Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Trump is bloody dangerous & it wouldn’t take a lot for him to “push the button ” me thinks.
Trump isn’t going to launch nukes, that is a little hysterical.
Obama’s policy was to strike Syria if they used chemical weapons, so nothing has really changed. Although I would haved expected that Obama would have used drones and killed more civillians as a result.
-
This reply was modified 9 years ago by
draculina.
No, just like Rudeboy, all you bang on about is immigrants and Muslims. You do realize your post history confirms that right?
I just made one post about muslims, my last 20 or so have been about population density, which I have never talked about the cause as far as I remember,
You were a lesbian last month and stated a few months ago Muslims had threatened your partner, presumably female, so why would you have a boyfriend now? Not only that, you have misquoted the exchange.
I have two partners, I think I have mentioned this before on the boards. But ask Scep, i’ve spoken to him before about it.
And I don’t really see how i’ve misquoted anything, although I don’t really take the threat seriously otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it here and would have sent it to the police instead.
You clearly do care about immigration, it’s all you type about on these boards, whatever the subject you always narrow it down to immigration.
I usually talk about politics, which is sometimes immigration, and muslims, who are sometimes immigrants.
So, a muslim just threatened to cut off my boyfriend’s hand.
Just thought I would share that.
Attachments:
No, the problem is you are anti immigration, as is your sidekick Rudeboy. Your issue is ideological and political in nature. It is nothing to do population size and your post history on this issue is self explanatory.
I don’t really care about immigration, I only prefer that we select immigrants from compatible cultures, which is mostly the Commonwealth and the EU. I’m an immigrant myself.
Secondly, the EU pays wealthy landowners a subsidy, not to farm.
Farming could be done more efficently for sure, GMOs could increace crop yields significantly but I don’t think even then the UK would be able to reach enough production for the current population levels.
Lastly but not least and i’ll post the link/s when I have more time to look for them, there are plenty of “brownfield” sites in the UK suitable for a mass house building program and property developers and land owners are currently sitting on their land asset to ensure the price of land remains high, school boy stuff, keep supply low when demand is high.
These kinds of places exist, but I don’t think they make up very much of the land in the UK. This is why I like to do my own research when possible. Go onto google maps and find land that isn’t developed or fields, it’s pretty hard to find large areas of empty land.
The issue is clearly the land owning class and property developers. The corporate cartels that dominate throughout our economy and the lack of regulation, that allows them to do so.
No, the problem is population, go back to my earlier post where I calculate that if you evenly distributed all of the land in the UK, each person would get a circle with a radius of 35 meters. That isn’t really very much land when you consider that there would be no farms or woodland left in the entire country. Again, you can go onto Google maps, it has a ruler tool if you right click, you can see how much land this is.
“It’s said Britain is a green and pleasant land – and there’s now a map that proves it. The ‘land cover map’, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, shows that urban sprawl accounts for just six per cent of the country’s landscape. The map shows that a quarter of all land is comprised mainly of arable and horticultural areas.”
Do you know what farms are?
At current levels, 60% of our food has to be imported.
-
This reply was modified 9 years ago by draculina.
If we evenly distribute land evenly to each person (242,495 / 65,110,000) then we get 0.003724389 square kilometer per person. I will convert this into meters to make it easier to visualise, which means that each person would recieve 3,724 square metres of land. In reality the useful land would be less because some of this land would be on the side of mountains or inside of lakes and rivers. To visualise what this looks like we need to calculate the square root of 3,724, which is 61.025.This means that if you stood in the centre of the land you owned then it would extend 61 meters from you in all directions.
I made a mistake in this calculation, the area should have been divided by Pi before square rooting it, the correct solution is a circle with radius of 35 metres, not 61.
It’s been a few years since I studied geometry in school
.If you replace the numbers for the UK with the ones for England you come out with 2378 square metres of land per person, or a circle with a radius of 28 meteres.
-
This reply was modified 9 years ago by
.