Climate Camp - Cyclists

Doug said:

Gizmo. said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

. Of course, those
who stay meekly in their homes

Like you do ... leaching off the back of real protesters.

Liar! I was at the camp on Sunday and Monday facing off the police
intimidaters. And what have you been doing, hypocrite?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Heavens forfend, I find myself in sympathy with the police!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

CoyoteBoy missed the point:

Quoted message said:

I wonder just how many cars/vans were driven to the climate camp to
set all the stuff up.

Never had you down as an eco-freak.

Quoted message said:

Demonstrations are pointless in modern society.
The public are aware of the problems, the politicians and companies
are too. They wont change becuase of a demonstration, they change
because of public pressure, since the public are already aware of the
problems all you are going to do is cheese the public off because you
have inconvenienced them. I'm all for green-ness, but people
disrupting everyday working citizens make me hang my head and want to
go the other way. What an embarrassment to the cause these people are.

The Climate Camp seems to be about more than an empty demonstration:

<http://climatecamp.org.uk/wshops.pdf>

--
Mark T
Cultivate Peace - Bury A Hippie.

CoyoteBoy ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

Demonstrations are pointless in modern society.

So it would seem.

Quoted message said:

The public are aware of the problems, the politicians and companies
are too. They wont change becuase of a demonstration, they change
because of public pressure, since the public are already aware of the
problems all you are going to do is cheese the public off because you
have inconvenienced them.

You forgot basic economics.

The _only_ way BAA will abandon the plans for T6/Runway 3 at Heathrow is if
it's no longer needed, because people are flying less. Same goes for the
expansion of Stansted, and the fifth London airport, the Thames Gateway
one.

If that happens, then you can bet the plans'll be dropped quietly and
instantly. If not, it'll get built.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the "concerned local residents" around
Heathrow - they knew there was an airport there when they moved in.

Adrian said:

CoyoteBoy ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Demonstrations are pointless in modern society.

So it would seem.

Quoted message said:

The public are aware of the problems, the politicians and companies
are too. They wont change becuase of a demonstration, they change
because of public pressure, since the public are already aware of the
problems all you are going to do is cheese the public off because you
have inconvenienced them.

You forgot basic economics.

The _only_ way BAA will abandon the plans for T6/Runway 3 at Heathrow
is if it's no longer needed, because people are flying less. Same
goes for the expansion of Stansted, and the fifth London airport, the
Thames Gateway one.

If that happens, then you can bet the plans'll be dropped quietly and
instantly. If not, it'll get built.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the "concerned local residents"
around Heathrow - they knew there was an airport there when they
moved in.

So that give a large corporation carte blanche to demolish ancient villages
and cover the area in concrete simply because they want to make more money?

Brimstone said:

Adrian wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the "concerned local residents"
around Heathrow - they knew there was an airport there when they
moved in.

So that give a large corporation carte blanche to demolish ancient villages
and cover the area in concrete simply because they want to make more money?

Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
need of the flying public?

I suggest that, rather than trying to stop new facilities like this,
and for that matter more new roads, being built you address your
attention towards a society that feels the need to travel. If you
can't convince the general public to travel less then no amount of
whinging is going to stop the expansion that is required to fulfil
their ever-increasing need.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Ace ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Quoted message said:

I suggest that, rather than trying to stop new facilities like this,
and for that matter more new roads, being built you address your
attention towards a society that feels the need to travel. If you
can't convince the general public to travel less then no amount of
whinging is going to stop the expansion that is required to fulfil
their ever-increasing need.

*ding*
<waits for Duhg to blither about "Frivolous Hypermobility" again>

Ace said:

Brimstone said:

Adrian wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the "concerned local residents"
around Heathrow - they knew there was an airport there when they
moved in.

So that give a large corporation carte blanche to demolish ancient
villages and cover the area in concrete simply because they want to
make more money?

Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
need of the flying public?

Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want has been
created and nurtured by people intending to make money out of the consumer,
just the same as any other product.

Quoted message said:

I suggest that, rather than trying to stop new facilities like this,
and for that matter more new roads, being built you address your
attention towards a society that feels the need to travel. If you
can't convince the general public to travel less then no amount of
whinging is going to stop the expansion that is required to fulfil
their ever-increasing need.

I'm not whinging about people travelling nor am I trying to stop new
facilities being built.

Quoted message said:

If you
can't convince the general public to travel less then no amount of
whinging is going to stop the expansion that is required to fulfil
their ever-increasing need.

I agree here. It's an extremely frustrating affair. You try and do
your bit like getting rid of your car, riding a bike instead or using
public transport. But it's all undone by people wasting energy, flying
to short brakes from London to Brussels (when the train is faster) and
you feel the government and opposition say one thing and do another.
I think however that it's a two way street here. Yes, demand increases
investment here but just like the free "newspapers" one gets hasseled
into taking here in London on practically every street corner, people
only use them because they're there. Take away the paper, people
wouldn't miss it. Similarly, keep Heathrow the size it is and people
wouldn't call for expansion. They know it's a shambles and increasing
the number of people passing through it will only make it worse.

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
need of the flying public?

Quoted message said:

Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want has
been created and nurtured by people intending to make money out of the
consumer, just the same as any other product.

And if they're going to satisfy that desire, they *need* an airport.

Pete ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

I think however that it's a two way street here. Yes, demand increases
investment here but just like the free "newspapers" one gets hasseled
into taking here in London on practically every street corner, people
only use them because they're there. Take away the paper, people
wouldn't miss it.

How do you suggest "taking away" cheap flights?

Quoted message said:

Similarly, keep Heathrow the size it is and people
wouldn't call for expansion. They know it's a shambles and increasing
the number of people passing through it will only make it worse.

Right - because nobody's been calling Heathrow a cramped embarrasment of an
airport, have they? Oh, no...

marc said:

Doug said:

Gizmo. said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> . Of course, those
> who stay meekly in their homes
Like you do ... leaching off the back of real protesters.

Quoted message said:

Liar! I was at the camp on Sunday and Monday facing off the police
intimidaters. And what have you been doing, hypocrite?

How did you get there?

Bike on electric train, the least polluting option, apart from cycling
all the way. Did you have a nice drive in your car today, hypocrite?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Adrian said:

How do you suggest "taking away" cheap flights?

Simple, taxing the hell out of airlines and more stringent
environmental laws that distribute this revenue into improving public
transport to make it a hell of a lot more attractive to go "green".
Which brings me to your next question:

Quoted message said:

Right - because nobody's been calling Heathrow a cramped embarrasment of an
airport, have they? Oh, no...

And again: create more attractive sustainable alternatives.

p

Doug said:

marc said:

Doug said:

On 15 Aug, 11:09, "Gizmo." <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> . Of course, those
>> who stay meekly in their homes
> Like you do ... leaching off the back of real protesters.
Liar! I was at the camp on Sunday and Monday facing off the police
intimidaters. And what have you been doing, hypocrite?

How did you get there?

Bike on electric train, the least polluting option, apart from cycling
all the way.

Errr the least polluting option would have been to not go.
Apart from that your "electric train" was fuelled by:-
(1)
Coal 35%
Gas 37%
Nuclear 21%
Renewables 4%
Other 3%

Did you have a nice drive in your car today, hypocrite?
Not been in my car today.

As for the "hypocrite" tag, do you really know what it means , because
in this case you seem to use it as a generic insult?

(1) http://www.edfenergy.com/edf-energy/showPage.do?name=ourfutures.til

On 15 Aug, 13:13, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>

Quoted message said:

CoyoteBoy missed the point:

Quoted message said:

I wonder just how many cars/vans were driven to the climate camp to
set all the stuff up.

Never had you down as an eco-freak.

I'm not, I just like to do my bit. I still take the fuel guzzling
monster out at weekends just for the hell of it, I just try to offset
it somewhat by riding to work whenever possible. I just find the
hipocrisy of real eco freaks turning up in a bunch of smoke brewing
machines rather annoying, especially when they tell me I cant drive my
parents 4x4 despite it being only as bad as a medium sized reps car
(its used for towing but you dont leave a car doing nothing 90% of the
time do you) . I find it amusing that they dont have a go at me for
driving a 17mpg modified sports car, yet they hurl abuse at the jag in
front that gets 30mpg.

What concerns me is their hipocrisy and their lack of basic knowledge
of that that they are fighting, it just discredits their cause. I'm
all for making everything greener, though I wont disadvantage myself
or stop having all fun just because of it.

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
need of the flying public?

Quoted message said:

Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want has
been created and nurtured by people intending to make money out of
the consumer, just the same as any other product.

And if they're going to satisfy that desire, they *need* an airport.

They've got a number all ready.

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
> need of the flying public?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want has
been created and nurtured by people intending to make money out of
the consumer, just the same as any other product.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And if they're going to satisfy that desire, they *need* an airport.

Quoted message said:

They've got a number all ready.

Which are so popular that supply doesn't meet demand - hence the plans for
more/larger.

Doug said:

marc said:

Doug said:

On 15 Aug, 11:09, "Gizmo." <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> . Of course, those
>> who stay meekly in their homes
> Like you do ... leaching off the back of real protesters.
Liar! I was at the camp on Sunday and Monday facing off the police
intimidaters. And what have you been doing, hypocrite?

How did you get there?

Bike on electric train, the least polluting option, apart from cycling
all the way. Did you have a nice drive in your car today, hypocrite?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

And how did they make the electricity? Bearing in mind how close it was
you could have cycled all the way, but I suppose it's more fun to leach
off others by using your free travel pass, and clogging up the train
with your bike.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Money? You don't think that perhaps the expansions are based on the
>> need of the flying public?
> Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want has
> been created and nurtured by people intending to make money out of
> the consumer, just the same as any other product.
And if they're going to satisfy that desire, they *need* an airport.

They've got a number all ready.

Which are so popular that supply doesn't meet demand - hence the plans for
more/larger.

The problem is you simply wont stop people flying unless you bung up
the cost massively, and thats the opposite target of the companies. So
you'd have the government fighting the business, the aerospace
industry is fairly established in this country and fighting airports/
flights would hurt them - so the government would be hurting a large
sector of our wealth generators and job providors - no government
would stick their neck out for that. However if it was made cheaper to
get to places in the UK by car we would see a reduction in oversees
flights im sure!

CoyoteBoy said:

I'm not, I just like to do my bit. I still take the fuel guzzling
monster out at weekends just for the hell of it, I just try to offset
it somewhat by riding to work whenever possible.

Quoted message said:

I find it amusing that they dont have a go at me for
driving a 17mpg modified sports car, yet they hurl abuse at the jag in
front that gets 30mpg.

Quoted message said:

I'm all for making everything greener, though I wont disadvantage myself
or stop having all fun just because of it.

How could you possibly be disadvantaged by not driving this car "just
for the hell of it"?
This is exactly the attitude that pisses people off who really care
about what happens in 25 or 50 years time.
You can't say you support a greener way of life and then refuse to
compromise without being called rediculous bigot.

CoyoteBoy ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Most of the public don't "need" to fly, they want to. That want
>> has been created and nurtured by people intending to make money
>> out of the consumer, just the same as any other product.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And if they're going to satisfy that desire, they *need* an
> airport.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They've got a number all ready.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which are so popular that supply doesn't meet demand - hence the
plans for more/larger.

Quoted message said:

The problem is you simply wont stop people flying unless you bung up
the cost massively

Not necessarily.

Social perceptions will - and already are starting to - reduce demand.
Not necessarily green pressures, either, but the very fact that the
cheap flights are mainly filled with repulsive chavs.

Quoted message said:

However if it was made cheaper to get to places in the UK by car we
would see a reduction in oversees flights im sure!

Getting *to* places in the UK is not expensive. It's what to do when
you're there which is. I've mentioned elsewhere that I've recently
returned from holiday in Sweden & Norway (and, no, I didn't fly - I
haven't flown anywhere for a couple of years) - two countries with
reputations for being *hideously* expensive.

Sweden was generally cheaper than the UK for damn near everything, as
was much of our accomodation in Norway..