Frankly Mr Shankly Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Im trying to see if your full of :censored:... Simple really... Oh the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Oh the irony. Ive been totally honest... While our opinions might disagree to suggest I have lied about anything is madness... Care to point out where you think I have lied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Ive been totally honest... While our opinions might disagree to suggest I have lied about anything is madness... Care to point out where you think I have lied? Since your so fond of accusing people of twisting things, you do just the same yourself. Now... where did I say that you lied? I think you're full of :censored:. There's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) I think you're full of :censored:. There's a difference. Fair enough Night Edited December 3, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Im trying to see if your full of :censored:... Simple really... I could sit here and make up things all day long to justifie my points... I doubt anyone could do much damage knowing that a user on OWTB called Garcon lives in x town and works in y town... But hey ho.... You clearly have things to hide... I reckon the bus stops outside your house...but that dosent fit your argument.. Priceless. Actually the bus stops about 5 mins walk from my house. Could just as easily be right outside my doorstep. But if you read what I said, that wouldn't actually have any bearing whatsoever on my point. Anyway, at least we now know where we are. You think I'm lying because my circumstances don't fit your argument. And, as a web developer of all things, you think the only conceivable reason why someone might not want to divulge personal information on the internet is because they must be hiding something. It matters not to me whether you think I'm full of :censored:. But at least I now know whether you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I've kept out of this so far but this has made me want to comment. Firstly I think I am going to vote yes, not as convinced this is the right thing to do as I was a few weeks ago but still think it is the way forward..... Good post beag. Something else that dawned on me yesterday was the timing of the referendum in relation to all the financial issues of today. There could not have been a worse time to ask the general public to vote for something that they think is going to cost them some more money. You pointed it out yourself in your post, "...just seems to be vote no and save yourself a bit of cash..." - the referendum was probably planned for release a long time ago, and may not have been able to be changed - but the current money worries will have many voting no without weighing up the pros and cons of the entire project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 OAFC0000 1 question. Are you Capitalist or a Socialist, OR a Contradictmyselfalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 As a former Oldham resident, this post has made interesting reading. As far as I can see, the argument is not about whether people in Greater Manchester want the Metrolink extension but more about how it should be funded. If I was still in Oldham, I would definately vote NO. If we draw a parallel with a similar situation to Edinburgh who in 2005 rejected a referendum for congestion charges and is now having a light railway system being constructed (due to open in 2011) paid for through general taxation. So please reject this and lobby your councillors and MPs to get this paid for without resorting to "highway robbery" and scaremongering. Remember, you pay enough in taxes already. If it can be done in Scotland, it can be done in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Why should I tell the internet where I live? The exact location isn't even relevant! And in what way is what I've described viable? I know it's unreliable because I tried it. Woooooooo... [spooky voice].....the internet already knows......[/spooky voice] *waves arms above head and moves from side to side* Creepy. Wooooooo.... You clearly have things to hide... I reckon the bus stops outside your house...but that dosent fit your argument.. Bloody hell you've changed your tune, one minute tree-hugging eco warrior, the next a paranoid Stasi operative, I'm not sure the two can be within the same character... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) OAFC0000 1 question. Are you Capitalist or a Socialist I wouldnt pigeon hole myself... I would say im left of centre... A socialist with some right wing values ? If that makes sense... Im very much a new labour man.... Edited December 3, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 OAFC0000 - Whilst there appears no point in reprinting all the facts I pointed out earlier, I will just reiterate the following; The stopping-up of roads in the immediate vicinity of the outer ring (Which has been planned, yet the road plans have conveniently not been released yet) will cause congestion in parts of Oldham where it doesn't currently exist, and force people and emergency services to use routes they should not necessarily need to. The small businessman in Failsworth with his armfuls of paperwork or the daily cash float will not want to be catching a bus. Nor will he wish to change his opening times to 10am when his competitors open at 8.30am. As pointed out by many people, the real congestion is within the inner ring and on the motorway. The motorway will get worse due to people skirting the City rather than cutting through it, and the inner ring will remain congested due to the amount of pedestrianised zones and one-way systems. When I viewed one of the new apartments at Pollard St I was told there is private parking space for 430 cars. If Manchester is so worried about traffic congestion, why are they granting planning permission for so many of these developments? And why is the new multi-million pound Transport Interchange at Newton Heath so far inside the outer ring? Surely it would make sense to build huge car parks there to accomodate all City bound traffic and start the C-charge there? Or would that not make enough money? Talking of money, no-one has questioned my earlier mathematics regarding revenue made from the charges, so I can only presume I am correct in believing that interest payments will not be met and hikes in council tax will be needed to cover it. C-charge? OK I'll go along with it. Outside the City Centre? No! No! No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) OAFC0000 - Whilst there appears no point in reprinting all the facts I pointed out earlier, I will just reiterate the following; The stopping-up of roads in the immediate vicinity of the outer ring (Which has been planned, yet the road plans have conveniently not been released yet) will cause congestion in parts of Oldham where it doesn't currently exist, and force people and emergency services to use routes they should not necessarily need to. The small businessman in Failsworth with his armfuls of paperwork or the daily cash float will not want to be catching a bus. Nor will he wish to change his opening times to 10am when his competitors open at 8.30am. As pointed out by many people, the real congestion is within the inner ring and on the motorway. The motorway will get worse due to people skirting the City rather than cutting through it, and the inner ring will remain congested due to the amount of pedestrianised zones and one-way systems. When I viewed one of the new apartments at Pollard St I was told there is private parking space for 430 cars. If Manchester is so worried about traffic congestion, why are they granting planning permission for so many of these developments? And why is the new multi-million pound Transport Interchange at Newton Heath so far inside the outer ring? Surely it would make sense to build huge car parks there to accomodate all City bound traffic and start the C-charge there? Or would that not make enough money? Talking of money, no-one has questioned my earlier mathematics regarding revenue made from the charges, so I can only presume I am correct in believing that interest payments will not be met and hikes in council tax will be needed to cover it. C-charge? OK I'll go along with it. Outside the City Centre? No! No! No! Plenty of business people use public transport... Just because I support the charge dosent I support stupid planning decisions... You points about about the congestion outside the zone make little sense... Edited December 3, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 A socialist with some right wing values ? If that makes sense... Yeah, it does. A Nazi then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Yeah, it does. A Nazi then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 When I viewed one of the new apartments at Pollard St I was told there is private parking space for 430 cars. Under the Bashforth formula, I calculate that this block contains 195.3434 apartments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Under the Bashforth formula, I calculate that this block contains 195.3434 apartments It's a good job he's blocked your posts, you can't call somebody that! ;o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Woooooooo... [spooky voice].....the internet already knows......[/spooky voice] *waves arms above head and moves from side to side* Wooooooo.... Thankyou for my morning giggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Thankyou for my morning giggle. If you pull the Alan Hardy disguise off Rummy, do you find a sinister Welshman beneath it? Pesky kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Neil Kinnock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Plenty of business people use public transport... Those who can, do so. Those who can't? Just because I support the charge dosent I support stupid planning decisions... Of course not. But those stupid planning decisions further the argument that these councils cannot be trusted to have thought this one out properly either. You points about about the congestion outside the zone make little sense... How can it not make sense? The whole argument is about reducing congestion - not just pushing it elsewhere. I'll try to make it simple.. The charge is to help reduce congestion. Yet the bulk of GM's congestion is on the M60, where no efforts to reduce congestion are being made. GMC figures state that 600000 cars travel within the M60 everyday. Over 60% of that figure includes MWay traffic, so why are they doing nothing about reducing congestion there? Convenient use of immaterial figures again. My other point was that these plans will shift congestion to just outside the rings - a fact proven in London. Will they then increase the size of the ring to lessen this congestion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Under the Bashforth formula, I calculate that this block contains 195.3434 apartments I could only afford 0.3434 of an apartment, but I didn't like the colour of the kitchen worktops anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 It's a good job he's blocked your posts, you can't call somebody that! ;o) I can see his posts in your reply The blocker dosent seem to block replies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Well, at least you know he wasn't calling you. As you were... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 As a former Oldham resident, this post has made interesting reading. As far as I can see, the argument is not about whether people in Greater Manchester want the Metrolink extension but more about how it should be funded. If I was still in Oldham, I would definately vote NO. If we draw a parallel with a similar situation to Edinburgh who in 2005 rejected a referendum for congestion charges and is now having a light railway system being constructed (due to open in 2011) paid for through general taxation. So please reject this and lobby your councillors and MPs to get this paid for without resorting to "highway robbery" and scaremongering. Remember, you pay enough in taxes already. If it can be done in Scotland, it can be done in England. Aah but that's Scotland, where they get £5 in tax back for every £4 they give and the lovely city of Edinburgh which is really, really lovely and despite what you read about in Trainspotting hasn't got a drug problem at all. Plus that new light railway convieniently went close to the then transport secretary Alistair Darling (yes him of the weird eye-brows) house and it was approved before we had to start bailing out banks because they were being so stupid in such a clever way that the regulatories couldn't work out what they were doing. As far as I understand it some of the metrolink extension has been approved and now the good people of greater Manchester are being asked if they want to pay for a bit more of it through a series of road charging (as people have said some of the worst congestion is on the M60 which isn't being charged) measures. This includes extending the metrolink to Manchester Airport. Now has anyone ever tried lugging the sort of thing you take on holiday on public transport in this country (and not just this country but others in the world). I have and I can tell you I've yet to find anywhere where despite servicing airports or train stations (the sort of places where people have large luggage) that does this effectively where there is room for your bag without leaving it slightly haphazardly on the floor. Very, very few people will use a metrolink service to take them to an airport unless they live 2 minutes walk from a metrolink stop as lugging bags of that size becomes inpractical. Plus there is a reason why trains run from the airport, through Manchester Picadilly and Leeds to the North East and that's because North Easternites use Manchester Airport often enough to make a train service viable is this train service going to stop at Picadilly in the future because of the Metrolink? As to what will happen if the vote is No (as it appears it will probably do so), then maybe the people behind it will ask themselves why and realise that a lot of people are in favour of having a road charging scheme but not one which is so large and affects people so much who aren't going anywhere near the centre. Leeds was going to introduce a road charging scheme on busy routes via occupancy (so 1 person in a car pays but 2 or 3 don't). After all buses may reduce congestion, and help the environment but only if they are being used by enough people. You could try getting the money through general taxation but what about the people of the Birmingham based metropolis, or Merseyside or Teesside or Bristol or Cardiff etc. all of which don't have the greatest public transport systems. The government is quite happy to let private companies fund the building of new hospitals and then let these companies get their money back through dishonest means (£200 to change a lightbulb and the extortionate car parking fees) why aren't private companies being asked to fund the metrolink as I'm suire most of these will do a better job than the subsidised/public company that does it at the mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Aah but that's Scotland, where they get £5 in tax back for every £4 they give and the lovely city of Edinburgh which is really, really lovely and despite what you read about in Trainspotting hasn't got a drug problem at all. Plus that new light railway convieniently went close to the then transport secretary Alistair Darling (yes him of the weird eye-brows) house and it was approved before we had to start bailing out banks because they were being so stupid in such a clever way that the regulatories couldn't work out what they were doing. As far as I understand it some of the metrolink extension has been approved and now the good people of greater Manchester are being asked if they want to pay for a bit more of it through a series of road charging (as people have said some of the worst congestion is on the M60 which isn't being charged) measures. This includes extending the metrolink to Manchester Airport. Now has anyone ever tried lugging the sort of thing you take on holiday on public transport in this country (and not just this country but others in the world). I have and I can tell you I've yet to find anywhere where despite servicing airports or train stations (the sort of places where people have large luggage) that does this effectively where there is room for your bag without leaving it slightly haphazardly on the floor. Very, very few people will use a metrolink service to take them to an airport unless they live 2 minutes walk from a metrolink stop as lugging bags of that size becomes inpractical. Plus there is a reason why trains run from the airport, through Manchester Picadilly and Leeds to the North East and that's because North Easternites use Manchester Airport often enough to make a train service viable is this train service going to stop at Picadilly in the future because of the Metrolink? As to what will happen if the vote is No (as it appears it will probably do so), then maybe the people behind it will ask themselves why and realise that a lot of people are in favour of having a road charging scheme but not one which is so large and affects people so much who aren't going anywhere near the centre. Leeds was going to introduce a road charging scheme on busy routes via occupancy (so 1 person in a car pays but 2 or 3 don't). After all buses may reduce congestion, and help the environment but only if they are being used by enough people. You could try getting the money through general taxation but what about the people of the Birmingham based metropolis, or Merseyside or Teesside or Bristol or Cardiff etc. all of which don't have the greatest public transport systems. The government is quite happy to let private companies fund the building of new hospitals and then let these companies get their money back through dishonest means (£200 to change a lightbulb and the extortionate car parking fees) why aren't private companies being asked to fund the metrolink as I'm suire most of these will do a better job than the subsidised/public company that does it at the mo. The money is there, 20% of money taken off roadusers is put back into road projects. The other 80% goes to whatever the government of the day has a shortfall in. I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty certain that, according to the A.A. Foundation, more money would be brought in if the fuel tax at the pump went up by 1p./litre and then scrap the Road Fund License because the million+ uninsured cars on the road would have to pay their rightful share that the legitimate drivers pay. Why were the existing Metrolink routes OK to be funded directly from government coffers and not this one? I think it goes back to wholesale financial mismanagment from the day Blair/Brown took office (political dig). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts