Message not approved: Message not approved: Diggers list moderatorship

[Brendan Boal]

Messages like what?  Messages that are civil, relevant
and to the point perhaps?
Brendan.

--- Gerrard Winstanley <office at evnuk.org.uk> wrote:

> Not if you send messages like this to the list
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > So is it going to appear on thet list?
> > Brendan.
> >
> > --- Gerrard Winstanley <office at evnuk.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If you feel like fighting Mark's corner don't
> poison
> > > the diggers list
> > > well, eh?
> > > You will appear to be just as idiotic and
> selfish as
> > > him.
> > >
> > > This childish attitude of bringing interal
> > > differences into the public
> > > arena is exactly the reason Mark's moderator
> status
> > > was removed in the
> > > first place.
> > >
> > > By the way - sometimes it takes a day or two to
> > > approve messages -
> > > most of Mark's need a lot of work too before
> they
> > > can be circulated.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have just read the response to George
> Monbiot's
> > > > article by Kevin Cahill(below). Mark seems to
> be
> > > > saying he submitted it to the diggers list yet
> it
> > > has
> > > > not appeared, can someone explain why?
> > > >
> > > > Brendan.
> > > >
> > > > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >   From: Mark
> > > > >   To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
> > > > >   Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:58 PM
> > > > >   Subject: [diggers350] Greenbelt
> Development
> > > stand
> > > > > to make millions for
> > > > >
> > > > === message truncated ===
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > I am replying to Mark's picking up of the
> Guardian
> > > > report about Greenbelt land. I am
> particularely
> > > > focusing on facts the Guardian failed to
> present.
> > > >
> > > > Greenbelt in England, a total of 4.1 million
> acres
> > > of
> > > > land,  is sandwiched between urban areas and
> rural
> > > > areas, but is generally what would be termed
> rural
> > > > land. England is about 32 million acres in
> extent,
> > > of
> > > > which about 8% to 10% is urban land, or a
> total of
> > > > about 3.2 million acres, maximum. The first
> point
> > > then
> > > > is that the greenbelt is larger by almost a
> > > million
> > > > acres, than the entire urban area of England,
> > > which
> > > > includes offices, warehouses and factories as
> well
> > > as
> > > > domestic homes. But the greenbelt is sited on
> > > rural
> > > > land, which , if only the agricultural patch
> is
> > > taken
> > > > into account, is over 22 million acres. ( The
> > > > remaining land, about 6 million acres, is
> waste,
> > > > marsh, hill, moor and road.) Were 10,000 acres
> of
> > > > greenbelt to be used for housebuilding, the
> loss
> > > of
> > > > greenbelt land would be 0.24%.  But the loss
> of
> > > 0.24%
> > > > of greenbelt land hardly makes a good headline
> > > does it
> > > > ?
> > > > Which is not the point. The real point is that
> the
> > > > greebelt could, with ease, be pushed back a
> bit
> > > into
> > > > the agricultural plot, to make up the lost
> 0.24%.
> > > > And now the hard bit. Most subscribers to this
> > > strand
> > > > would want young people to be able to get on
> the
> > > > housing ladder and be able to afford a decent
> > > home.
> > > > Further, most subscribers would also want
> housing
> > > in
> > > > England to be decent, environmentally friendly
> and
> > > > accompanied by a garden where possible.
> Clearly,
> > > there
> > > > is a choice. You can build shoeboxes on
> already
> > > > overcrowded brownfield land, without gardens,
> and
> > > cram
> > > > people into them as we have been doing for
> years.
> > > Or
> > > > you can look at the English agricultural plot,
> all
> > > of
> > > > it owned by just 144,000 people or families,
> and
> > > which
> > > > costs about �2.2 billion a year out of
> > > working
> > > > people's taxes to support. Farming is a
> business.
> > > If
> > > > it was economic it would not need a subsidy.
> > > Further,
> > > > it is based on an asset, land which generally
> > > > appreciates over time. So, what the working
> > > population
> > > > of England is doing is paying 0.28% of the
> > > population,
> > > > who run an inefficient business, and who own
> over
> > > 66%
> > > > of England, �2.2 billion in subsidy. I'd
> like
> > > to be
> > > > on the public payroll too; wouldnt we all ?
> > > > And the Guardian story was further incomplete
> in
> > > > failing to look at what we'd get in housing
> for
> > > the
> > > > loss of 0.24% of the greenbelt. Before John
> > > Prescott
> > > > suggested doubling the density of housing,
> from 10
> > > > units per acre to 22 per acre - an acre is the
> > > size of
> > > > a football pitch by the way- 10,000 acres
> would
> > > > privide space for 100,000 homes, about 220,000
> > > homes
> > > > under the Prescott density, all the size of
> shoe
> > > boxes
> > > > and none with a garden. The shortfall in house
> > > > building over recent years means that there is
> a
> > > > shortfall of closer to 500,000 homes in
> reality,
> > > so
> > > > where are they all to come from ?
> > > > The Guardian story made much of quotes by a
> fellow
> > > > called Sean Spiers. He is the mouthpiece for
> the
> > > > Council for the Protection of Rural England,
> whose
> > > > financial backers are unknown, but who largely
> > > consist
> > > > of the owners of rural England and the main
> > > > beneficiaries of the �2.2 billion
> charitable
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather