England UK

banana wrote:

>
> Glad to hear your domestic rubbish is collected weekly, but in an
> increasing number of areas this is no longer the case.

That is not good,

>
> As for recycling, I hate it when the bosses put themselves across as
> 'clean'. Why should people work for free for the companies that buy
> 'recycled' materials from local councils? Why should we do the sorting
> work, just so that the controllers of those companies can get higher
> profits and sack a proportion of their workforce? Companies such as
> paper companies... Paper use is increasing...a large part of which is
> accounted for by junk mail.


I agree, I must admit, I do not sort out the rubbish, I stick it all in
one bag, after all, I look down the street and see very few people
bother, so at the end of the day, why should I bother.

> Where domestic rubbish is now collected fortnightly, the service cut is
> sold by local councils - and the US-based multinational utility
> companies that are also heavily involved - as being a matter of 'making
> conditions more environmental and clean' and all that crap... It won't
> be long before in many areas, rubbish bags blowing about the streets
> becomes a common sight. The rats will love it that domestic rubbish sits
> outside people's houses for a fortnight rather than a week.

I think if that happens, there will be hell to play.

>
> Only a few years ago it was delivered before about 8.30 am in many
> areas. 9 am was quite late.

As long as it gets here I don't care, but I can understand why some
people do.

>
> For sure, the deterioration of public services in the UK hasn't been
> uniform.
>
true

>>>UK - banks say 'we can't lend you 2000 pounds, but we can lend you 4000'
>>
>>That is the way they make money, you take it or leave it.
>
>
> If everybody left it, the banks wouldn't do it, and I think practically
> everyone does 'leave' it in other countries, except the really dirt poor
> who have got no other choice.

Once again, I agree.


>
>
>>>UK - the government propaganda organ, the BBC, levies a tax on TV users
>>>
>>
>>Blame the government, not the BBC,
>
>
> The BBC is part of the government. AFAIAC, the 'government' means the
> permanent government, not a bunch of wallies in the ministers' chairs.
>
> (Relevant, though, to note that the BBC is empowered to levy the TV
> licence fee by Act of parliament).
>

correct, Ialso do not agree with the license, but apart from getting rid
of the T.V, there is not a lot we can do.

>
>>I think people already knows, but since there is nothing anyone can do
>>about it, they ignore it.
>
>
> How did it get like this, though? Poor education must have a lot to do
> with it, surely?
>

Maybe, but also because our governments over the last 30 years have been
a waste of space.


>
>>what the hell have that got to do with it?
>
>
> To find out what's going on in other countries, it's not obligatory to
> speak other languages but it's a great help. And to deter other people
> from comparing what's going on in the local country with what's going on
> elsewhere, it's very useful to get them to shun the idea of learning
> foreign languages. The word for the don't-learn-other-languages culture
> in the UK is *xenophobia*.
>
> It is really disgraceful. I knew someone who was outraged that her
> grandson, who is white, had picked up some Urdu from his Asian friends.
> As if learning information and skills pushes some other information or
> skills out of a person's head! Quite the opposite is true.
>

I do not think learning a foreign language is even complasery at school now.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0517-1, 26/04/2005
Tested on: 27/04/2005 08:59:17
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com