Cambon

Why?

Last time I checked, aircraft only use the aprons and runways. The rest of the space is pretty much wasted.

Interesting thought, HD. There used to be a wind turbine at the airport, so I assume the nav and comms equipment can cope.

The answer is quite simple. If we are to play along with this crap, which will bite everyone in the ass in about 50 years when most people alive now have passed, and the dozey wokes finally realise there is no way of stopping it because it is nature, put the hideous wind turbines on the edge of the airport. The area is already secure. It is already owned by the government. It is one of the windiest places on the island. It is not a residential area. There is already a ramp (used when they extended the runway) to get the bits ashore. It is such a fucking simple thing to understand! What the fuck is wrong with these people!

Bollocks! The concrete used to support the towers is poisonous and decimates the sea bed. Fish then disappear since there is nothing to eat.

Plural of a specific type if fish is fish. Plural of different species is fishes.

There used to be a wind turbine at the airport many years ago. The obviously thought it was ok back then. The planes themselves would not be affected. The turbines would be nowhere near the runways. Plus, on foggy days we can reverse the polarity and blow it away reducing flight delays and cancellations.

NE? It is SE, with clear run to SW. yes, it was in jest. However, putting them along the edge of the Airport is not. Already owned, cleared and secure area.

Is that the one where dog owners let their dogs run around and disturb the nests causing havoc?

Perfect place to put half a dozen wind turbines (or more). Not residential. Wind from all directions. Site ready and available. Perfect!

If the weather had been better than it has been this year, and no cancelled boats/ planes, very few would be complaining.

Hang on there, I agree, the majority of over 65s should not be driving. Some should not even be allowed to leave the house! However, 50 years ago, anyone who made 65 looked half dead anyway from smoking, working down mines or in asbestos factories, cotton mills, etc. Times have changed. Most people don’t smoke. Don’t work in mines, etc. Many actually take their health seriously and exercise. Myself included. But, some people enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon that advancing age is a negative. It isn’t. And, it is better than the alternative!

I am sure my reactions are slower than they were, say 30 years ago, but they are still twice as fast as yours. Besides, reactions are only a small part of motorcycle racing. Strength, stamina, general fitness, hydration, good blood sugar levels, amongst other things are equally important from a physical perspective. Vehicle reliability, including tyres, brakes, lubricants, fuel (both levels and quality) are also factors, as well as road surface quality, and lets not forget wildlife. Blaming age versus reaction time as a core reason for crashes is simply shortsighted and quite frankly discriminatory. In fact, it is rather pathetic.

With classic racing, the bike is often older than the rider. They can be very fickle and unreliable. Many great racers have succumbed due to machine failure. we do not yet know what has happened in this case. However, to blame the rider’s age as the cause is crass. I am nearly 62 and can pretty much guarantee that my hand / eye coordination and reaction times are about as good as it gets. Mainly due to racing, but not motorcycles.

Also announced on MR this afternoon. Close at 12:30 - 16:30 then 18:00 - 21:00 all for practice. Small bikes out in the afternoon. Big bikes in the evening, followed by small bikes again.

How about stopping paying people to have kids? A very outdated situation.

They will still find a way of avoiding it.

Charging the same NI would be a better start. CGT and inheritance tax are too easy for the very well off to avoid.

Thats the brakes!

Chartering out Arrow, and possibly Manannan in the winter.

Read my comment again and think very carefully what it says.

We already have one interconnetor. A second is to be laid as the lifespan of the first is in sight. The cost to purchase is not incredibly expensive, but varies. Today, right now, only 1.7% of the uks electricity is being produced by wind power. Meanwhile, 23.5% is being produced by solar. 47.1% is being produced by gas. Total cost of production is £61.10 per MWh, or just over 6P per unit. What do we pay?

Unfortunately, the uk tax payers pay for very little. Major infrastructure is paid for by government borrowing against the national debt. The hope is that over time the national debt is inflated away. Not been happening for the last 15 years. Current high (overdue) inflation is helping but it has also pushed up the cost of government borrowing.

Next time you go to Heysham or Liverpool, you may notice one or two windmills in the sea. Paid for by the devaluation of your currency. You paid for them. Do you get it yet? On your way to Heysham, you May notice a couple of nuclear power stations that you also paid for. Do you get it yet? This is existing infrastructure that you have already paid for. Why would you want to pay for a second infrastructure here, whilst continuing to pay for the expansion, upkeep and maintenance of the existing one that you have already paid for?

To produce green electricity ourselves is easily going to cost in excess £100M. Probably double that (in a currency that has already been devalued to create a supply of green electricity). Plus the running cost and maintenance. Buying in from that existing supply, that we have already paid for will be far cheaper.