More UK insanity: is this true?
Rocky Frisco
Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
-Rock
--
Nigel Stapley
This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of scepticism.
That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Arthur Hagen
> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>
> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
public took the land back.
Regards,
--
*Art
Rocky Frisco
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>
>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
>>
>> -Rock
>> --
>
> This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
> these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
> outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of scepticism.
>
> That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
Thanks for the info. Being a total fool Anglophile, I would rather not
think it was accurate. Oddly but happily enough, my favorite English
friends do not fit the accepted profile on many subjects, including
gun-control, socialism and "bleeding-heart" sympathy for violent
criminals. Gives me some hope for the nation.
-Rock
--
Rocky Frisco
No, Art, the idiots who refuse to recognize the inherent human right
to self-defense and defense of family and property. I reckon they have
the right to choose this abdication of principle for themselves, but
not to force it on others.
-Rock
Bri Tze
You welcome thieves into your garden and tell them to help themselves?
This is property he rents to grow vegetables on to feed his family so,
according to you, any little toerag who wants a fix can steal his
tools and destroy his crops. Try to join the real world -just for
once.
Bri Tze
Arthur Hagen
> On Oct 10, 9:07 pm, Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 13:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
> > >http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
> >
> > > Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
> >
> > The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
> > block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
> > public took the land back.
>
> This is property he rents to grow vegetables on to feed his family so,
> according to you, any little toerag who wants a fix can steal his
> tools and destroy his crops. Try to join the real world -just for
> once.
The /thieves/ shouldn't be an excuse to prevent /others/ from walking
across the land. And that is what this is -- an excuse to get rid of
public right-of-way.
Punishing those who exercise their right to footpaths and right-of-way
because of something /others/ have done is not justifiable IMHO.
Regards,
--
*Art
Eric Jarvis
says...
There is a conflict here. Between one person's right to defend their
property and another's. By placing the barbed wire on the border of the
allotment a portion of somebody else's allotment has been made unusable.
So I'm afraid you can't argue it as being a matter of principle since the
same basic principle applies to either side of the argument. So it's
entirely a question of contract law.
--
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.
Eric Jarvis
10cb90...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, beth...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> On Oct 10, 9:07 pm, Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 13:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
> > >http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
> >
> > > Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
> >
> > The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
> > block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
> > public took the land back.
>
> This is property he rents to grow vegetables on to feed his family so,
> according to you, any little toerag who wants a fix can steal his
> tools and destroy his crops. Try to join the real world -just for
> once.
>
It isn't his property. He rents it. There are contracts for renting an
allotment. Generally they are pretty specific about what is and isn't
allowed. I would be very surprised if surrounding part of an allotment
with barbed wire isn't a breach of that contract. The problem being that
his piece of land doesn't exist entirely separately from the rest of the
universe. It is bordered by land that other people have a perfect right
to use as they please. So whilst he may solely see the barbed wire as
affecting only would be thieves, the problem for people with a legitimate
reason to go near it (such as the poor sod trying to cultivate the
adjacent plot, who has effectively been denied the use of some of the
land he rents) is that barbed wire doesn't discriminate between a thief
trying to climb over it and a gardener attempting to crop some vegetables
growing close to it.
It's a pretty typical Daily Mail story in which they take a completely
unreasonable gripe and then blow it out of all proportion whilst
completely failing to present any form of counter argument. You have to
read between the lines. Compare the headlines with what is quoted in the
story, what is there purely as comment from the journalist, and what
appears to be left out.
In this case you have only the word of the guy who placed it that the
barbed wire only affects would be thieves. There is absolutely no comment
credited to anyone renting an adjacent plot. There is no mention of
anything from the rental contract, which is what the legality of any
action would be based on. There is a lot of bluster with little basis in
fact.
If my neighbours replaced the current wooden fence between our gardens
with barbed wire I would be livid. I'd lose a whole stretch of garden
that could no longer be used safely. No doubt if I then complained to the
Daily Mail they would publish a story about the loony council that allows
people to put up barbed wire in places that are dangerous to other
people.
John Wilkins
> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>
> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
>
Local government? I do agree, it can be fairly stupid (I once worked in
the Australian equivalent), but surely local democracy is better than
none.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Esra Sdrawkcab
legitimate plot-holders, so the most likely thieves would be fellow
gardeners.
Sabremeister Brian
wl_Hk.70136$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com,
Ah, so, any thieving toerag who wants to get something he can sell
so he can afford his next fix will just completely ignore the
allotments, then, and not, for example, kick a couple of boards
loose and squeeze through the gap? Or use an ordinary pair of
pliers if it's a wire fence? Right. I bet that makes the victim
feel so much better, knowing that it's his fellow gardeners
trashing his vegetables, breaking into his shed and nicking his
tools. You'd've thought he'd've gone to the police and/or the
Council if he could narrow it down to just those few suspects.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
USB is an inaccurate name.
It can't be a bus if you've never had to wait fifteen minutes and
then three turn up.
GaryN
news:pLydnWBwqvVDPnLV...@posted.plusnet:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>
>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>> idiots?
>>
>> -Rock
>> --
>
> This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
> these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
> outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of scepticism.
>
> That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
>
Or "The Daily Nazi" by others.
gary
--
Ain't too young to admit it,
And I'm not too old to lie
I'm just another empty head.
AC/DC - "Ride On"
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
> news:pLydnWBwqvVDPnLV...@posted.plusnet:
>
>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>>
>>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>>> idiots?
>>>
>>> -Rock
>>> --
>>
>> This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
>> these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
>> outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of
>> scepticism.
>>
>> That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
>>
>
> Or "The Daily Nazi" by others.
I usually go for the Eye's "Daily Hate Mail".
I also like Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre line, that the Daily
Mail's "health" column is engaged in an experiment to divide all the
inanimate objects in the world into two categories: they either *cause*
cancer, or they *cure* cancer.
--
Dave
So I looked, and behold, a pale horse.
And the name of him who sat on it was Death.
And the name of the horse was Binky.
GaryN
news:MPG.2359fc862...@news.aqxs.net:
> In article <4WPHk.12346$NJ4....@newsfe19.iad>, rockn...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 13:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>> >>
>> >> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>> >> idiots?
Yes.
>> > The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
>> > block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
>> > public took the land back.
Is that the public who live in cities and wouldn't know countryside if
it it reared up and bit them in the arse?
>> No, Art, the idiots who refuse to recognize the inherent human right
>> to self-defense and defense of family and property. I reckon they
>> have the right to choose this abdication of principle for themselves,
>> but not to force it on others.
I go with the right to defend oneself.
> There is a conflict here. Between one person's right to defend their
> property and another's. By placing the barbed wire on the border of
> the allotment a portion of somebody else's allotment has been made
> unusable. So I'm afraid you can't argue it as being a matter of
> principle since the same basic principle applies to either side of the
> argument. So it's entirely a question of contract law.
You suggest that ownership, or right to cultivate, land is a problem?
There was no contract law until very recently - "I'm flogging this bit
of ground to him", written on a bit of paper with the previous
transactions crossed out was about as far as it went.
Only when we had to start paying Lawyers to make it "Legal" did we start
having these problems.
Fuck principle and Contract Law - hang the Lawyers.
I pay for the space, and dig the ground, to grow my own vegetables.
The owner of the allotment site has chosen to erect a large metal fence
to prevent people stealing stuff.
I just let the nettles grow around the edges. Can't find the veg but
everyone else getsa stunga.....
GaryN
> In article <a76c08f8-e3cf-4516-8002-
> 10cb90...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, beth...@yahoo.co.uk
> says...
>> On Oct 10, 9:07 pm, Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 13:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> > >http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>> >
>> > > Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>> > > idi
> ots?
>> >
>> > The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
>> > block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
>> > public took the land back.
For the fucking idiots who leave empty MacShit wrappers and coke cans
everywhere? And then go back to their concrete burrows?
Your attitude is greatly appreciated by a whole bunch of people who
don't live in Brixton.
>> You welcome thieves into your garden and tell them to help
>> themselves? This is property he rents to grow vegetables on to feed
>> his family so, according to you, any little toerag who wants a fix
>> can steal his tools and destroy his crops. Try to join the real world
>> -just for once.
>>
>
> It isn't his property. He rents it. There are contracts for renting an
> allotment. Generally they are pretty specific about what is and isn't
> allowed.
One of the rules being that nobody who doesn't pay rent isn't allowed on
the specific patch of ground rented to the allotment holder.
> I would be very surprised if surrounding part of an allotment
> with barbed wire isn't a breach of that contract.
It isn't - as long as the barbed wire is within the designated area of
the rented ground.
>The problem being
> that his piece of land doesn't exist entirely separately from the rest
> of the universe.
Technically, and legally, it does.
>It is bordered by land that other people have a
> perfect right to use as they please.
My mother's place in Lincolnshire extends across 2 byways - she is
required by law to maintain fences separating private and public
property and can be taken to court if she fails to do so.
> So whilst he may solely see the
> barbed wire as affecting only would be thieves, the problem for people
> with a legitimate reason to go near it (such as the poor sod trying to
> cultivate the adjacent plot, who has effectively been denied the use
> of some of the land he rents) is that barbed wire doesn't discriminate
> between a thief trying to climb over it and a gardener attempting to
> crop some vegetables growing close to it.
Bollocks.
Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
Londoner may not be aware of this.
Nigel Stapley
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>
>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
>>
>> -Rock
>> --
>
> This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
> these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
> outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of scepticism.
>
> That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
>
And, by means of a reminder that there is idiocy and *idiocy*
everywhere, something from your own back yard, old thing:
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=5c383aca-c3d2-4b3d-b4a5-5a8108ba4971
Kieran Sanders
>> barbed wire as affecting only would be thieves, the problem for people
>> with a legitimate reason to go near it (such as the poor sod trying to
>> cultivate the adjacent plot, who has effectively been denied the use
>> of some of the land he rents) is that barbed wire doesn't discriminate
>> between a thief trying to climb over it and a gardener attempting to
>> crop some vegetables growing close to it.
>
> Bollocks.
>
> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
> Londoner may not be aware of this.
>
I've been on four or five sets of allotments (all in london, so it might
be different in other places) at various times, and all seemed to follow
some variation of a grid of pathways seperating four to six individual
plots which shared common borders.
------------------------
| path |
| ------------------- |
| | plot 1 | plot 2 | |
| ------------------- |
| | plot 3 | plot 4 | |
| ------------------- |
| | plot 6 | plot 5 | |
| ------------------- |
| |
------------------------
I don't care at all if actual thieves/vandals are maimed, but barbed
wire on any of the internal borders would also be a hazard to the
rightful users of the neighbouring plot, while barbed wire along the
path-edge would be a hazard to everyone who has to walk past to get to
their own plot - not to mention to emergency services rushing to the aid
of the pensioner who keeled over in plot 5.
Bonzai Kitten
> Eric Jarvis <ericjar...@gmail.com> wrote innews:MPG.2359fb908...@news.aqxs.net:
>
> > In article <a76c08f8-e3cf-4516-8002-
> > 10cb907d6...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bethbr...@yahoo.co.uk
I always thought the whole townie/country hate thing was a myth. Or
rather, restricted to my admittedly weird Yorkshireman grandfather.
Interesting!
Please, continue!
Bonzai Kitten
(snip)
>
> And, by means of a reminder that there is idiocy and *idiocy*
> everywhere, something from your own back yard, old thing:
>
> http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=5c383aca-c3d2-4b...
Ah, one for the heavy metal fans!
Arthur Hagen
That would be me! I love the smell of molybdenum in the morning.
Anyhow the link no werk. 500-error from the Apache server.
Regards,
--
*Art
Lesley Weston
> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>
> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
It must be true - it was in the Mail. If it is true then I agree the
world's gone mad, or at least Bromsgrove and Bristol Councils have.
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> I also like Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre line, that the Daily
> Mail's "health" column is engaged in an experiment to divide all the
> inanimate objects in the world into two categories: they either *cause*
> cancer, or they *cure* cancer.
>
But that's the simple truth, except that some things fit both categories.
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
Nice try, but I don't think allotments are usually laid out on
rights-of-way.
Lesley.
Nigel Stapley
Lesley Weston
> In article <a76c08f8-e3cf-4516-8002-
> 10cb90...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, beth...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> On Oct 10, 9:07 pm, Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 13:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
>>> The f***ing right-wing idiots who disregard right-of-way and try to
>>> block off the land with barbed wire? Sure, I wouldn't mind if the
>>> public took the land back.
>> You welcome thieves into your garden and tell them to help themselves?
>> This is property he rents to grow vegetables on to feed his family so,
>> according to you, any little toerag who wants a fix can steal his
>> tools and destroy his crops. Try to join the real world -just for
>> once.
>>
>
> It isn't his property.
But the tools and vegetables are, also the shed.
> He rents it. There are contracts for renting an
> allotment. Generally they are pretty specific about what is and isn't
> allowed. I would be very surprised if surrounding part of an allotment
> with barbed wire isn't a breach of that contract. The problem being that
> his piece of land doesn't exist entirely separately from the rest of the
> universe. It is bordered by land that other people have a perfect right
> to use as they please. So whilst he may solely see the barbed wire as
> affecting only would be thieves, the problem for people with a legitimate
> reason to go near it (such as the poor sod trying to cultivate the
> adjacent plot, who has effectively been denied the use of some of the
> land he rents) is that barbed wire doesn't discriminate between a thief
> trying to climb over it and a gardener attempting to crop some vegetables
> growing close to it.
That's easy - surround the whole allotment site with barbed wire and
protect everybody's vegetables without discrimination. Maybe hire a
security guard too.
> It's a pretty typical Daily Mail story in which they take a completely
> unreasonable gripe
It's not unreasonable at all. Growing vegetables is hard work and costs
a bit, but it is very rewarding - if the vegetables stay there long
enough to reward their grower.
> and then blow it out of all proportion whilst
> completely failing to present any form of counter argument.
They quote the Council spokesman.
You have to
> read between the lines. Compare the headlines with what is quoted in the
> story, what is there purely as comment from the journalist, and what
> appears to be left out.
>
> In this case you have only the word of the guy who placed it that the
> barbed wire only affects would be thieves.
Who else would it affect? The barbed wire is only going to hurt someone
climbing over it.
> There is absolutely no comment
> credited to anyone renting an adjacent plot.
One of the comments at the end of the story is from someone who seems to
have an allotment on the same site; he applauds his fellow-gardener's
action.
There is no mention of
> anything from the rental contract, which is what the legality of any
> action would be based on. There is a lot of bluster with little basis in
> fact.
>
> If my neighbours replaced the current wooden fence between our gardens
> with barbed wire I would be livid. I'd lose a whole stretch of garden
> that could no longer be used safely.
How close do you need to go to the fence in a place used for
food-cultivation? If it's not a problem for Mr Malcolm on his side of
the fence, why would it be for his neighbours on the other sides? We're
not talking about aesthetics, just security.
Lesley.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
> Londoner may not be aware of this.
I always thought it was only people in big cities who *had* allotments.
Glasgow has allotments. Edinburgh has allotments. Inverness, a "city" you
could spit over, doesn't, because almost everyone lives outside the city
limits in a house with a garden.
Maybe it's different in England.
Lesley Weston
> On Oct 11, 11:30 pm, GaryN <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
>> Londoner may not be aware of this.
>
> I always thought the whole townie/country hate thing was a myth. Or
> rather, restricted to my admittedly weird Yorkshireman grandfather.
> Interesting!
>
> Please, continue!
QL (or NSW if Queensland is where you live).
But the town/country thing does seem to be real (though I'm not sure
this discussion is), and it goes back many generations. Look at the
whole fox-hunting thing that's still being fought over. Many people,
including me, don't want animals to be hunted and killed for no reason
other than sport, as opposed to game being hunted for food, but that's
not what it's about. It's Blair's (and now Brown's - there's a
difference?) townees attacking country people on this and many other
fronts. It's not that long since Blair said something to the effect that
agriculture is no longer necessary, as Britain can just import its food.
Lesley.
Brian Howlett
> On 11 Oct 2008, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
>> Londoner may not be aware of this.
> I always thought it was only people in big cities who *had* allotments.
> Glasgow has allotments. Edinburgh has allotments. Inverness, a "city" you
> could spit over, doesn't, because almost everyone lives outside the city
> limits in a house with a garden.
> Maybe it's different in England.
There used to be allotments in Inverness, in the Lotland Street area.
I'm not old enough to remember the details, but I think they were lost
in 1933 when Longman Airport started.
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-----------------------------------------------------
I owe, I owe, so it's off to work I go...
The Stainless Steel Cat
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>I just let the nettles grow around the edges. Can't find the veg but
>everyone else getsa stunga.....
I had to let brambles run wild at the edge of my garden before the local
teenage gits stopped rampaging through my garden (and the neighbours'
gardens on either side). Now my garden still looks a mess, but it's at
least a wild-garden-type mess rather than a neat garden willfully destroyed
by cider and Buckfast crazed sociopaths type mess.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 11 Oct 2008, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
>> Londoner may not be aware of this.
>
>I always thought it was only people in big cities who *had* allotments.
>Glasgow has allotments. Edinburgh has allotments. Inverness, a "city" you
>could spit over, doesn't, because almost everyone lives outside the city
>limits in a house with a garden.
Yep, the various Glasgow allotments I pass on the train in the morning have
the plots right up against each other apart from the ones abutting paths.
Perhaps country allotments are a different beast entirely.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
I have read of a place where humans do battle in a ring of Jello.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 11 Oct 2008, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
>> news:pLydnWBwqvVDPnLV...@posted.plusnet:
>>
>>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>>>> idiots?
>>>>
>>>> -Rock
>>>> --
>>>
>>> This is The Daily M**l we're talking about here. They do so many of
>>> these stories, and many of them turn out to be exaggerations or even
>>> outright lies, so I suggest you take this with a degree of
>>> scepticism.
>>>
>>> That 'paper' isn't known as "The Forger's Gazette" for nothing.
>>>
>>
>> Or "The Daily Nazi" by others.
>
>I usually go for the Eye's "Daily Hate Mail".
"Daily Wail" for me. Glancing across the headlines in the paper shop today,
I saw that the Wail proclaimed this the "WORST WEEK EVER!".
You'd think that even the editors - mad as a hatful of badgers as they are
- might consider weeks containing terrorist bombings, or The Blitz, or
influenza killing hundreds of thousands, or any number of other things
mildly worse than some economic problems.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
I laugh in the face of danger... then I hide until it goes away.
"@lec ©awley"
> On 11 Oct 2008, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
>> Londoner may not be aware of this.
>
> I always thought it was only people in big cities who *had* allotments.
> Glasgow has allotments. Edinburgh has allotments. Inverness, a "city" you
> could spit over, doesn't, because almost everyone lives outside the city
> limits in a house with a garden.
>
> Maybe it's different in England.
The (largeish) village where I was brought up, voting population 4000,
had allotments.
Tiny Bulcher
> Rocky Frisco <rockn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>
>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing
>> idiots?
>>
> Local government? I do agree, it can be fairly stupid (I once worked
> in the Australian equivalent), but surely local democracy is better
> than none.
It certainly is. God, I wish we had some.
Rocky Frisco
> Rocky Frisco <rockn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bufva
>>
>> Isn't it about time you took your country back from these f***ing idiots?
>>
> Local government? I do agree, it can be fairly stupid (I once worked in
> the Australian equivalent), but surely local democracy is better than
> none.
I'm on shaky ground since this happened in the UK and not the USA, but
simple democracy is probably the worst form of government, where it's
two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner.
The USA, before it was hijacked by the current gang of thieves and
outlaws, was a constitutional republic, where the wolves were
restrained from certain kinds of assault by statute.
It does appear that in the UK there is a kind of bias against common
sense and justice, against self-defense and defense of property, a
prejudice in favor of criminals and thieves that goes against the
interests of the law-abiding citizen. The impression I get is that
some news sources exaggerate this in order to stir up readers' ire and
increase circulation, but that the problem actually exists in some
measure in reality.
-Rock
--
Puck
>> I also like Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre line, that the Daily
>> Mail's "health" column is engaged in an experiment to divide all the
>> inanimate objects in the world into two categories: they either
>> *cause* cancer, or they *cure* cancer.
>>
> But that's the simple truth, except that some things fit both categories.
A Dave Barry headline:
"Study shows eggplant causes cancer. Same study shows lack of eggplant
causes cancer"
Rocky Frisco
Heard a story last week: three people are in a car that breaks down.
One is a Hindu and one is a Jew and the third is a lawyer. They ask
for emergency lodging from a nearby farm. The farmer offers the guest
room, with two small beds, and the hay in the barn. The Hindu lawyer
comes back from the barn and says, "I can't sleep there: there's a cow
in there who will eventually be killed for food." So they try changing
the arrangement. Minutes later, the Jew comes back from the barn and
says, "I can't sleep there; there's a pig in there." So they change
again. Minutes later, the pig and the cow come to the farmhouse and
say, "We can't sleep in there; there's a lawyer in there."
> I pay for the space, and dig the ground, to grow my own vegetables.
>
> The owner of the allotment site has chosen to erect a large metal fence
> to prevent people stealing stuff.
>
> I just let the nettles grow around the edges. Can't find the veg but
> everyone else getsa stunga.....
That's also true for lawyers, you know.
-Rock
--
Rocky Frisco
Typical Tulsa Twaddle. No surprises there.
There was a wonderful "Bloom County" cartoon strip a few years back
where a Goth punk band's thrash, when played backwards, said "Go to
church; say your prayers."
-Rock
--
Rocky Frisco
Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
I once had a band here in Oklahoma, named "Bob War," which is how it's
pronounced here.
-Rock
--
Rocky Frisco
It's about Tulsans who hear a new doll-baby saying Satanic stuff.
"Nothing to see here; move along."
-Rock
--
Rocky Frisco
Or eat politicians?
-Rock
--
Eric Jarvis
says...
> Kieran Sanders wrote:
> >
> > I don't care at all if actual thieves/vandals are maimed, but barbed
> > wire on any of the internal borders would also be a hazard to the
> > rightful users of the neighbouring plot, while barbed wire along the
> > path-edge would be a hazard to everyone who has to walk past to get to
> > their own plot - not to mention to emergency services rushing to the aid
> > of the pensioner who keeled over in plot 5.
>
> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
> wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
>
It's also a statement of intent. Barbed wire says very clearly "screw the
rest of you, this is MINE". Which is fine when it is. It's not a
particularly good message to send when you are renting the use of
somebody else's land.
It's very easy to get caught up in the idea that only the intention
behind something matters. As in this case with the statements that the
barbed wire can only hurt people trying to climb over it. We've got one
locally. The police have started asking if we can reduce the number of
entrances and exits to the estate in order to make it more difficult for
criminals to escape. Which sounds reasonable except for one thing. The
reason the estate was designed this way was that the previous limited
access estate was a paradise for muggers who could very easily stake out
all three ways in and out. The intention behind the idea is fine. However
in practise things don't always work solely as intended.
--
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> It does appear that in the UK there is a kind of bias against common
> sense and justice, against self-defense and defense of property, a
> prejudice in favor of criminals and thieves that goes against the
> interests of the law-abiding citizen. The impression I get is that
> some news sources exaggerate this in order to stir up readers' ire and
> increase circulation, but that the problem actually exists in some
> measure in reality.
>
Not so. It's ALL myth. The news sources don't just exaggerate it, much of
it is completely invented. There is no bias in favour of thieves. There
is a huge problem when it comes to making prosecutions stick in that it's
currently very difficult to get people to come forward as witnesses in
too many cases. There is a huge problem with overcrowded prisons combined
with a huge reluctance to replace custodial sentences with non-custodial
sentences, understandably in view of the fuss the press makes whenever
they think they can create a "thieves get off with a slap on the wrist"
news item. Neither of these is down to anyone favouring criminals over
the innocent.
One problem is that most people have an impression of how the justice
system should work that it gleaned entirely from fiction. In fiction it's
all nice and tidy even when it's very complicated. In fiction you almost
always know who is guilty in the end. In reality it's much more messy. In
reality you don't know for certain who is guilty most of the time. In
fiction the story often culminates when the villain is arrested, or when
the prosecuting barrister totally demolishes the defence's case. In
reality most arrests by the police are at the start of an investigation
not the end of it. In reality a jury usually have to make a decision
between two well presented and convincing cases.
However reporting of these things is done on a basis of making it fit
with what "everyone knows", with "common sense". In other words on a
basis that where reality differs from fiction then reality must be wrong.
In fiction it's usually the case that crime is committed by bad people,
and good people are the victims of crime. In reality there are very few
people who can be reasonably described as entirely good people or
entirely bad people. Most of us do both good things and bad things at
different times. In fiction it's obvious that one person is a criminal
low life and another is a fine upstanding citizen. In reality it's a lot
harder to make that sort of distinction on the basis of anything other
than prejudice.
In fiction all false accusations are spotted by the police or lawyers. In
fiction it's obvious when a witness is lying. In reality there are plenty
of people found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. In fiction this is
always because of corruption or incompetence. In reality it's generally
because it's often difficult to prove a case and there is a huge social
pressure to ensure that at least somebody is found guilty.
So the media feasts on stories of criminals set free and innocents
victimised. However what they don't report is the messy detail. It's
in the messy detail that you get the information that matters. That there
was no prosecution because nobody was willing to be a witness. That the
supposed victim has a long history of making false accusations. And so
on.
There are huge problems with the British justice system. However a bias
in favour of criminals isn't one of them. Unfortunately what the press
sees is the absence of a bias in favour of people like the majority of
journalists (white, middle class, articulate, professionals) and treats
this as if it's a problem.
I could go on for ages about this. It annoys me. It annoys me because it
is used to hide an essential truth. Reality is messy and complicated.
Attempting to impose stories on it is wrong. Just ask Esme Weatherwax.
Chris Zakes
caused Kieran Sanders <cyp...@doomstone.co.uk> to write:
>GaryN wrote:
>> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> So whilst he may solely see the
>>> barbed wire as affecting only would be thieves, the problem for people
>>> with a legitimate reason to go near it (such as the poor sod trying to
>>> cultivate the adjacent plot, who has effectively been denied the use
>>> of some of the land he rents) is that barbed wire doesn't discriminate
>>> between a thief trying to climb over it and a gardener attempting to
>>> crop some vegetables growing close to it.
>>
>> Bollocks.
>>
>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that a
>> Londoner may not be aware of this.
>>
>
>I've been on four or five sets of allotments (all in london, so it might
>be different in other places) at various times, and all seemed to follow
>some variation of a grid of pathways seperating four to six individual
>plots which shared common borders.
>
> ------------------------
>| path |
>| ------------------- |
>| | plot 1 | plot 2 | |
>| ------------------- |
>| | plot 3 | plot 4 | |
>| ------------------- |
>| | plot 6 | plot 5 | |
>| ------------------- |
>| |
> ------------------------
>
>I don't care at all if actual thieves/vandals are maimed, but barbed
>wire on any of the internal borders would also be a hazard to the
>rightful users of the neighbouring plot, while barbed wire along the
>path-edge would be a hazard to everyone who has to walk past to get to
>their own plot - not to mention to emergency services rushing to the aid
>of the pensioner who keeled over in plot 5.
Did you look at the picture in the news article? We're not talking
about rolls of concertina wire like you see in POW camps in the
movies. It's two strands of barbed wire at roughly waist-to-shoulder
height, above the existing fence.
Yes, it's *possible* that someone might hurt themselves, just as it's
possible that I might be struck by a meteor the next time I go
outside, but most people can tell where things like fences and the
edges of buildings are, and don't just randomly walk into them.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers at night
May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
Barbed wire at three feet is dangerous to lawful users, even in Texas.
SteveD
Stainless Steel Cat) wrote:
>You'd think that even the editors - mad as a hatful of badgers as they are
I dunno. I have a vision of a bunch of bored people slumped at their
desks, tiredly picking out which story is the most sensational and likely
to bump sales by half a percent.
I'd almost wonder whether a computer could be trained to do about ninety
percent of that job.
-SteveD
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>It's not that long since Blair said something to the effect that
>agriculture is no longer necessary, as Britain can just import its food.
I'd be interested to hear the exact quote. It's a damn silly idea for
almost anywhere, though. Once you outsource your food supply, you have a
problem if something happens to it that you can't control.
-SteveD
John Wilkins
And your reason for thinking that it hasn't been? These days running a
newspaper is mostly about "repurposing" the media releases under the
byline of one of your staff.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Thomas Zahr
Which is one of the reasons Iceland for instance grows tropical fruit.
IIRC they have a system where the island needs to be self sufficient in
foodstuffs, on account of Iceland being a long way off, and in case of
war or other catastrophe, they can't rely on others to provision them.
The tv program I saw, showed them growing tomatoes and bananas amongst
other things.
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
--
<why is it sunday morning?>
The Stainless Steel Cat
Thomas Zahr <use...@zahr-mail.de> wrote:
But it has to be pointed out that Iceland has almost unlimited, cheap
geothermal energy so once that decision's been made it's almost trivial to
implement it. If say, the Welsh Assembly decided to do the same, it'd be
very expensive, possibly to the point of impractibility.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Some people juggle geese.
John Wilkins
What, there's no hot air in the Welsh Assembly?
GaryN
> In article <mA8Ik.1734$ex....@newsfe06.iad>, rockn...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Kieran Sanders wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't care at all if actual thieves/vandals are maimed, but
>> > barbed wire on any of the internal borders would also be a hazard
>> > to the rightful users of the neighbouring plot, while barbed wire
>> > along the path-edge would be a hazard to everyone who has to walk
>> > past to get to their own plot - not to mention to emergency
>> > services rushing to the aid of the pensioner who keeled over in
>> > plot 5.
The allotments where I rent have a main 6 foot wide drag along the whole
set specifically for this occurrence. The allotments themselves are
separated by mutually agreed paths approximately 3 feet wide.
And if you can't agree with a fellow allotmenteer on the spacing why
would you care if they got caught on your barbed wire?
>> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
>> wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
>>
>
> It's also a statement of intent. Barbed wire says very clearly "screw
> the rest of you, this is MINE". Which is fine when it is. It's not a
> particularly good message to send when you are renting the use of
> somebody else's land.
If I'm paying money to use it it's *MINE* for the period that I've paid
for. Would you take the same attitude to someone who changes the locks
on a rented house for their period of tenancy?
> It's very easy to get caught up in the idea that only the intention
> behind something matters. As in this case with the statements that the
> barbed wire can only hurt people trying to climb over it. We've got
> one locally. The police have started asking if we can reduce the
> number of entrances and exits to the estate in order to make it more
> difficult for criminals to escape. Which sounds reasonable except for
> one thing. The reason the estate was designed this way was that the
> previous limited access estate was a paradise for muggers who could
> very easily stake out all three ways in and out. The intention behind
> the idea is fine. However in practise things don't always work solely
> as intended.
>
This is, of course, true.
OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no right
to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
If someone nicking lead off a church roof gets hit by lightning, falling
masonry or a grumpy gargoyle I have no problem with that.
To be honest though; on my allotment barbed wire would be a waste of
time - they'd just nick the wire as well as the veg..:-(
gary
--
Ain't too young to admit it,
And I'm not too old to lie
I'm just another empty head.
AC/DC - "Ride On"
CCA
Cat) wrote:
> In article <Xns9B348230BDCCAgaryscaryriders...@212.23.3.119>,
> I had to let brambles run wild at the edge of my garden before the local
> teenage gits stopped rampaging through my garden (and the neighbours'
> gardens on either side). Now my garden still looks a mess, but it's at
> least a wild-garden-type mess rather than a neat garden willfully destroyed
> by cider and Buckfast crazed sociopaths type mess.
As a by-product, any local wildlife that happens to be around will
thank you too.
(No, not the wildlife with the bottles of Buckfast in their hands...)
CCA
--
Jazz-loving Soulmate to Cat
"Wasn't I just saying how this party could use a couple more torture-
happy psychopaths?"
Thomas Zahr
Clearly Wales would have to forego bananas then. Does that mean that
Terry won't visit?
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
Arthur Hagen
> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.235b359e...@news.aqxs.net:
> for. Would you take the same attitude to someone who changes the locks
> on a rented house for their period of tenancy?
Every place I have rented, changing the outside locks has specifically
been listed as one of the things the tenant can NOT do. And even when I
owned my own condo, the janitor required a copy of the key.
Some of the reasons should be obvious: What if a pipe breaks while
you're away, and they need access to the flat? And if you die, they
need to be able to show off the house/flat to other prospective buyers.
I'm sure you can think of other good reasons too.
> OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no
> right
> to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
> few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
Where's the limit? Should one be able to shoot them, like in Texas?
How about capturing and forcing them to work? For the rest of their
lives? How about beating them up? Or torture?
Again, where, exactly, is the limit?
The big problem is that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner.
And even though someone is on your property, that's just evidence and
not a judgement of guilt. The people are to be treated as innocents
until and unless proven guilty.
Cause the one getting caught on the barbed wire might be a young child,
or the mother taking a shortcut across your patch when her child
screams, or the ambulance team trying to help them. Or a myriad of
other situations where the one getting hurt isn't necessarily trying to
steal your turnips.
Regards,
--
*Art
"@lec ©awley"
>
> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own wire-cutters
> or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
So why is somuch of it used by police and armies?
Of course,if they are going to ban its use by allotment holders, they
should also ban the identical use by farmers. Which would be most
welcome, because it would bring back the much more attactive natural
alternative - a well laid hawthorn hedge.
Eric Jarvis
ga...@scaryriders.com says...
>
> If I'm paying money to use it it's *MINE* for the period that I've paid
> for. Would you take the same attitude to someone who changes the locks
> on a rented house for their period of tenancy?
>
If that was a breach of the tenancy agreement then yes. When property is
rented then both parties can claim ownership in a moral sense, so what
counts is what the contract between them says. It doesn't stop being the
landlord's property when it's rented, it's just that the landlord has
agreed to forego some specified rights of ownership for the duration of
the tenancy.
Rocky Frisco
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>
>> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
>> wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
>
> So why is somuch of it used by police and armies?
Don't think I have ever seen it used by either, except for prisons.
> Of course,if they are going to ban its use by allotment holders, they
> should also ban the identical use by farmers. Which would be most
> welcome, because it would bring back the much more attractive natural
> alternative - a well laid hawthorn hedge.
Is that the dense hedge you see along back roads in the UK? The hedge
you can't see though, so that a curvy road becomes a game of chicken?
In most of the USA, a "right-of-way" is required, so a driver can see
partway around curves in the road. I was very surprised to see dense
hedges right up against the edge of the road in the UK, since that
greatly increases the danger of collision.
-Rock
--
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> It's not that long since Blair said something to
>> the effect that agriculture is no longer necessary, as Britain can
>> just import its food.
>
> Or eat politicians?
Holding their noses as they do so.
Lesley.
Nigel Stapley
>
> Is that the dense hedge you see along back roads in the UK? The hedge
> you can't see though, so that a curvy road becomes a game of chicken?
>
> In most of the USA, a "right-of-way" is required, so a driver can see
> partway around curves in the road. I was very surprised to see dense
> hedges right up against the edge of the road in the UK, since that
> greatly increases the danger of collision.
Yur, but you've got all that *room*. We're quite tightly packed here, so
our arrangements have to be 'intractably squiggly'.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Lesley Weston
I can't find it, though the Best Answer at:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080906110226AA63jhe
is interesting.
He wasn't the first PM to have such foolish ideas. Between the wars
Britain became less and less self-sufficient, quite deliberately, until
they suddenly found themselves surrounded by U-boats that prevented food
from reaching them, and scrambling to turn despoiled land back into farm
land. The result was many years of hunger during and after the war for
those who had been used to eating properly, though the majority who had
not been so accustomed found themselves eating a better (but thinner)
diet than before because of the clever arrangements for rationing.
Still, it would have been much better for everyone if there had been
enough food grown in Britain to feed the entire population.
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:16 +0000, GaryN wrote:
>> Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.235b359e...@news.aqxs.net:
>> If I'm paying money to use it it's *MINE* for the period that I've paid
>> for. Would you take the same attitude to someone who changes the locks
>> on a rented house for their period of tenancy?
>
> Every place I have rented, changing the outside locks has specifically
> been listed as one of the things the tenant can NOT do. And even when I
> owned my own condo, the janitor required a copy of the key.
>
> Some of the reasons should be obvious: What if a pipe breaks while
> you're away, and they need access to the flat? And if you die, they
> need to be able to show off the house/flat to other prospective buyers.
Before or after removing the body and the pets who have been living on
it all the time that nobody thought to check where that nice Mr. Foo in
Number bar has been all this time?
> I'm sure you can think of other good reasons too.
>
>> OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no
>> right
>> to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
>> few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
>
> Where's the limit? Should one be able to shoot them, like in Texas?
> How about capturing and forcing them to work? For the rest of their
> lives? How about beating them up? Or torture?
> Again, where, exactly, is the limit?
Nobody will be affected by the barbed wire if they stay away from it.
It's not the same thing as that South African car that shoots a flame
thrower at anyone touching it without authorisation - it causes a few
scratches, not death, and it's clearly visible before anyone tries to
defeat it.
>
> The big problem is that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner.
> And even though someone is on your property, that's just evidence and
> not a judgement of guilt. The people are to be treated as innocents
> until and unless proven guilty.
By entering your property (rented or not it's still your property at the
time), they have declared their guilt.
> Cause the one getting caught on the barbed wire might be a young child,
> or the mother taking a shortcut across your patch when her child
> screams, or the ambulance team trying to help them. Or a myriad of
> other situations where the one getting hurt isn't necessarily trying to
> steal your turnips.
Which is why the whole allotment site should be protected, making it
unnecessary to surround any individual plot with barbed wire or anything
else. Since it's not so protected, in an ideal world Mr. Malcolm's tools
and vegetables should be still be quite safe, but in reality he has to
do something to protect them himself. Barbed wire is a lot less
offensive than some of the other things he might have tried.
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
Not just hawthorn either - a whole ecology of flora and fauna including
bees. Apparently, the current bee crisis is felt most keenly in
California, where the land grows almonds (or whatever the crop is)
exclusively, without any wildflowers or other vegetation at all for wild
bees to live on. So the almond flowers must be pollinated by truckloads
of forcibly-migrated bees who can't do such a good job even when they're
not dying by the millions as they are now.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55032/
Without bees (who are charming in themselves and have as much right to
live here as we do) there's no food.
Lesley.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> You suggest that ownership, or right to cultivate, land is a problem?
>
> There was no contract law until very recently - "I'm flogging this bit
> of ground to him", written on a bit of paper with the previous
> transactions crossed out was about as far as it went.
You didn't even need to talk to the person whose name you'd crossed out
about it...
Because in the times of which you speak, tenants had no rights whatsoever.
If the landowner didn't want you to erect barbed wire, he could not only
prevent you doing so, he could chuck you off the land and have you put to
death for interfering with his property.
--
Dave
So I looked, and behold, a pale horse.
And the name of him who sat on it was Death.
And the name of the horse was Binky.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:16 +0000, GaryN wrote:
> >
> >> OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no
> >> right
> >> to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
> >> few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
> >
> > Where's the limit? Should one be able to shoot them, like in Texas?
> > How about capturing and forcing them to work? For the rest of their
> > lives? How about beating them up? Or torture?
> > Again, where, exactly, is the limit?
>
> Nobody will be affected by the barbed wire if they stay away from it.
The same thing is true about land mines.
> It's not the same thing as that South African car that shoots a flame
> thrower at anyone touching it without authorisation - it causes a few
> scratches, not death, and it's clearly visible before anyone tries to
> defeat it.
No, it's the exact same thing -- the difference is just one of /degree/
of harm. Where, /exactly/, should the limit be put, if not at zero?
> > The big problem is that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner.
> > And even though someone is on your property, that's just evidence and
> > not a judgement of guilt. The people are to be treated as innocents
> > until and unless proven guilty.
>
> By entering your property (rented or not it's still your property at the
> time), they have declared their guilt.
No, they have not. They could be entering the property in response to a
cry for help, for example. Or they could be children playing. Or any
other number of situations which you can't possibly anticipate.
And even if they /are/ guilty, by what authority do you punish them?
Vigilante justice is always popular with some people, true, but it
doesn't make it any more /right/.
The only thing that is certain is that barbed wire is /intended/ to hurt
someone. It doesn't discriminate who it hurts.
> Barbed wire is a lot less
> offensive than some of the other things he might have tried.
And a lot more offencive than other things. Like /watching/ his plot.
Regards,
--
*Art
Chris Zakes
caused Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> to write:
>On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:17 -0700, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:16 +0000, GaryN wrote:
>> >
>> >> OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no
>> >> right
>> >> to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
>> >> few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
>> >
>> > Where's the limit? Should one be able to shoot them, like in Texas?
>> > How about capturing and forcing them to work? For the rest of their
>> > lives? How about beating them up? Or torture?
>> > Again, where, exactly, is the limit?
>>
>> Nobody will be affected by the barbed wire if they stay away from it.
>
>The same thing is true about land mines.
Umm, Arthur? Try living in the real world for a change. Barbed wire is
a standard material for fences. Unlike land mines, which are usually
buried, it's easy to see and avoid.
>> It's not the same thing as that South African car that shoots a flame
>> thrower at anyone touching it without authorisation - it causes a few
>> scratches, not death, and it's clearly visible before anyone tries to
>> defeat it.
>
>No, it's the exact same thing -- the difference is just one of /degree/
>of harm. Where, /exactly/, should the limit be put, if not at zero?
At something a little more reasonable than instant death or severe
injury for a minor infraction.
By your logic, telling a child "No" in a firm voice is "the exact same
thing -- the difference is just one of /degree/ "of harm" compared to
shooting the child, when it tries to swipe a cookie.
>> > The big problem is that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner.
>> > And even though someone is on your property, that's just evidence and
>> > not a judgement of guilt. The people are to be treated as innocents
>> > until and unless proven guilty.
>>
>> By entering your property (rented or not it's still your property at the
>> time), they have declared their guilt.
>
>No, they have not. They could be entering the property in response to a
>cry for help, for example. Or they could be children playing. Or any
>other number of situations which you can't possibly anticipate.
‘No one, Jason, no matter what, no, not even if they thought they
heard someone shouting for help, no one - are you paying attention,
Jason? - is to open the door of the Stationery Cupboard, or
accidentally fall on the door handle so that it opens, or threaten to
steal Richenda’s teddy bear unless she opens the door of the
Stationery Cupboard, or be standing nearby when a mysterious wind
comes out of nowhere and blows the door open all by itself, honestly,
it really did, or in any way open, cause to open, ask anyone else to
open, jump up and down on the loose floorboard to open or in any other
way seek to obtain entry to the Stationery Cupboard, Jason!’
>And even if they /are/ guilty, by what authority do you punish them?
>Vigilante justice is always popular with some people, true, but it
>doesn't make it any more /right/.
>
>The only thing that is certain is that barbed wire is /intended/ to hurt
>someone. It doesn't discriminate who it hurts.
>
>> Barbed wire is a lot less
>> offensive than some of the other things he might have tried.
>
>And a lot more offencive than other things. Like /watching/ his plot.
I'm sure this poor fellow has nothing better to do than spend the next
several months watching his plot 24/7?
SteveD
It's not just international relations issues, either. Even if everyone in
the world decided to break down the borders of countries and live in one
great big multicultural multilingual melting pot, having food sources a
long way away from major population centres just means that there are more
things which can go wrong in worse ways.
If there's a problem with long-range transport (including things like fuel
prices), food won't get to people. And long-range transport is easier to
disrupt than short-range.
The longer the distance between source and destination, the greater the
chance that a natural disaster or other local problem will cut or impede
the supply lines.
The longer it takes to transport food, the more needs to be spent on
preservation technologies (cold storage, food additives) and, in general,
the less healthy the resulting food is.
One interesting fictional example is the universe of the _Hyperion_
novels, where the interstellar network of FTL teleporters ("farcasters")
is destroyed in a single action, leading to entire planetary populations
dying from starvation.
-SteveD
GaryN
@newsfe02.iad:
> @lec Šawley wrote:
>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>>
>>> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
>>> wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
>>
>> So why is somuch of it used by police and armies?
>
> Don't think I have ever seen it used by either, except for prisons.
>
>> Of course,if they are going to ban its use by allotment holders, they
>> should also ban the identical use by farmers. Which would be most
>> welcome, because it would bring back the much more attractive natural
>> alternative - a well laid hawthorn hedge.
A sight all to infrequent these days, although I did see a nice example
down by Iffley Lock t'other day..
As to banning use of barbed wire by allotment holders there is a simpler
solution.
Ban allotment holders!
Build a new exclusive executive development on the allotment site, and
tell the grubby buggers to go to Tesclabro or Sainsconserveburys like
everyone else!
> Is that the dense hedge you see along back roads in the UK? The hedge
> you can't see though, so that a curvy road becomes a game of chicken?
Nope - you just drive slower and make room for other people. We call it
"courtesy"[1]
> In most of the USA, a "right-of-way" is required, so a driver can see
> partway around curves in the road. I was very surprised to see dense
> hedges right up against the edge of the road in the UK, since that
> greatly increases the danger of collision.
Yeah but in the USay people stop at stop signs on a highway junction
where you can see for 20 miles in every direction and there *IS NO
TRAFFIC*. When people are that good at following orders all you need is
another Bush, sorry - Hitler, to tell them what to do.
gary
[1]Although this word is now dying out of the English language.
GaryN
$r02$1...@mud.stack.nl:
<snippetry>
> live here as we do) there's no food.
We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to encourage the bees,
both are long-flowering and quite pleasant to look at[1].
I advise everyone to plant one or two in their garden.
Courgettes and heavy flowering varieties of beans and peas are also
conducive to bee welfare.
gary (joining the AFP "Save The Bees" campaign)
[1]Actually we're trying to work out how to stop the Borage flowering -
it's been in bloom for 5 months now.[2]
[2]OTOH it is killing the nettles; or, at least, encroaching on their
territiory.
GaryN
news:C516974B9...@192.168.0.2:
> In article <Xns9B34A518DB30Bda...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Oct 2008, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Allotment plots are generally about 6 feet apart. I do realise that
>>> a Londoner may not be aware of this.
>>
>>I always thought it was only people in big cities who *had*
>>allotments. Glasgow has allotments. Edinburgh has allotments.
>>Inverness, a "city" you could spit over, doesn't, because almost
>>everyone lives outside the city limits in a house with a garden.
>
> Yep, the various Glasgow allotments I pass on the train in the morning
> have the plots right up against each other apart from the ones
> abutting paths. Perhaps country allotments are a different beast
> entirely.
You'd pass my allotment on a train out of Cowley - except passengers
aren't allowed due to the weight of new Minis!
Football stadium, bowling complex and 10 screen cinema on one side, 5
story flats and some kid called "Aiden" whose mother seems to spend all
day, _every_ **&^%$£ day, shouting for at the top of her voice on the
other.
Hardly the countryside.
I'm tempted to put up barbed wire so that Aiden can run into it and we
can all get a bit of peace (after he stops screaming in pain).
At least she'd know where he was<shrug>.
gary
GaryN
<snip>
> There are huge problems with the British justice system. However a
> bias in favour of criminals isn't one of them. Unfortunately what the
> press sees is the absence of a bias in favour of people like the
> majority of journalists (white, middle class, articulate,
> professionals) and treats this as if it's a problem.
I would beg to differ on this point.
I am a white, middle class, articulate professional, I'm also a long-haired
scumbag bearded biker who wears leathers (in Thames Valley Police terms
this = "Target")
Having been arrested for "Being in the wrong place at the wrong time",
"Having long hair and wearing a leather jacket", "I think you were looking
at me in a funny way" and "Oh so you think you're clever do you?"[1] I
have to say that the bias is, in my experience, quite the opposite.
There is a definite bias against us rapscallions who don't buy a People
carrier and drive little Tarquin and Jemima to private school every day.
Some of the biggest criminals do exactly that.
But.
The moment the Police got 'Performance Targets' all of us became criminals.
And.
It's a lot easier to nick someone sitting on their own at a bus stop late
at night than it is to run down a mugger, and you get the same Brownie
points for it.
It's a damn sight less dangerous than trying to tackle an armed assailant
> I could go on for ages about this. It annoys me. It annoys me because
> it is used to hide an essential truth. Reality is messy and
> complicated. Attempting to impose stories on it is wrong. Just ask
> Esme Weatherwax.
Essential truth? Yup it's messy - the problem is that _everyone_ wants to
impose their story on it but they don't want to listen to anyone else's
gary
[1]The correct answer to this charge is *absolutely not* "Smarter than
you" - that allows them to play with the new taser that they got for
Christmas.
Carol Hague
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:gctfgt
> $r02$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> <snippetry>
> > Without bees (who are charming in themselves and have as much right to
> > live here as we do) there's no food.
>
> We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to encourage the bees,
> both are long-flowering and quite pleasant to look at[1].
>
> I advise everyone to plant one or two in their garden.
Borage is indeed very nice and beloved of bees, but it seeds itself
everywhere, with great abandon, so I would suggest that people only
plant it if they're sure they want it forever, or don't mind spending
hours pulling up the seedlings they *don't* want :-)
I'd also advise wearing gloves while doing the latter - borage stems and
leaves are covered with tiny hairs that can and will stick into the skin
and irritate it.
>
> Courgettes and heavy flowering varieties of beans and peas are also
> conducive to bee welfare.
Nasturtiums seem popular with the bees on my allotment, as do the
artichokes if I fail to harvest them quickly enough.
--
Carol
"This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong".
It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
Heather
wrote:
>In article <eR7Ik.7800$T81...@newsfe10.iad>, rockn...@gmail.com
>says...
>>
>> It does appear that in the UK there is a kind of bias against common
>> sense and justice, against self-defense and defense of property, a
>> prejudice in favor of criminals and thieves that goes against the
>> interests of the law-abiding citizen. The impression I get is that
>> some news sources exaggerate this in order to stir up readers' ire and
>> increase circulation, but that the problem actually exists in some
>> measure in reality.
>>
>
>Not so. It's ALL myth. The news sources don't just exaggerate it, much of
>it is completely invented. There is no bias in favour of thieves. There
>is a huge problem when it comes to making prosecutions stick in that it's
>currently very difficult to get people to come forward as witnesses in
>too many cases. There is a huge problem with overcrowded prisons combined
>with a huge reluctance to replace custodial sentences with non-custodial
>sentences, understandably in view of the fuss the press makes whenever
>they think they can create a "thieves get off with a slap on the wrist"
>news item. Neither of these is down to anyone favouring criminals over
>the innocent.
>
>One problem is that most people have an impression of how the justice
>system should work that it gleaned entirely from fiction. In fiction it's
>all nice and tidy even when it's very complicated. In fiction you almost
>always know who is guilty in the end. In reality it's much more messy. In
>reality you don't know for certain who is guilty most of the time. In
>fiction the story often culminates when the villain is arrested, or when
>the prosecuting barrister totally demolishes the defence's case. In
>reality most arrests by the police are at the start of an investigation
>not the end of it. In reality a jury usually have to make a decision
>between two well presented and convincing cases.
>
>However reporting of these things is done on a basis of making it fit
>with what "everyone knows", with "common sense". In other words on a
>basis that where reality differs from fiction then reality must be wrong.
>
>In fiction it's usually the case that crime is committed by bad people,
>and good people are the victims of crime. In reality there are very few
>people who can be reasonably described as entirely good people or
>entirely bad people. Most of us do both good things and bad things at
>different times. In fiction it's obvious that one person is a criminal
>low life and another is a fine upstanding citizen. In reality it's a lot
>harder to make that sort of distinction on the basis of anything other
>than prejudice.
>
>In fiction all false accusations are spotted by the police or lawyers. In
>fiction it's obvious when a witness is lying. In reality there are plenty
>of people found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. In fiction this is
>always because of corruption or incompetence. In reality it's generally
>because it's often difficult to prove a case and there is a huge social
>pressure to ensure that at least somebody is found guilty.
>
>So the media feasts on stories of criminals set free and innocents
>victimised. However what they don't report is the messy detail. It's
>in the messy detail that you get the information that matters. That there
>was no prosecution because nobody was willing to be a witness. That the
>supposed victim has a long history of making false accusations. And so
>on.
>
>There are huge problems with the British justice system. However a bias
>in favour of criminals isn't one of them. Unfortunately what the press
>sees is the absence of a bias in favour of people like the majority of
>journalists (white, middle class, articulate, professionals) and treats
>this as if it's a problem.
>
>I could go on for ages about this. It annoys me. It annoys me because it
>is used to hide an essential truth. Reality is messy and complicated.
>Attempting to impose stories on it is wrong. Just ask Esme Weatherwax.
As someone who has just started reading alt.fan.pratchett I just
wanted to express my appreciation of a most excellent post.
I hope I have not breached any group etiquette by not introducing
myself first. If someone can point me to the FAQ I will be sure to
read it.
--
Heather
Jeff Howell
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 12:17 am, Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>> And, by means of a reminder that there is idiocy and *idiocy*
>>>> everywhere, something from your own back yard, old thing:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=5c383aca-c3d2-4b...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, one for the heavy metal fans!
>>
>> That would be me! I love the smell of molybdenum in the morning.
>>
>> Anyhow the link no werk. 500-error from the Apache server.
>
> It's about Tulsans who hear a new doll-baby saying Satanic stuff.
>
> "Nothing to see here; move along."
And Islamic stuff too. It says quite a bit about those doing the
hearing that they're picking up the two in combination...
Well done on the part of Fisher-Price, making the original
pre-compression sound file available for anyone to listen to and come to
their own conclusions.
--
Jeff
Carol Hague
> As someone who has just started reading alt.fan.pratchett I just
> wanted to express my appreciation of a most excellent post.
>
> I hope I have not breached any group etiquette by not introducing
> myself first. If someone can point me to the FAQ I will be sure to
> read it.
Hello Heather!
Introductions are not required, but people usually don't mind them
either :-)
There are a Several of FAQs for the group, which can be found hereabouts
:- http://www.lspace.org/faqs/
I hope you won't find them intimidating or anything - there may be a
test later, but it'll probably involve balloons or something :-)
There's a traditional welcome involving some combination of chairs,
cats, chocolate, alligators and questioning the parentage of the
livestock, but since it's Monday I'll take the liberty of offering a cup
of tea instead :-)
Lesley Weston
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:55:05 -0700, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Between the wars
>> Britain became less and less self-sufficient, quite deliberately, until
>> they suddenly found themselves surrounded by U-boats that prevented food
>>from reaching them, and scrambling to turn despoiled land back into farm
>> land. The result was many years of hunger during and after the war for
>> those who had been used to eating properly, though the majority who had
>> not been so accustomed found themselves eating a better (but thinner)
>> diet than before because of the clever arrangements for rationing.
>> Still, it would have been much better for everyone if there had been
>> enough food grown in Britain to feed the entire population.
>
> It's not just international relations issues, either. Even if everyone in
> the world decided to break down the borders of countries and live in one
> great big multicultural multilingual melting pot, having food sources a
> long way away from major population centres just means that there are more
> things which can go wrong in worse ways.
Indeed! I have some sympathy for the 100 Mile movement, which says you
must eat only food produced within 100 miles of where you live, and
implies that you must eat only foods that are in season or have been
stored or preserved. This is almost practical in small countries such as
those in Europe, though one's diet would get somewhat boring after a
while without imported cheeses, bananas or whatever, but just about
impossible in North America or Australia. Here in Vancouver we would
have no rice, wheat or other grains, no fresh fruit besides apples in
winter and spring and very few fresh vegetables at any time of the year.
If there were a radical change in farming practices, then everywhere
could have a full diet (apart from fruit out of season) but how likely
is that? Meanwhile, we do tend to buy local foods where and when possible.
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:17 -0700, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:16 +0000, GaryN wrote:
>>>
>>>> OTOH if people are already trespassing on land where they have no
>>>> right
>>>> to be then I, for one, have absolutely no problem with them getting a
>>>> few scratches from a bit of barbed wire.
>>> Where's the limit? Should one be able to shoot them, like in Texas?
>>> How about capturing and forcing them to work? For the rest of their
>>> lives? How about beating them up? Or torture?
>>> Again, where, exactly, is the limit?
>> Nobody will be affected by the barbed wire if they stay away from it.
>
> The same thing is true about land mines.
Not at all - barbed wire is clearly visible.
>
>> It's not the same thing as that South African car that shoots a flame
>> thrower at anyone touching it without authorisation - it causes a few
>> scratches, not death, and it's clearly visible before anyone tries to
>> defeat it.
>
> No, it's the exact same thing -- the difference is just one of /degree/
> of harm. Where, /exactly/, should the limit be put, if not at zero?
There is no harm if nobody goes near enough to touch it, which is easy
with barbed wire but not with the car - you can see the barbed wire
ahead of being in danger and so avoid the danger.
>
>>> The big problem is that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner.
>>> And even though someone is on your property, that's just evidence and
>>> not a judgement of guilt. The people are to be treated as innocents
>>> until and unless proven guilty.
>> By entering your property (rented or not it's still your property at the
>> time), they have declared their guilt.
>
> No, they have not. They could be entering the property in response to a
> cry for help, for example. Or they could be children playing. Or any
> other number of situations which you can't possibly anticipate.
>
> And even if they /are/ guilty, by what authority do you punish them?
> Vigilante justice is always popular with some people, true, but it
> doesn't make it any more /right/.
What punishment? Barbed wire is a self-fulfilling warning: "Touch me and
you'll get some scratches that could be a bit uncomfortable for a little
while. Stay away and you'll be fine." It's simple cause and effect,
without any human intervention.
>
> The only thing that is certain is that barbed wire is /intended/ to hurt
> someone. It doesn't discriminate who it hurts.
And the car isn't and does?
>
>> Barbed wire is a lot less
>> offensive than some of the other things he might have tried.
>
> And a lot more offencive than other things. Like /watching/ his plot.
Day and night, sleeplessly vigilant in the snow and rain. While his
little children, miles away in the house that they can no longer afford
because he can't take time away for a job or anything else so trivial
ask plaintively "When is Daddy coming home?", and his wife answers "Be
patient, Little Ones, Daddy can't come home until the growing season is
finished and the harvest is in".
Lesley.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:gctfgt
> $r02$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> <snippetry>
>> Without bees (who are charming in themselves and have as much right to
>> live here as we do) there's no food.
>
> We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to encourage the bees,
> both are long-flowering and quite pleasant to look at[1].
We encourage wildflowers in any bit where there isn't actually food
growing. There's one in particular, a tall spike with a lot of small
blue flowers that blooms from earliest spring until frost and beyond,
that drives the bees wild.
>
> I advise everyone to plant one or two in their garden.
>
> Courgettes and heavy flowering varieties of beans and peas are also
> conducive to bee welfare.
The local bees don't seem to care for our zucchini (courgettes) and
other squashes, so we have to do the pollinating ourselves with a Q-tip.
But they do like the peas and beans, and they go crazy for the tomatoes
and sunflowers.
>
> gary (joining the AFP "Save The Bees" campaign)
Unfortunately, it's not lack of food that's killing the domestic bees.
But it can't hurt to feed them if they visit one's land, and it's
certainly a Good Thing for the wild bees.
>
> [1]Actually we're trying to work out how to stop the Borage flowering -
> it's been in bloom for 5 months now.[2]
>
> [2]OTOH it is killing the nettles; or, at least, encroaching on their
> territiory.
Yay borage!
Lesley.
>
Nigel Stapley
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:gctfgt
> $r02$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> <snippetry>
>> Without bees (who are charming in themselves and have as much right to
>> live here as we do) there's no food.
>
> We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to encourage the bees,
> both are long-flowering and quite pleasant to look at[1].
>
> I advise everyone to plant one or two in their garden.
>
> Courgettes and heavy flowering varieties of beans and peas are also
> conducive to bee welfare.
>
I've got standard buddleia, buddleia globosa, fuchsia and honeysuckle in
my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of bees.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> As someone who has just started reading alt.fan.pratchett I just
> wanted to express my appreciation of a most excellent post.
>
> I hope I have not breached any group etiquette by not introducing
> myself first. If someone can point me to the FAQ I will be sure to
> read it.
>
>
Welcome! And no you haven't. There's a running joke to do with cats,
chocolate, chairs and alligators that will surely be along in a minute.
You might like to look at L-Space:
Lesley.
April Goodwin-Smith
> GaryN wrote:
>> We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to
>> encourage the bees, both are long-flowering and quite
>> pleasant to look at[1]. I advise everyone to plant one
>> or two in their garden.
>
> Borage is indeed very nice and beloved of bees, but it
> seeds itself everywhere, with great abandon, so I would
> suggest that people only plant it if they're sure they want
> it forever, or don't mind spending hours pulling up the
> seedlings they *don't* want :-)
>
Yes; what she said. When we had a yard, we were fairly
casual in our approach to boundaries regarding where things
could and couldn't grow. Eventually we had weeny weeny
borage plants in the lawn - they would put up just enough
stalk and leaves to be able to bloom below the level of the
lawnmower blade. Very resilient and adaptable plant.
But the bees absolutely love it.
April.
Julia Jones
<ga...@scaryriders.com> writes
>Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:gctfgt
>$r02$1...@mud.stack.nl:
><snippetry>
>> Without bees (who are charming in themselves and have as much right to
>> live here as we do) there's no food.
>
>We grow Borage and Cornflowers on the allotment to encourage the bees,
>both are long-flowering and quite pleasant to look at[1].
>
>I advise everyone to plant one or two in their garden.
>
>Courgettes and heavy flowering varieties of beans and peas are also
>conducive to bee welfare.
>
>gary (joining the AFP "Save The Bees" campaign)
>
>[1]Actually we're trying to work out how to stop the Borage flowering -
>it's been in bloom for 5 months now.[2]
>
>[2]OTOH it is killing the nettles; or, at least, encroaching on their
>territiory.
>
On the other hand, I also had an awful lot of bumblebees in my garden.
:-)
--
Julia Jones
"There are people in the world who believe that Elvis did not die
but was abducted by aliens. Most of these people have the vote
and many own guns." Terry Pratchett
Elliott Grasett
<snip>
>> Is that the dense hedge you see along back roads in the UK? The hedge
>> you can't see though, so that a curvy road becomes a game of chicken?
>
> Nope - you just drive slower and make room for other people. We call it
> "courtesy"[1]
>
< . . .>
>
> [1]Although this word is now dying out of the English language.
>
The language is evolving, although I'm not sure in which direction.
"Courtesy" is either:
(1) the art of suing your neighbour, or
(2) the fear of being sued.
It's root is, of course, that word, "Court".
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Elliott Grasett
<snip>
>
> I've got standard buddleia, buddleia globosa, fuchsia and honeysuckle in
> my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of bees.
>
Does your honeysuckle attract humming birds?
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Eric Jarvis
un...@judgemental.plus.com says...
Likewise. I get regular visits from bees checking out the buddleia and
fuschsia. Also there's usually a cabbage white butterfly or two whilst
the buddleia is flowering, along with a selection of ladybirds. I feel a
bit guilty about removing the nettles, because they were attracting red
admiral butterflies (a favourite of mine), but with a smallish garden
it's not really possible to work around patches of nettles.
Target for the next couple of years is to make the garden more bee and
sparrow friendly.
--
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.
"@lec ©awley"
> @lec Šawley wrote:
>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>>
>>> Added thoughts: barbed wire is for animals, who do not own
>>> wire-cutters or heavy gloves or know what barbed wire is.
>>
>> So why is somuch of it used by police and armies?
>
> Don't think I have ever seen it used by either, except for prisons.
I point you towards No Mans Land, 1914 and many palces since as soon as
the armis stop moving. And the police in authoritarian countries
(apartheid South Africa springs to mind) had special trucks for
dispensing it. They were often shown preparing for marches by covering
the area with it - or, mor recently, the even nastier barbed tape.
>
>> Of course,if they are going to ban its use by allotment holders, they
>> should also ban the identical use by farmers. Which would be most
>> welcome, because it would bring back the much more attractive natural
>> alternative - a well laid hawthorn hedge.
>
> Is that the dense hedge you see along back roads in the UK? The hedge
> you can't see though, so that a curvy road becomes a game of chicken?
>
> In most of the USA, a "right-of-way" is required, so a driver can see
> partway around curves in the road. I was very surprised to see dense
> hedges right up against the edge of the road in the UK, since that
> greatly increases the danger of collision.
But the hedges predate motor vehicles. With vehicles wit a maximum speed
of 4mph, and a usual speed of 2mph, it wasn't a problem. In many cases,
usage pre-surfacing has lowered the road four or six feet below
surrounding land, so that the hedges are actually at the topof banks.
And the farmers willk rsist jealosly the taking of a few more feet off
their fields - we don't have the land to spare like you do,
"@lec ©awley"
Which, before it developed its leagal meaning, meant the residence of a
king, at which behaviour was meant to be court-eous. So it is the legal
meaning which is the nasty neologism (because, of course, the King in
his court was The Law).
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Elliott Grasett wrote:
>> The language is evolving, although I'm not sure in which direction.
>>
>> "Courtesy" is either:
>>
>> (1) the art of suing your neighbour, or
>> (2) the fear of being sued.
>>
>> It's root is, of course, that word, "Court".
>
> Which, before it developed its leagal meaning, meant the residence of
> a king, at which behaviour was meant to be court-eous. So it is the
> legal meaning which is the nasty neologism (because, of course, the
> King in his court was The Law).
I thought courtesy was not arguing with the umpire...
Nigel Stapley
> In article <jLydnZuqQ5lb_m7V...@posted.plusnet>,
> un...@judgemental.plus.com says...
>> my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of bees.
>>
>
> Likewise. I get regular visits from bees checking out the buddleia and
> fuschsia. Also there's usually a cabbage white butterfly or two whilst
> the buddleia is flowering, along with a selection of ladybirds. I feel a
> bit guilty about removing the nettles, because they were attracting red
> admiral butterflies (a favourite of mine), but with a smallish garden
> it's not really possible to work around patches of nettles.
>
I've seen very few butterflies this year, even on the buddleia, and it
has been a long time since I saw ladybirds in any real numbers.
I've had the odd dragonfly the last couple of years, though. Seem to be
interested in the leylandii.
> Target for the next couple of years is to make the garden more bee and
> sparrow friendly.
>
That's why I have had trouble believing the reports that sparrows are
becoming sparse. Not here, they're bloody not. They're usually in the
hedge (which is - reading from the back to the front - privet,
hypericum, something that may be a species of nut, hawthorn, buddleia
globosa, more privet, more hawthorn, yet more privet, elder, oak,
something I can't identify, an extra side order of privet and some
laurel down by the gate). That's when they're not kicking up a row in
next door's leylandii, of course. Or in the eaves.
Blackbirds I have a few of, and a particularly cheeky robin (see
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog.htm#16_07_08). Bugger got
into the kitchen a few weeks ago while my back was turned.
And is it just me, or do there seem to be more crows about than there
used to be?
Rocky Frisco
Admitted. We sure does got us a lotta damn room.
Although I must say that driving around North of Manchester looks a
nice bit like driving around North of Tulsa.
Seriously.
Funny how things tend to normalize.
-Rock
--
Tiny Bulcher
I have sparrows of very similar mien, but down in the next village my
mother never sees any sparrows at all.
>
> Blackbirds I have a few of, and a particularly cheeky robin (see
> http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog.htm#16_07_08). Bugger got
> into the kitchen a few weeks ago while my back was turned.
>
> And is it just me, or do there seem to be more crows about than there
> used to be?
There must be some caws for that, surely?
Carol Hague
If I am correct in my recollection then Nigel is in the UK, which would
make likelihood of this , alas, vanishingly small.
The poor hummingbirds would get washed away in the British Rainy Season
(which runs from 1st April to 30th March)
Lizzy Taylor
> Elliott Grasett <egra...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I've got standard buddleia, buddleia globosa, fuchsia and honeysuckle in
>>> my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of bees.
>>>
>> Does your honeysuckle attract humming birds?
>
> If I am correct in my recollection then Nigel is in the UK, which would
> make likelihood of this , alas, vanishingly small.
>
> The poor hummingbirds would get washed away in the British Rainy Season
> (which runs from 1st April to 30th March)
>
What? It doesn't rain on 31st March? Woo hoo! I'll be able to hang out
my washing :-)
Lizzy
Carol Hague
Sorry, I left out the "give or take a day" caveat :-)
Once more I am reminded not to post with too much blood in my caffeine
stream...
GaryN
news:1ioswfp.ni1cijah4bd2N%ca...@wrhpv.com:
> Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Carol Hague wrote:
>> > Elliott Grasett <egra...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>> I've got standard buddleia, buddleia globosa, fuchsia and
>> >>> honeysuckle in my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of
>> >>> bees.
>> >>>
>> >> Does your honeysuckle attract humming birds?
>> >
>> > If I am correct in my recollection then Nigel is in the UK, which
>> > would make likelihood of this , alas, vanishingly small.
>> >
>> > The poor hummingbirds would get washed away in the British Rainy
>> > Season (which runs from 1st April to 30th March)
>> >
>>
>> What? It doesn't rain on 31st March? Woo hoo! I'll be able to hang
>> out my washing :-)
>
> Sorry, I left out the "give or take a day" caveat :-)
31st March is the monsoon season, or at least it was around here this
year. Everyone who lives in houses built on the Thames flood plain got,
well, flooded.
I may be the only person in the area who finds this unsurprising -
everyone else seems to be of the opinion that "Something Should Be
Done", although what and by whom is unclear.
I did do something - I moved to live on a hill.
> Once more I am reminded not to post with too much blood in my caffeine
> stream...
A situation to be avoided at all costs...;-)
gary
Carol Hague
> 31st March is the monsoon season, or at least it was around here this
> year. Everyone who lives in houses built on the Thames flood plain got,
> well, flooded.
>
> I may be the only person in the area who finds this unsurprising -
> everyone else seems to be of the opinion that "Something Should Be
> Done", although what and by whom is unclear.
Like maybe ....oooh....not building more houses on flood plains? You
really have to wonder about the mindset of people who thought that was a
good idea, don't you?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 31st March is the monsoon season, or at least it was around here this
>> year. Everyone who lives in houses built on the Thames flood plain
>> got, well, flooded.
>>
>> I may be the only person in the area who finds this unsurprising -
>> everyone else seems to be of the opinion that "Something Should Be
>> Done", although what and by whom is unclear.
>
> Like maybe ....oooh....not building more houses on flood plains? You
> really have to wonder about the mindset of people who thought that was
> a good idea, don't you?
Speaking as someone who lives in a former swamp, when Culloden was
flooded some years ago, everyone seemed to be of the opinion the solution
was larger drains.
GaryN
news:_JqdnfgGRKlmoWnV...@bt.com:
> žus cwęš Nigel Stapley:
>> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>> In article <jLydnZuqQ5lb_m7V...@posted.plusnet>,
>>> un...@judgemental.plus.com says...
>>>> I've got standard buddleia, buddleia globosa, fuchsia and
>>>> honeysuckle in my garden - so I've not noticed a shortage of bees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise. I get regular visits from bees checking out the buddleia
>>> and fuschsia. Also there's usually a cabbage white butterfly or two
>>> whilst the buddleia is flowering, along with a selection of
>>> ladybirds. I feel a bit guilty about removing the nettles, because
>>> they were attracting red admiral butterflies (a favourite of mine),
>>> but with a smallish garden it's not really possible to work around
>>> patches of nettles.
>>
>> I've seen very few butterflies this year, even on the buddleia, and
>> it has been a long time since I saw ladybirds in any real numbers.
>>
>> I've had the odd dragonfly the last couple of years, though. Seem to
>> be interested in the leylandii.
>>
>>> Target for the next couple of years is to make the garden more bee
>>> and sparrow friendly.
We did try that in 'erself's garden hedge, putting a couple of bird
tables deep into it and preventing cat access by using downward sidings.
All we achieved was feeding the local fluffy-tailed tree rats
(admittedly in one case to one of the local cats) who entered from
above.
>> That's why I have had trouble believing the reports that sparrows are
>> becoming sparse. Not here, they're bloody not. They're usually in the
>> hedge (which is - reading from the back to the front - privet,
>> hypericum, something that may be a species of nut, hawthorn, buddleia
>> globosa, more privet, more hawthorn, yet more privet, elder, oak,
>> something I can't identify, an extra side order of privet and some
>> laurel down by the gate). That's when they're not kicking up a row in
>> next door's leylandii, of course. Or in the eaves.
>
> I have sparrows of very similar mien, but down in the next village my
> mother never sees any sparrows at all.
My mother also almost never sees sparrows - although this may have
something to do with the Merlin that lives in the pole barn and hunts
the garden bird table from a perch in the eaves of the house.
>> Blackbirds I have a few of, and a particularly cheeky robin (see
>> http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Not_blog/Not_blog.htm#16_07_08). Bugger got
>> into the kitchen a few weeks ago while my back was turned.
We have a robin on the allotment who has read the Official Robin Manual.
Stick a fork in the ground, walk away from it for a minute and the
little bugger will be sitting on the handle looking cute!
We also have Blackbirds, Woodpigeons, a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, a
Green Woodpecker, some Red Kites, Nuthatches, all sorts of tits and a
Pheasant.
>> And is it just me, or do there seem to be more crows about than there
>> used to be?
>
> There must be some caws for that, surely?
Yup - I'd use this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK_CAWS
although it might be overkill and the neighbours would probably complain
about the noise..;-)
Carol Hague
> On 14 Oct 2008, ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote:
>
> > GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 31st March is the monsoon season, or at least it was around here this
> >> year. Everyone who lives in houses built on the Thames flood plain
> >> got, well, flooded.
> >>
> >> I may be the only person in the area who finds this unsurprising -
> >> everyone else seems to be of the opinion that "Something Should Be
> >> Done", although what and by whom is unclear.
> >
> > Like maybe ....oooh....not building more houses on flood plains? You
> > really have to wonder about the mindset of people who thought that was
> > a good idea, don't you?
>
> Speaking as someone who lives in a former swamp, when Culloden was
> flooded some years ago, everyone seemed to be of the opinion the solution
> was larger drains.
The water has to go *somewhere* though and if you build on all of the
flood plain, where's that going to be? You can get away with it to a
degree, but eventually it's likely to go horribly wrong. Unless you're
Dutch, of course :-)
Heather
wrote:
>
>Hello Heather!
>
>Introductions are not required, but people usually don't mind them
>either :-)
>
>There are a Several of FAQs for the group, which can be found hereabouts
>:- http://www.lspace.org/faqs/
>
>I hope you won't find them intimidating or anything - there may be a
>test later, but it'll probably involve balloons or something :-)
>
>There's a traditional welcome involving some combination of chairs,
>cats, chocolate, alligators and questioning the parentage of the
>livestock, but since it's Monday I'll take the liberty of offering a cup
>of tea instead :-)
Thank you, Carol.
--
Heather