reducing congestion
 

In article , says...


Silk wrote:

JohnB wrote:

Thank you for showing your ignorance.
In this case the work is throughout the year.

Please give an example of a type of farming that is not seasonal.

I'm sure there are a lot of farms that have a similar workload all year
round, but the type of activity will vary according to season.

Do chickens stop laying eggs[1] in the winter where you live?

Not the product I originally referred to but it might help you get the
message.

Not so long as you keep a light in their coop/quarters/ accommodation.

So long as you can simulate "summer" light hours, they should stay in lay
all year round - _as a group_. Hens go in & out of lay, so you'll not get
100% turnaround all the time.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest
of us have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live. Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of
London or should I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who
would have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large
conurbation, for example.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:
"Doki" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

1) Social justice

People who are not prepared to work should get no money. That's
social justice.


What about people who want to but are not allowed to?

Which ones would they be? I honestly can't think of anyone who
wants work but isn't allowed to. I can think of situations where
it isn't worth people's while working, but only on an anecdotal
basis.



Such people might include (but without excluding anyone else) somone
who needs to change occupation because a disability has set in. That
person has the skills for the new occupation/s s/he wants to take up
but because s/he hasn't used those skills in a full-time job no
prospective employer will give him/her a chance.

So they do any job they are able until a suitable job appears.
--

And if no one will gve them a job because of "lack of experience"?

Its a tough world.

I finished University after 4 years learning about software engineering.
First job was installing PC's in peoples homes for Comet and Dixons. Didn't
dream of whinging about it. Here I am five years later writing software for
a living.

People like to be poor and moan about it. So many of em can't be bothered to
do something about it, they expect everything on a plate.


--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

W K wrote:

snip

You live in london don't you.

Work and live in Hertfordshire.
--
MrBitsy

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
obin May wrote...

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore be
comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources. Something
that could be used to help solve housing shortage problems instead ends
up sitting unused for large amounts of the time and the owners make
little contribution to the local economy.

I hve bought five houses and sold four.

I have never seen anything in any part of any of the contracts which said
or
implied that I was under any obligation to do anything towards "solve
housing shortages" [sic], or to "make contribution to the local economy" -
or even that I had to live in the property being purchased.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?



Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote...

"MrBitsy" wrote:

Conor wrote:

says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People
like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest of
us
have to do it.
I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live.
Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of London
or should I just move where I can afford a property?
Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and who
would
have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large conurbation, for
example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of course
(a
bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing
Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...


It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

obin May wrote...

"Vulpes Argenteus (formerly M)" wrote:

I like the idea of 'social justice' insofar as a second home is
much less heavily used in terms of local resources: waste
disposal, road maintenance and so forth, and should therefore
be comparatively lightly taxed.

But a second home is an inefficient allocation of resources.
Something that could be used to help solve housing shortage
problems instead ends up sitting unused for large amounts of the
time and the owners make little contribution to the local
economy.

I hve bought five houses and sold four.

Well done. Would you like a medal?

I have never seen anything in any part of any of the contracts
which said or implied that I was under any obligation to do
anything towards "solve housing shortages" [sic], or to "make
contribution to the local economy" - or even that I had to live in
the property being purchased.

Well my my, what a surprise.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?

Your whole argument is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Does
the fact that there is no law against something mean it is good and has
no negative effects? If you believe that you're more stupid than I had
ever imagined possible. I wasn't saying anything about property law so
why you should bring that up is a mystery. I was merely pointing out
that while a second home may make be less of a burden to local
authorities, it is also an inefficient allocation of resources and so
should definitely not be lightly taxed. This would remove one of the
disincentives to buying another home and thus encourage inefficient
resource allocation.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

Why is always that the people who are most against second homes are those
who cannot afford them? Jealousy?

(No I cannot afford a second home)

reducing congestion
 

"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Cast_Iron wrote:
The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us eat and
who would have difficulty doing that job in the middle of a large
conurbation, for example.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?

Doesn't this all get a bit ridiculous? People living in cities buy a
second home in the country which they travel long distances to and
from. This forces other people to buy houses far away from where they
work and so they end up travelling long distances to and from work.
They're living in a house that is close to someone else's place of work
and so rather than living there that person has to buy a house where
they can afford to and they have to travel long distances to and from
work.

Living many miles away from where you work and having to travel a long
distance to get there is something that should be discouraged. Not
encouraged so that the rich can buy another castle and leave it empty
for most of the year.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied cottage, of course
(a
bit like armed forces' married quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing
Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

If the world is all rosy and everyone is nice, then fine. As soon as you
start having difficulties with your employer then its a bit crap that they
also own your house. (and just think if it was ENRON and all your savings
and pension were also tied up in the same basket of eggs).

Also :would you really want to change house just because you change job?