Options

HS2 NIMBY Whingers

13»

Comments

  • Options
    theiatheia Posts: 1,811
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    For the little guy it is.

    Brilliant response...and how true!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    theia wrote: »
    Brilliant response...and how true!

    I guess that is why I am happy for people to shout loudly if they disagree with something.

    We have a right for our voices to be heard and not to be a push over, even if a persons thoughts are misguided. We should never put up and shut up if we do not agree with something.

    That is what all successive governments want you to do.
  • Options
    bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I guess that is why I am happy for people to shout loudly if they disagree with something.

    We have a right for our voices to be heard and not to be a push over, even if a persons thoughts are misguided. We should never put up and shut up if we do not agree with something.

    That is what all successive governments want you to do.

    I absolutely 100% agree with you there. People should never shut up so as not to be an inconvenience to the government or other powers.

    I do agree with HS2, but accommodation has to be made for protests, and these taken on board wherever possible. If not possible, then very handsome compensation paid for the disruption to people's lives through no fault of their own.
  • Options
    LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MargMck wrote: »
    HS2 is mostly about spending a huge amount of public money, and a lot of the usual suspects getting richer on the back of it. Big business v bats, I'm on the side of the bats.

    Only in this country would a huge infrastructure project be held up because of some flying rats. Personally, I'm on the side of the tens of thousands of people HS2 is going to employ.
  • Options
    VoynichVoynich Posts: 14,481
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In the long run it could be better for the environment as it isn't as damaging or noisy as motorways
    . If it doesn't price itself out the market and ordinary people continue to use cars and planes that is.
  • Options
    BastardBeaverBastardBeaver Posts: 11,903
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Only in this country would a huge infrastructure project be held up because of some flying rats...

    And that's why I love this country tbh.
  • Options
    Radical JoeRadical Joe Posts: 15,743
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I haven't read through, and I'm sure it's been mentioned, but what got me was the sheer hypocrisy in the MPs who, while in favour of the line running through others land, were against it running through through their land (constituencies).

    Sheer nimbyism.
  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    Yet those same NIMBYs are quite happy to use the Eurostar on HS1 and whiz through the channel tunnel and its terminal site in my back yard.
  • Options
    nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its domestic use is quite useful to cross Kent and down to Sussex as well. Cuts an hour off my journey to the coast.
  • Options
    BungitinBungitin Posts: 5,356
    Forum Member
    George Osborne MP,CE,MM is supposed to be relieved because it misses his constituency.
  • Options
    spanglerokapispanglerokapi Posts: 523
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Only in this country would a huge infrastructure project be held up because of some flying rats. Personally, I'm on the side of the tens of thousands of people HS2 is going to employ.

    Yes, but who are the tens of thousands of people going to be, the unemployed of this country or migrant workers from Europe and when it is built what becomes of the workers then?
  • Options
    LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, but who are the tens of thousands of people going to be, the unemployed of this country or migrant workers from Europe and when it is built what becomes of the workers then?

    All construction jobs are temporary but it's going to be a 20 year project so that's enough work to keep lots of people employed on long-term contracts.
  • Options
    codebluecodeblue Posts: 14,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Are people seriously suggesting it only goes through labour held constituencies?
  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    Yes, but who are the tens of thousands of people going to be, the unemployed of this country or migrant workers from Europe and when it is built what becomes of the workers then?

    HS3 will be next so they can have a rest for a while.
  • Options
    mackaramackara Posts: 4,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    On a similar subject people are quite happy to pay millions of pounds in fines to the EU for not generating enough renewable energy from wind turbines in their green and pleasant land so have decided to locate the turbines in another country and run an undersea cable instead paying for it through the nose. How Nimby is that.
  • Options
    AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mackara wrote: »
    On a similar subject people are quite happy to pay millions of pounds in fines to the EU for not generating enough renewable energy from wind turbines in their green and pleasant land so have decided to locate the turbines in another country and run an undersea cable instead paying for it through the nose. How Nimby is that.
    Good riddance to them. Wind turbines are another white elephant. We'll be paying over the odds for the ones we do have here for years to come anyway and they'll never produce the amounts of energy we need them to. Most of them might not even generate as much energy as was consumed in their manufacturer and installation.

    If we can't persuade governments to adopt a viable energy policy we can at least be pleased that other countries have to find space for them rather than us. The undersea power cables have other uses so at least that money won't be totally wasted.
  • Options
    mackaramackara Posts: 4,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andrue wrote: »
    Good riddance to them. Wind turbines are another white elephant. We'll be paying over the odds for the ones we do have here for years to come anyway and they'll never produce the amounts of energy we need them to. Most of them might not even generate as much energy as was consumed in their manufacturer and installation.

    If we can't persuade governments to adopt a viable energy policy we can at least be pleased that other countries have to find space for them rather than us. The undersea power cables have other uses so at least that money won't be totally wasted.

    You will also be paying over the odds for getting your renewable supply from another country which does not make any sense otherwise keeping paying the millions of pounds in fines to the EU for failing to provide renewable and green energy.
  • Options
    AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mackara wrote: »
    You will also be paying over the odds for getting your renewable supply from another country which does not make any sense otherwise keeping paying the millions of pounds in fines to the EU for failing to provide renewable and green energy.
    Yes, I know. That's why I said in my post:

    "If we can't persuade governments to adopt a viable energy policy we can at least be pleased that other countries have to find space for them rather than us"

    I don't want an energy policy based solely on renewables. I want us to stop dicking around and go nuclear (still not a cheap option but more dependable). If someone is going to have to set aside vast areas of land for thousands of windmills let it be countries that have more available space than us.
  • Options
    codebluecodeblue Posts: 14,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    For the record, our country has loads of available space in Scotland that would be ideal for renewables.

    (i dont however think they are at all cost effective)
Sign In or Register to comment.