Thelonious Monk wrote: » There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue. When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity. I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it's largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue. When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity. I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.
emaherx wrote: » You really should join the green party. I assume your food grows on the north side of rocks?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I wont eat beef and dairy, but anyway the beef and dairy produced in Ireland is nearly all for other countries so most of them aren't feeding us anyway.
Piehead wrote: » This seems outrageous and discriminatory[/url]
RandomViewer wrote: » Have you actually seen evidence of this or are you relying on Eamonn Ryan s imagination, large cultivation of farmland dropped massively since the nineties, A bit of silage here and there seems to be the height of it . Compare that with the seventies when every arable field had a crop in it and every hillside was white with sheep,
jackboy wrote: » The country is full of slatted sheds now which have turned out to be a disaster for the environment. Also, large scale conifer plantations are another disaster.
Parabellum9 wrote: » Can’t stand listening to these pricks or anything they have to say and the fact we are wasting 1 million a day for the next year on cycling infrastructure (which sleepy Ryan felt the need to boast about) makes me sick. Much better uses for 365 million than giving the lycra **** more road space to act the bollix on.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Great news today if they actually invest that much in walking and cycling. Finally we're trying to move away from private car dominance. Really glad it's annoying you too if you're going to talk about people who use bikes in that way too.
Parabellum9 wrote: » Disgusting waste of money, there’s much better uses of 365 million at present than cycling. And I stand by what I say about cyclists, the more I see them the more it’s obvious none of them have the first clue about using the roads, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near them. Maybe when they have to take a test and be insured etc like all other road users they can be accepted.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » If you feel that way about cyclists, you must really hate motorists who cause 2 or 3 deaths on the road every week. Anyway it's a good investment, leads to a cleaner and healthier country.
Parabellum9 wrote: » Nope because motorists are required by law to understand the rules of the road and also pay insurance and tax for the pleasure of using them.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » They don't understand the rules of the road though from what I can see
Parabellum9 wrote: » Oh but they do because there are penalties for those that break them. It seems however that any prick can get on a bicycle and do whatever the **** they want, putting themselves and motorists in danger and not a single eyelid gets batted.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I wonder why nearly everyone speeds, if they understand the rules of the road? Can you show me an example of one time where a cyclist harmed a motorist? You really are living up to the stereotype of the entitled car driver.
Parabellum9 wrote: » Cyclist behaviour can cause accidents, particularly those who break red lights as if they can’t see them - traffic has to break suddenly and then you can imagine what happens next. Don’t pretend they are some sort of angelic transport class on the roads, the majority are dangerous and haven’t a ****ing clue about road usage.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » How are they dangerous if they're not harming anyone? What accidents are they causing, can you show me specific examples?
Parabellum9 wrote: » Fender benders aren’t likely to make the headlines but you know that already. I’ll give you 2 examples I’ve personally witnessed- this week at a red light, I watched 4 cyclists one after the other continue straight through it across an open lane of traffic. One car (which had right of way due to it being a green light for them) had to jam the brakes to avoid hitting one of them who was dawdling past the exit illegally. A few months ago, I had a cyclist collide with my car as he ran a red light at same intersection for which I had a green, and slammed head first in to the driver side of my car. He was lucky he didn’t do any damage to my vehicle, and got away with just a red face instead of an ass kicking.
RoversCeltic wrote: » the 365m is not just for cycling
Parabellum9 wrote: » Yes it’s for “walking” as well- how much will it cost to send a free umbrella to every house in the country?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » so do you think all adults should be encouraged to get a car and drive everywhere?
