to all else. There are what still pouring money in? Fool! We know you are, go and finish your homework. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many years. See also Salford/Manchester. England and France also share a border. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:39 +0100, "News" wrote: Optimist wrote: "Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over the rest of XXXshire!" Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on. Many think all new developments can be on brownfield sites despite only 14% of demand being catered for on current brownfield sites. This should be resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them into parks, woods and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy. This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the incompetent planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath could be actively encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate societies. It creates distrust. One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that has been used for industry. Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:40, News wrote:
d wrote: If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions. Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to owner/occupiers to gain votes, while the country as whole suffered. The state of the nation was throw out of the window. The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which resulted in the Credit Crunch - a collapse. Thatcher was a fan of Uncle Joe? I don't think so. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 11:41, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100 "News" wrote: d wrote: If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions. Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of the world onto this island. And don't even bother pretending the majority are hard working intellectuals keeping our economy afloat. Thats utter BS. No, they are hard working East Europeans who are doing the jobs the Anglo-Saxons and the descendants of earlier immigrants will no longer do. Shame on you, sir. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland wrote: In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Martin remarked: Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or move the people and jobs. Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last thing on the agenda. An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the residents would all need cars to get to jobs. The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips. I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the name. Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use, rather than consuming more countryside. Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are in areas no one wants to live. Outer city estates, yes, but many are in inner city areas where there is a market. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
|
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 12:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit. One could have a more than semantic discussion about what "London" is - very few people use "Manchester" to mean the whole Greater Manchester area, and try applying "Birmingham" to the West Midlands county, but with London it's somewhat more confused with the two terms frequently used interchangeably (look for instance at the current government arrangements with the "Greater London Authority" consisting of the "Mayor of London" and the "London Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London" usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than straight on expansion makes it a more open question. Viz the Northern belief that the whole population from Milton Keynes to Brighton are cockneys. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London" usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than straight on expansion makes it a more open question. Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way. As long as they were RTs. Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly sure it is a town. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met Police area. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 14:25, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100 "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Tough :o) Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the way to central london. B2003 Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 20:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 17:55, News wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:04, News wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 12:36, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, and then later local government reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit. London expanded outwards and absorbed towns and villages around it. Those towns and villages largely expanded as dormitories dependant on London as a source of jobs rather than the expansion being driven by internal activity. It is debatable as to whether it has yet hit it's limit. No. There are still pouring money into the place at the detriment to all else. There are what still pouring money in? Fool! We know you are, go and finish your homework. Calm down. Even I make typos and I went to Watford Grammar. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 12:55, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100 "News" wrote: d wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100 "News" wrote: discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to two children per family and reducing immigration to below the emigration rate. Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters. Another Hitler fan. I see Godwin is called upon already today. You muppet. You are senile. Wow, killer putdown there. Did you think that up all by yourself or did you have a team to help you? B2003 Okay, you are not senile. What is the actual diagnosis. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 10:21, News wrote:
Optimist wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:46:05 +0100, "News" wrote: 77002 wrote: On Aug 23, 1:33 pm, "It's only me" wrote: Proper urban development will beget more business rates and council tax, so there is local government interest here. As more homes are built the market loosens and becomes more affordable. If there is an oversupply of offices and shops, rents and therefore rateable values will decrease. There is no sense in having empty commercial properties unless rents are rising quickly. Remember Centre Point? Centre Point was a ploy to not pay any taxes to the council as the building was not completed and waiting because the land prices were rocketing because the boom in the economy meant community created economic growth soaked into the land and crystallized as land values. That is where land values come from - economic community activity not the landowner. In short the landowner was freeloading. Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or move the people and jobs. I lot of sense in that. But the archaic Stalinist Town & Country Planning act prevents building on green fields. Only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens which brings masonry on land to about 2.5%. Ignore right-wing propaganda that we are concreting over the Countryside. England already has over 400 people per square kilometre, one of the most crowded in Europe. That figure is meaningless. Again... Only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens which brings masonry on land to about 2.5%. As we have to import much of our food, we are vulnerable to worldwide food shortages. There are never world wide food shortage, only regional crop failures. Fast ships mean we can import food from around the world preventing famines. Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality homes for the population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere. 50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function. The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for the greater good of British society. The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad, and especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass. This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of their own country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public forests. Over-development is causing problems with the hydrology, as heavy rainfall is flushed out to sea rather than recharge the aquifers. As only 2.5% of the UK has masonry on it that is far fetched to say the least. New developments have separate rainwater drains that feed water that is used for potable uses. We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into occupation (compulsorily after a year, say), Land Valuation Taxation does that - payable land only not the building, even if a building is not on the plot. Harrisburg, and other towns and cities in the USA, cleared up derelict buildings that way bringing them back into use. Harrisburg.... http://www.labourland.org/downloads/...chapters/3.pdf "Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites, making vandalism less likely." and discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self controlling economic system - Geonomics. Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger, disease and hanging. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31
Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked: One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that has been used for industry. Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers. You have to do that on greenfield sites too. -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 23:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:40 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London" usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than straight on expansion makes it a more open question. Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way. As long as they were RTs. or RLHs. Don't think we had those in the wilds of Buckinghamshire. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 30/08/2012 23:18, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many years. See also Salford/Manchester. England and France also share a border. Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:39 +0100, "News" wrote: Optimist wrote: "Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over the rest of XXXshire!" Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on. Many think all new developments can be on brownfield sites despite only 14% of demand being catered for on current brownfield sites. This should be resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them into parks, woods and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy. This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the incompetent planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath could be actively encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate societies. It creates distrust. One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that has been used for industry. Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers. They'd have to do that for a greenfield site. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 07:45, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:29, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland wrote: In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Martin remarked: Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or move the people and jobs. Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last thing on the agenda. An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the residents would all need cars to get to jobs. The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips. I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the name. Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use, rather than consuming more countryside. Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are in areas no one wants to live. Outer city estates, yes, but many are in inner city areas where there is a market. Define many. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 07:57, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote: On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. Explain supercities then. London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking. Try getting across any of those in an hour. London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and villages in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another before the limits of the greenbelt were set, Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are "London" usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local identity in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather than straight on expansion makes it a more open question. Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way. As long as they were RTs. Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly sure it is a town. But, at that time, not London. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:40, News wrote: d wrote: If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions. Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to owner/occupiers to gain votes, while the country as whole suffered. The state of the nation was throw out of the window. The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which resulted in the Credit Crunch - a collapse. Thatcher was a fan of Uncle Joe? I don't think so. Get the point...."the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this act." Read it again. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Martin Edwards wrote:
Viz the Northern belief that the whole population from Milton Keynes to Brighton are cockneys. They are. They all say "Fink" instead of think. "Fireen" instead of thirteen. Then they bust out with songs like "Boiled Beef and Carrots". |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Roland Perry wrote:
Are all that lot included in the 2.5% (or the 7.5%) genuine question. Read this - a good enlightening read. I have previously linked to it. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html DATA ON LAND USAGE The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows: * Settled land -1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass. * Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass. * Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78% of the land mass. * Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass * Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass. * Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land mass. Note 1: Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government departments present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a good guide. Note 2: The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which are estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of paved land emerges. --------------------- We have too much subsidized agricultural land. Our freedoms are curtailed as we cannot build where want to - national parks, etc, excepted. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:06:55 on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, News remarked: As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry. So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens? Does it matter! Yes, if you can't answer the question it looks rather like you are making the numbers up. See the link on my other post. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
Martin Edwards wrote:
Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self controlling economic system - Geonomics. Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger, disease and hanging. You are very confused. |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:55:14 +0100
"News" wrote: I fallow field has people on it? Boy you are slow. If people own the land snip total senile drivel Read: "Oh dear, I'm going to lose the argument, best get out now and save what face I have left". B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:11:08 +0100
"News" wrote: wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100 Optimist wrote: Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask themselves where the food is to come from. We cannot I think in the minds of these people it comes from some magic food machine run by pixies So senile. Sad When you've changed the record do let me know. Or can't you afford another one with your student loan? B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:43:22 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 11:41, d wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100 "News" wrote: d wrote: If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions. Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of the world onto this island. And don't even bother pretending the majority are hard working intellectuals keeping our economy afloat. Thats utter BS. No, they are hard working East Europeans who are doing the jobs the Anglo-Saxons and the descendants of earlier immigrants will no longer do. Shame on you, sir. Oh not this fatuous old argument again. There were plenty of british workmen before the flood gates were opened but guess what - a lot of them had families to pay for and didn't fancy living 6 to a flat. If you're some 20 something single male sharing rent with a lot of mates of course you can undercut the indigenous competition. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:00:03 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote: On 30/08/2012 14:25, d wrote: On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100 "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Tough :o) Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the way to central london. B2003 Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane. There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow. B2003 |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message , at 09:12:12 on Fri, 31
Aug 2012, Graeme Wall remarked: England and France also share a border. Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though. Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides? -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
In message , at 10:24:16 on Fri, 31 Aug
2012, News remarked: As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry. So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens? Does it matter! Yes, if you can't answer the question it looks rather like you are making the numbers up. See the link on my other post. That would be a more practical suggestion if you didn't post quite so many messages :( -- Roland Perry |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 11:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:12:12 on Fri, 31 Aug 2012, Graeme Wall remarked: England and France also share a border. Can't see both sides building right up to the edge of it though. Didn't someone build a rail tunnel up to the border, from both sides? Not many people live in it though. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in
: d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in Zone 6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and amongst the older generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes. If inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be significant support. It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might displease those of the Boris-free party. Is the Borough of Epsom and Ewell the only non-London council area wholly within the M25? Hard to find a map that would show that. Peter -- || Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com | |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 11:34, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
"Tim wrote in : d wrote: Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London. Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area within the M25. Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford... Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in Zone 6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and amongst the older generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes. If inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be significant support. It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might displease those of the Boris-free party. Is the Borough of Epsom and Ewell the only non-London council area wholly within the M25? Hard to find a map that would show that. Peter Exploring http://www.itoworld.com/map/2 might come up with the answer. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?
On 31/08/2012 12:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
Is the Borough of Epsom and Ewell the only non-London council area wholly within the M25? Hard to find a map that would show that. Peter Ashford (no, the other one) looks like a contender. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk