Red ken Update

Following my previous post, again, on the TV which, generally transmits
banal crap continuously about such earth shattering subjects as the latest
big brother with trees, the odd snippet shines.

This time Ken has has stated that 4 x 4 vehicles in London cause damage to
your health and irepairable damage to the environment. He went as far as to
suggest that 'warnings' should be provided to all prospective purchasers as
to the damage they will cause should they buy a 4 x 4.

I would like to see a comparison between a 4 x 4 and say, a 3.5 tonne
Transit, lets look at the actual numbers of each vehicle on the road in
London, gross weight, emissions and the driving attitude of 'white van man'
complete with shaven head and baseball cap!!!!!

I know which category poses a greater threat......

AlunP

Alun,

On mud-club we having a sticker design contest :
http://forums.mud-club.com/viewtopic.php?p=37327#37327

There are some *very* good ones so far ;-) The winner gets made

--
Neil
http://www.mud-club.com

Just to qualify that - we are making Health Warning stickers

--
Neil

"Alun P" <alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> This time Ken has has stated that 4 x 4 vehicles in London cause damage to
> your health and irepairable damage to the environment. He went as far as to
> suggest that 'warnings' should be provided to all prospective purchasers as
> to the damage they will cause should they buy a 4 x 4.

You must remember that Ken is a politician and that often what they
say/do/believe is not necessarily based on the 'common sense' logic
that you or I would apply to the situation.

I imagine that his comments are designed to attract the votes (that's
the currency these people deal in) of a certain group or groups within
London. In the "anti 4x4' case I think he's attracting the affluent
dwellers of places like Islington, Wimbledon etc - usually families
with young children - whose fear of things is vastly disproportionate.

It's similar to the fears shown by those parents who are protesting,
blockading and demonstrating against mobile phone masts - they use the
phones themselves, their kids use mobiles but they don't want a mast
anywhere near them (irrespective of any findings for/against the
health issues). It's irrational fear.

From what I've seen, these protesters also are affluent,
urban/suburban dwellers and they mostly drive larger vehicles (they
turn up in mini-buses, estate cars and people carriers - not public
transport because these same people objected to the tram system being
extended to the area!)

So it's nothing to do with "logic" which is why we all read the stuff
that comes from Ken's mouth and the anti-4x4 groups and can't beleive
it as it doesn't make sense - it makes sense to them because they are
scared - scared of not getting to work on time - scared of sitting in
traffic on the school run and feeling frustrated - scared of all sorts
of things because our politicians tell us that we are seconds away
from total destruction....and TV projects the image that everyone else
is really rich and famous and we're not.

....reminds me of those guys with the boards saying "The end of the
world is nigh"...

In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] (MattGreen) wrote:

> "Alun P" <alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote in
> message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> You must remember that Ken is a politician and that often what they
> say/do/believe is not necessarily based on the 'common sense' logic
> that you or I would apply to the situation.
>
> I imagine that his comments are designed to attract the votes (that's
> the currency these people deal in) of a certain group or groups within
> London. In the "anti 4x4' case I think he's attracting the affluent
> dwellers of places like Islington, Wimbledon etc - usually families
> with young children - whose fear of things is vastly disproportionate.
>

Possibly........ but as far as I can see it's all down
to it being fashionable to be "anti" something these days.
Anti hunting
Anti Ssmoking
Anti drinking
Anti car
Anti lorries
Anti roads
Anti people who wear the same coat as their partners
Anti 4x4
Anti..... anything.

The bit that gets me is that people are quite happy to
be anti-<enter subject of choice>, but get terribly upset
when it's their <delete as applicable - hobby/actvity/sport/
interest/anything else> is the one that gets the chop.

Personaly I call it hypocrasy (sp?). Me, I'm just anti
the anti's, becasue no one has the right to tell others
what to think.

Flame froof suit donned.

Richard


--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

So beamendsltd was, like

> Personaly I call it hypocrasy (sp?). Me, I'm just anti
> the anti's, becasue no one has the right to tell others
> what to think.
>
> Flame froof suit donned.

No need for that. I agree with you. Where do people get the idea from that
because they don't like, or approve of, or participate in something, they
now have the right to ban other peope from doing it? It seems a very recent
thing - the last 10 years or so. I can think of at least two things (not
going to say what - I'm not here to start a row) that I don't personally
like and stay well away from. I can think of a number of very sound
reasons - public safety, public health, morality, economic, aesthetic - why
people should be forbidden from doing them. But that's my opinion, nothing
more. I'm not campaigning to ban them. Each to his own.

The animal rights argument is interesting. If you agree that animals have
the same rights as humans, then the AR people are absolutely correct and
consistent in their opposition to animal testing. If you don't agree, and
believe that animals are, well, just animals, then they are a bunch of
dangerous and psychotic bunny-huggers. The argument is not around "cruelty"
or any other animal rights "issue", it's a deep philosophical division in
how different people view the world. In the past, we have always allowed
people to have their own view of the world. If we get to a stage when one
kind of world-view is approved and accepted,and others are "wrong" and in
need of "re-education", then God help us all. Think Soviet Russia, or the
Inquisition.

If I run someone over in my 4x4, they have a right to object. They do not
have a right to decide what vehicle I wish to drive.


--

Rich

Nullum Gratuitum Prandium

Richard Brookman wrote:

> The animal rights argument is interesting. If you agree that animals have
> the same rights as humans, then the AR people are absolutely correct and
> consistent in their opposition to animal testing.

....but then they should be vegan and charged with murder if they kill a fly.

Steve

Why the hell pick on 4X4's in fact any car at all - for all vehicular
traffic aerospace contribute 95% of all pollution
If all the worlds aicraft landed there would be no room for them - they have
to keep aroung 25% up in the sky just for space limitations
Red Ken should try lobbying for Boeing and the others to fit Catalysts to
their aircraft flying over London to see how far he gets!!! they burn
millions of gallons a day. Not that I'm anti flying, as I have to go "over
the pond" every now and then with work, but if you want to tackle the
problem you need to look at the root causes not the minority offenders!

About time Ken and the entire Labour party buggered off anyway!



"Alun P" <alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Following my previous post, again, on the TV which, generally transmits
> banal crap continuously about such earth shattering subjects as the latest
> big brother with trees, the odd snippet shines.
>
> This time Ken has has stated that 4 x 4 vehicles in London cause damage to
> your health and irepairable damage to the environment. He went as far as
> to suggest that 'warnings' should be provided to all prospective
> purchasers as to the damage they will cause should they buy a 4 x 4.
>
> I would like to see a comparison between a 4 x 4 and say, a 3.5 tonne
> Transit, lets look at the actual numbers of each vehicle on the road in
> London, gross weight, emissions and the driving attitude of 'white van
> man' complete with shaven head and baseball cap!!!!!
>
> I know which category poses a greater threat......
>
> AlunP
>

well said


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So beamendsltd was, like
>
>> Personaly I call it hypocrasy (sp?). Me, I'm just anti
>> the anti's, becasue no one has the right to tell others
>> what to think.
>>
>> Flame froof suit donned.
>
> No need for that. I agree with you. Where do people get the idea from
> that because they don't like, or approve of, or participate in something,
> they now have the right to ban other peope from doing it? It seems a very
> recent thing - the last 10 years or so. I can think of at least two
> things (not going to say what - I'm not here to start a row) that I don't
> personally like and stay well away from. I can think of a number of very
> sound reasons - public safety, public health, morality, economic,
> aesthetic - why people should be forbidden from doing them. But that's my
> opinion, nothing more. I'm not campaigning to ban them. Each to his own.
>
> The animal rights argument is interesting. If you agree that animals have
> the same rights as humans, then the AR people are absolutely correct and
> consistent in their opposition to animal testing. If you don't agree, and
> believe that animals are, well, just animals, then they are a bunch of
> dangerous and psychotic bunny-huggers. The argument is not around
> "cruelty" or any other animal rights "issue", it's a deep philosophical
> division in how different people view the world. In the past, we have
> always allowed people to have their own view of the world. If we get to a
> stage when one kind of world-view is approved and accepted,and others are
> "wrong" and in need of "re-education", then God help us all. Think Soviet
> Russia, or the Inquisition.
>
> If I run someone over in my 4x4, they have a right to object. They do not
> have a right to decide what vehicle I wish to drive.
>
>
> --
>
> Rich
>
> Nullum Gratuitum Prandium
>

So Steve Taylor was, like

> Richard Brookman wrote:
>
>> The animal rights argument is interesting. If you agree that
>> animals have the same rights as humans, then the AR people are
>> absolutely correct and consistent in their opposition to animal
>> testing.
>
> ...but then they should be vegan and charged with murder if they kill
> a fly.
> Steve

Yes, if they are to be consistent. The problem is where to draw the line,
and that's where the inconsistency comes in. Cuddly, cute things - foxes,
beagles, monkeys - and they are up in arms. Things like rats and insects
(about 95% of all animal experiments are on insects) and they don't have a
problem. When did you ever see an animal rights poster with a fruit fly on?
I guess that they suspect (rightly) that the public would find their
attitude ridiculous and their support from the well-meaning middle class
would evaporate. I will respect anyone's point of view, as long as it is a
consistent one. If someone wants to criticise me for shooting and eating a
pheasant, that's fine - as long as that person is a vegan and doesn't have a
crafty bacon sarnie or visit Macdonalds on the way home from the demo. And
they can criticise my choice of vehicle if they never catch a bus, drive a
car or fly in an aeroplane.

--

Rich

Nullum Gratuitum Prandium

>Possibly........ but as far as I can see it's all down
>to it being fashionable to be "anti" something these days.
>Anti hunting
>Anti Ssmoking
>Anti drinking
>Anti car
>Anti lorries
>Anti roads
>Anti people who wear the same coat as their partners
>Anti 4x4
>Anti..... anything.
>
>The bit that gets me is that people are quite happy to
>be anti-<enter subject of choice>, but get terribly upset
>when it's their <delete as applicable - hobby/actvity/sport/
>interest/anything else> is the one that gets the chop.
>
>Personaly I call it hypocrasy (sp?). Me, I'm just anti
>the anti's, becasue no one has the right to tell others
>what to think.
>
>Flame froof suit donned.
>
>Richard

I think there is some strange sociology / anthropology taking place at
the moment. For the first time in history, the great majority of
people (in our society) have nothing to worry about. I live in the
centre of a Northern town, and as I look around me...

Few are hungry
Few are in poverty (everyone has food, clothes, housing etc)
We are not about to be invaded by an evil foreign power or conscripted
to fight in trenches in a world war.
Few have jobs which are really dangerous, exploitative, physically
exhausting etc
Few are unemployed
A great many incurable diseases are now, in fact, curable.
We live longer and in better conditions than ever before

In fact, most people have everything they need to be happy, prosperous
and comfortable. Yet it seems that fewer people than ever are any of
those things. There seems to be nothing to fight for, fight against
or otherwise 'worry about'. Which can't be right, can it?

I can't explain why this translates itself into the feeling that if
only 4x4's were gone / foxes weren't hunted / handguns were banned /
smoking was banned / immigrants were sent home (delete as appropriate)
then suddenly we would be happier. Neither can I explain why people
feel the need to push, shove and otherwise intimidate others on the
roads when they are not actually in a hurry, or are going to a job
they hate.

Perhaps there's nothing to fight for any more, so we need to find
something to be angry about. It's odd that these groups are all about
'banning something', rather than 'in support of' something. How many
'anti foxhunters' actively support charities that positively help
animals? How many 'anti pollution' campaigners recycle their rubbish
or help clean up their local canal?

Is it coincidence, perhaps, that in countries without the comforts of
the UK there is actually no pressure group against 4x4s, foxhunting,
handguns, smoking, immigration etc?

I do know one thing for sure. When my grandfathers and their friends
went to war they were fighting for the freedom of people to live how
they wanted to. Those freedoms are being eroded seemingly on a daily
basis.

How about a pressure-group to campaign for the banning of pressure
groups? Sod that. I'm just going to get in the 101 with my big dog,
smoke a Bolivar and think up an entry for the Mud Club sticker
competition.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com