I think however it is called theft when you are forced to pay for shinola for ****
But it can still be fraud when you are seduced or enticed to do so.
LIke feeding Holy Joes to carnivores.
Last edited by Kev Bar; 01-08-2012 at 12:41 AM.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
But as the impressive Loudon Wainright says:
"She says I came too early...but it was she who came too late."
Whatever happened to you
Whatever happened to us
We missed the proverbial boat
the plane, the train and the bus
Push lady shove and we fell out of love
And we tore each other apart.
Love is grand.
But I can't understand
Why you broke my proverbial heart.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”
Roundabouts are are very inflexible traffic control tools. They really only work where there's a balanced flow of traffic. They can't accommodate the normal variations at different times of the day/week. They are also more difficult and more dangerous for pedestrians.
Traffic lights can be made to respond to different traffic flow, they can be networked and work together to help manage overall flow in a town/city They can be reprogrammed over time to suit new conditions. For pedestrians they offer much safer crossing places.
Well you tell me the sort of waste you have in Portlaoise then. I'd say you know more about waste of public funding than I do. But your going to play devil's advocate and find ways to argue against every incident of waste that I or other posters will indicate, just for the sake of it. Don't worry I'm sure I'll find concrete examples that you wont be able to contrive to rebut.
BTW when I was talking about replacing roundabouts with traffic lights I was talking about how they prioritise their funding, to make maximum impact on traffic problems for the money spent. It's a bit like the hc itself; throwing good money after bad into the system.
here about roundabouts in the past and if my posts are still accessible on the other site you can have a search and you'll find that I made much the same case against them as I made in my post above that you've taken such exception to.
Those who are hostile to public services and who would benefit from privatisation have a free ride in the media to spread their propaganda. They are never challenged on their assumption that public provision should operate on the same basis as private consumerism.
Maybe you should start that thread you mentioned.