Delivery issues

[P. G. Tipps]

Do I detect a certain tongue in cheek?

One of the persons I mentioned already had a fairly highly paid, responsible and interesting job up in the North East area of the UK. It just didn't make sense in the end to relocate to the SE.

It is sad though, that the UK is largely run as though only the 25 mile radius circle around London's centre is worth considering. That could well be one of the reasons why those North of the border are considering disconnecting themselves from the Sassenachs.

A lot of the 'trouble' here is about common southern perceptions. The northern English cities have all transformed themselves.into modern 21st Century towns and now bear little resemblance to their grimy industrial past. Many in the South actually do seem to believe the natives still wear cloth-caps and clogs, and that it always rains in Manchester!

Of course the southern media doesn't help here. There is an oft-repeated programme on the Crime Channel about the 'Gang Culture' of Glasgow and claiming Glasgow to be 'The Murder Capital of Europe'. The programme was produced in London, of course. Who in their right mind would want to live in or even visit that city (Glasgow) after watching a ludicrously one-sided and false image like that?

The overwhelmingly real Glasgow of today is a vibrantly exciting and genuinely friendly city, crammed with cultural attractions and with shopping facilities second only to London. Not to mention the stunning Victorian architecture, numerous parks and gardens and the fact it has the glorious Firth of Clyde on its doorstep and is only a 30 min drive from Loch Lomond ... and, yes, like Manchester, one can even experience heat-waves as well as rain on occasion. And, of course, it never rains in London ... <smiley>

Because of its huge size, geography and many historical and other attractions London will always outstrip any other city in the UK, and rightly so, but there are plenty of other places in the UK that might be considerably more attractive in which to live and work for some, even on a lower income.

However it is surely inevitable that London will always 'dominate' the rest of the UK whether we like it or not?

[Serial_Apologist]

Of course the southern media doesn't help here. There is an oft-repeated programme on the Crime Channel about the 'Gang Culture' of Glasgow and claiming Glasgow to be 'The Murder Capital of Europe'. The programme was produced in London, of course. Who in their right mind would want to live in or even visit that city (Glasgow) after watching a ludicrously one-sided and false image like that?

It's all changed since the BBC moved to Salford.

[amateur51]

A lot of the 'trouble' here is about common southern perceptions. The northern English cities have all transformed themselves.into modern 21st Century towns and now bear little resemblance to their grimy industrial past. Many in the South actually do seem to believe the natives still wear cloth-caps and clogs, and that it always rains in Manchester!

Of course the southern media doesn't help here. There is an oft-repeated programme on the Crime Channel about the 'Gang Culture' of Glasgow and claiming Glasgow to be 'The Murder Capital of Europe'. The programme was produced in London, of course. Who in their right mind would want to live in or even visit that city (Glasgow) after watching a ludicrously one-sided and false image like that?

The overwhelmingly real Glasgow of today is a vibrantly exciting and genuinely friendly city, crammed with cultural attractions and with shopping facilities second only to London. Not to mention the stunning Victorian architecture, numerous parks and gardens and the fact it has the glorious Firth of Clyde on its doorstep and is only a 30 min drive from Loch Lomond ... and, yes, like Manchester, one can even experience heat-waves as well as rain on occasion. And, of course, it never rains in London ... <smiley>

Because of its huge size, geography and many historical and other attractions London will always outstrip any other city in the UK, and rightly so, but there are plenty of other places in the UK that might be considerably more attractive in which to live and work for some, even on a lower income.

However it is surely inevitable that London will always 'dominate' the rest of the UK whether we like it ornot?

London is the single largest city in UK and its population of 8m is approx 1.5 times that of Scotland.The peaks and troughs of wealth and poverty are here too. It certainly isn't anything much to do with the rest of England - a country all unto itself I'd say.

I like Glasgow a lot but it does not surprise me that the censorship of emoticons indicating irony on this Forum emanates not from the Great Wen but from Bristle :ironywinkythingy:

[Flosshilde]

But that still raises the issue of, eg, should we all subsidise the universal postal service so that those who choose to live in far-flung places do not have to pay more towards their deliveries than the rest of us.

I would question your belief that people 'choose' to live in 'far-flung places'. I think you should also consider what makes a place 'far-flung'. Far flung from where? London is pretty far flung for me, Cornwall even more so. Deliveries aren't just from London to other places - it is equally possible to have deliveries from Glasgow (or further north) to London. It is rather typical of those living in London & the South East of England to think that they live in the centre of the universe & anywhere else is 'far flung' (it should be said that people living on the Islands, or in the north of Scotland, say the same about folk in Glasgow & Edinburgh).

The recipient will claim to be living more sustainably than the likes of us to the planet's needs, and in taking less of the earth's resources and wealth, thus setting a good example, to be deserving of said deliveries and services.

I don't know if they would claim that - I believe that studies have shown that there is less environmental impact living in cities, becuase of better public transport & shorter distances to travel. But there are many resons for people living in rural areas, or urban areas that are not London - some of those reasons could be characterised as 'choice', some neccessity

[Dave2002]

The recipient will claim to be living more sustainably than the likes of us to the planet's needs, and in taking less of the earth's resources and wealth, thus setting a good example, to be deserving of said deliveries and services.

I don't know if they would claim that - I believe that studies have shown that there is less environmental impact living in cities, becuase of better public transport & shorter distances to travel. But there are many resons for people living in rural areas, or urban areas that are not London - some of those reasons could be characterised as 'choice', some neccessity

I think the environmental impact assessment of cities is questionable. It may be more efficient for people to live in cities, but then that allows more people to do so. Those people then "do" more things in a shorter time, and put increased pressure on the environment.

A great deal of land around cities is needed to support each one with other services, and also food production.

Travel is only one aspect of life which has impacts on the environment. Construction projects, which are significant in very large cities such as London, are very damaging to the environment, though whether the eventual benefits, whatever they are, outweigh the disadvantages, I'm not sure. Over a long period they perhaps do.

Even if there are some advantages for promoting city life, I still see no reason why most of the effort should go into London in the UK, though to some extent I can understand how this has happened.

[jean]

I think the environmental impact assessment of cities is questionable. It may be more efficient for people to live in cities, but then that allows more people to do so. Those people then "do" more things in a shorter time, and put increased pressure on the environment.

But the people who live in the country don't just stay there doing nothing - in my experience, they get in their cars and drive to places where there are things for them to do.

A great deal of land around cities is needed to support each one with other services, and also food production.

Travel is only one aspect of life which has impacts on the environment. Construction projects, which are significant in very large cities such as London, are very damaging to the environment...

But if considerable numbers of people were not prepared to live at high density in cities, they would instead be spread out over large swathes of country which would thus become suburbia, neither city nor country - which happens in Britain anyway, since people here won't live in flats as they do in continental Europe and thus our cities are surrounded by ribbon-development sprawl.

Dwellings for people need to be built somewhere or other by means of construction projects.

I still see no reason why most of the effort should go into London in the UK, though to some extent I can understand how this has happened.

No argument with that, though!

[Flosshilde]

But the people who live in the country don't just stay there doing nothing - in my experience, they get in their cars and drive to places where there are things for them to do.

Because of the very poor public transport.

[jean]

I know why they do it, but I was answering this specific point:

I think the environmental impact assessment of cities is questionable. It may be more efficient for people to live in cities, but then that allows more people to do so. Those people then "do" more things in a shorter time, and put increased pressure on the environment.

(and in doing so, agreeing with what you originally said?)

.

[amateur51]

The tall-tower/high pigeon/rat density of London seems to make it an ideal habitat for peregrine falcons - which is nice.

[jean]

Interesting in view of a discussion elsewhere!


Peregrine falcons put on a show at Tate Modern

A pair of peregrine falcons have ruffled a few feathers in the art world with regular appearances at the Tate Modern.

Misty and Houdini nest in the City of London but often spend their days on the roof of the Tate where they have a bird’s eye view of the capital...

..Tim Web, the [RSPB's] London spokesman said: “We regularly offer people the chance to use the telescopes down by the Tate Modern and it has proved very popular."

[amateur51]

Interesting in view of a discussion elsewhere!


Peregrine falcons put on a show at Tate Modern

A pair of peregrine falcons have ruffled a few feathers in the art world with regular appearances at the Tate Modern.

Misty and Houdini nest in the City of London but often spend their days on the roof of the Tate where they have a bird’s eye view of the capital...

..Tim Web, the [RSPB's] London spokesman said: “We regularly offer people the chance to use the telescopes down by the Tate Modern and it has proved very popular."

There is also a nesting pair at Trellick Tower, designed by one Erno Goldfinger.

The latest invaders are gulls, but apparently this is no isolated incident - gulls are becoming unwelcome visitors in Rome apparently, attacking the Pope's doves.:whatisthe worldcomingtothingo:

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But the people who live in the country don't just stay there doing nothing - in my experience, they get in their cars and drive to places where there are things for them to do...

...often in 4x4s that are as unnecessary for them as for people living in cities. How many people living "in the countryside" actually need "off-road" access?

[MrGongGong]

...often in 4x4s that are as unnecessary for them as for people living in cities. How many people living "in the countryside" actually need "off-road" access?

Is a 4x4 as "unnecessary" as another recording of a certain RS Symphony ?

[Dave2002]

Is a 4x4 as "unnecessary" as another recording of a certain RS Symphony ?

Depends what you mean by "unnecessary", and also perhaps where in the UK one lives. Parts of the north get ice and snow in winter, and also there are hills, and without a vehicle with good handling in those conditions, both living and working could become very difficult at times. This can also apply to some parts of the south on occasions, and not only in rural parts. If there is an imperative to survive, or to help others, then at those times having a 4 x 4 could be an essential part of one's existence. If not, then just accept the consequences.

Good snow tyres on "ordinary" cars may be as useful, but in the UK we don't normally swap tyres in winter, as is a legal requirement in some countries.

I agree that the Chelsea tractor phenomenon need not apply only to urban areas however.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Depends what you mean by "unnecessary", and also perhaps where in the UK one lives. Parts of the north get ice and snow in winter, and also there are hills, and without a vehicle with good handling in those conditions, both living and working could become very difficult at times. This can also apply to some parts of the south on occasions, and not only in rural parts. If there is an imperative to survive, or to help others, then at those times having a 4 x 4 could be an essential part of one's existence. If not, then just accept the consequences.

Good snow tyres on "ordinary" cars may be as useful, but in the UK we don't normally swap tyres in winter, as is a legal requirement in some countries.

I agree that the Chelsea tractor phenomenon need not apply only to urban areas however.

I live in the north and have done all my life.
4 years in Salford,
15 years in the foothills of the Pennines,
3 years in North Wales,
1 year in the Potteries
1 year in Newport, IoW
12 years in NE Derbyshire
18 years in the hilly Yorkshire Coast area.

I have never really needed a 4x4. Most people who do say they "need" one to cope with one or two days each year. So they drive these gas-guzzling monsters to cope with perceived climate change, when they may well have been responsible for increased climate change by driving the things in the first place.

But the main reason for having a 4x4 is for the schools run. :devil: