National parks get LED street lights to lower pollution (From Daily Echo)

This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

So these campaigners / lobbyists / hobbyists can influence their Tory friends how to spend HCC tax payers hard earned money just to fulfil their personal interests. Are some also shareholders at SSE Contracting I wonder. It would take about 42 years to re-coup , based on the annual savings, not an outstanding priority of finances in these times of restraint.
Winchester , New Forest , East Hampshire all hand picked districts full of Mel Kendal's elitist friends no doubt. Where in the hell , beween their ears, do they think what a priorty is , in these days when poverty is increasing day by day. Traitors to the working classes, all of them. Total comdemnation comes to mind.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

But why should it take the influence of a hobbyist like Graham Bryant and his lobbying to get HCC to take action only in his selected areas, and not giving HCC a free reign to replace lighting in all the districts they represent, as they see fit to prioritise. Seems Mel Kendal only listens to the selected few.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

there is no class system other than the imaginary one in peoples heads... you are living in a 70s sit com.... Just look at how wealthy some of the Polish people are who live and work here ( and some of whom are opting for British citizenship ) , they came from nothing back in poland many of them yet now they are running thriving businesses here and employing many brits so don't give me that class BS , its all in your head...

Sovietobserver wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

But why should it take the influence of a hobbyist like Graham Bryant and his lobbying to get HCC to take action only in his selected areas, and not giving HCC a free reign to replace lighting in all the districts they represent, as they see fit to prioritise. Seems Mel Kendal only listens to the selected few.

You may well have some telling points; I am not informed on the issues you raise.

My point was purely to counter the original posters impression that all this was being done to reduce light pollution, as well as southy’s subsequent stupid utterances.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

.. only you, southy, could turn an article on replacement street lighting into a class struggle issue.

You really do need to grow up and start inhabiting the real world.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

there is no class system other than the imaginary one in peoples heads... you are living in a 70s sit com.... Just look at how wealthy some of the Polish people are who live and work here ( and some of whom are opting for British citizenship ) , they came from nothing back in poland many of them yet now they are running thriving businesses here and employing many brits so don't give me that class BS , its all in your head...

There is a class system, all ways have been and all ways will be under a capitalist system, its only in the heads of dreamers and false propagandist to say there is no class system, just the the divide between the bottom and top as grown wider in the last 32 years, we have soup kitchens on the streets, we have homless, we have food poverity.
You talk about the Polish its only those with a bit of spare money that can get here, most of Poland can not afford to get here unless a company pays for them to be here to work.
So stop that BS in saying there is no Class system there is and it now got 2 added ones on top of the 3 old ones

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

.. only you, southy, could turn an article on replacement street lighting into a class struggle issue.

You really do need to grow up and start inhabiting the real world.

You need to come into the real world free, this country wasting money on luxurys as street lighting for the few, when we got soup kitchens, and people with no homes, this is the real world that you chose to ignore.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

Are you happy about any of the union barons on their £100K+ packages, and will you publicly condemn them as well as Brendan Barber?

If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

there is no class system other than the imaginary one in peoples heads... you are living in a 70s sit com.... Just look at how wealthy some of the Polish people are who live and work here ( and some of whom are opting for British citizenship ) , they came from nothing back in poland many of them yet now they are running thriving businesses here and employing many brits so don't give me that class BS , its all in your head...

There is a class system, all ways have been and all ways will be under a capitalist system, its only in the heads of dreamers and false propagandist to say there is no class system, just the the divide between the bottom and top as grown wider in the last 32 years, we have soup kitchens on the streets, we have homless, we have food poverity.
You talk about the Polish its only those with a bit of spare money that can get here, most of Poland can not afford to get here unless a company pays for them to be here to work.
So stop that BS in saying there is no Class system there is and it now got 2 added ones on top of the 3 old ones

Living in a country adjacent to Poland I can tell you that the people travelling to and working in the UK are mostly young, educated, energetic and willing to work hard to earn enough to set themselves up back in Poland or to begin a new life in the UK. The vast majority have enough money to survive until they get a job and are definitely not sponsored by companies in Poland. In the UK there is condemnation of the suggestion that people should 'get on their bike' to look for work and these are the qualities of the people competing for the jobs.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

.. only you, southy, could turn an article on replacement street lighting into a class struggle issue.

You really do need to grow up and start inhabiting the real world.

You need to come into the real world free, this country wasting money on luxurys as street lighting for the few, when we got soup kitchens, and people with no homes, this is the real world that you chose to ignore.

.. oh yes, wasting money on street lighting ‘for the few’. I must admit, not being part of the ‘Supper rich elite’, I never, ever, use street lighting. I make sure the council turn it off every time I venture out after dark.

Of course we don’t need such luxuries, do we? Let’s have total darkness after sunset; that will please astronomers, sexual predators, burglars, et al.

What else then? Er, libraries, social services, refuse collection and, er, swimming pools? Yes, I’m sure we can all do without them. Luxuries the lot of them.

There, problem solved; we spend all the savings on soup kitchens.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

As always, spot on Paramjit.

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

there is no class system other than the imaginary one in peoples heads... you are living in a 70s sit com.... Just look at how wealthy some of the Polish people are who live and work here ( and some of whom are opting for British citizenship ) , they came from nothing back in poland many of them yet now they are running thriving businesses here and employing many brits so don't give me that class BS , its all in your head...

There is a class system, all ways have been and all ways will be under a capitalist system, its only in the heads of dreamers and false propagandist to say there is no class system, just the the divide between the bottom and top as grown wider in the last 32 years, we have soup kitchens on the streets, we have homless, we have food poverity.
You talk about the Polish its only those with a bit of spare money that can get here, most of Poland can not afford to get here unless a company pays for them to be here to work.
So stop that BS in saying there is no Class system there is and it now got 2 added ones on top of the 3 old ones

You are talking absolute cr@p. You know nothing clearly about Polish people, their economy and abilities to migrate. The only class system in this country is in the minds of "victims"... The reason we have armies of benefit scroungers is because of the lazy victim mentality. Meanwhile clever and enthusiastic migrants are making a mockery of your "class" system by proving that it does not exist.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

How very socialist of you.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Who are the "supper rich"? What did they have for supper?

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

You said the exact opposite above. Literally. "It's a crime to put people before money"

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

.. you make some good points Paramjit. As is the case in Southampton and elsewhere, old and energy inefficient street lighting that is reaching the end of its shelf life needs to be replaced.

Yes perhaps solar powered lighting should have been looked at. Perhaps it was. I know there are now many solar powered street signs in our area and they seem to work well. However, street lighting requires a lot more than just illuminating a small sign; it is projected from a high to cover a considerable square footage of highway. It is perhaps technically too difficult to collect and store the energy required to provide continual lighting during darkness hours.

So, in some areas they are turning to LEDs. These are not ‘environmentally slightly better than normal lights’ but hugely better as far as energy consumption (and CO2 emissions) is concerned.

If we are to get ourselves out of the economic stagnation this coalition has inflicted on this nation, expenditure of infrastructure schemes will be essential. This scheme will contribute to this AND have the added benefit that it is contributing to the new green economy that will be our future if we are serious about mitigation the worse effects of the inevitable global warming that our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

You said the exact opposite above. Literally. "It's a crime to put people before money"

I did But read the other posts and you might see that I was having a small dig at Free

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

Are you happy about any of the union barons on their £100K+ packages, and will you publicly condemn them as well as Brendan Barber?

If you got a beef with the Union Leadership go and take it up with the unions, I give the Union Leaderships there due on one thing, they keep there personal money in the UK banking System and pays uk tax on the interest that is made, they also pay full uk tax and not this 20% tax that your bosses get away with and keep there money in tax free banking.

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

there is no class system other than the imaginary one in peoples heads... you are living in a 70s sit com.... Just look at how wealthy some of the Polish people are who live and work here ( and some of whom are opting for British citizenship ) , they came from nothing back in poland many of them yet now they are running thriving businesses here and employing many brits so don't give me that class BS , its all in your head...

There is a class system, all ways have been and all ways will be under a capitalist system, its only in the heads of dreamers and false propagandist to say there is no class system, just the the divide between the bottom and top as grown wider in the last 32 years, we have soup kitchens on the streets, we have homless, we have food poverity.
You talk about the Polish its only those with a bit of spare money that can get here, most of Poland can not afford to get here unless a company pays for them to be here to work.
So stop that BS in saying there is no Class system there is and it now got 2 added ones on top of the 3 old ones

You are talking absolute cr@p. You know nothing clearly about Polish people, their economy and abilities to migrate. The only class system in this country is in the minds of "victims"... The reason we have armies of benefit scroungers is because of the lazy victim mentality. Meanwhile clever and enthusiastic migrants are making a mockery of your "class" system by proving that it does not exist.

I know this much and it seem to be alot more than most, those that can not afford to travel here, end up having to stay at home in poverity, or hope that some job might come up where they are paid to travel only to have it deducted on starting there job.
And this puts a spanner in your false propaganda and tourchies, Any that travel here on there own backs and gets a job here have got to be paid the national wage limit, and companys will not employ oversea workers on the NWL they want them on cheap labour.
And for Polish to come here and start up business (ggod for them) they had money in the first place to be able to start up a business.
The mockey is on you, if there was no class system, We would not have Soup Kitchens, We would not have Poverity, We would not have homeless people, We would not have under privileged, We would not have food poverity all these exciss in the UK today.

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

Are you happy about any of the union barons on their £100K+ packages, and will you publicly condemn them as well as Brendan Barber?

If you got a beef with the Union Leadership go and take it up with the unions, I give the Union Leaderships there due on one thing, they keep there personal money in the UK banking System and pays uk tax on the interest that is made, they also pay full uk tax and not this 20% tax that your bosses get away with and keep there money in tax free banking.

Can't bring yourself to condemn the excesses of the union barons then ? Just out of interest, how have you become so intimately aware of all of their financial arrangements so that you can confidently post their 'whiter than white' images or is it another potential embarrassment, like declaring Stalin to be a fascist, that you're trying to head off? As for paying 20% Income Tax, I only pay a flat rate of 15% as do all the other people in the country.

freefinker wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

.. you make some good points Paramjit. As is the case in Southampton and elsewhere, old and energy inefficient street lighting that is reaching the end of its shelf life needs to be replaced.

Yes perhaps solar powered lighting should have been looked at. Perhaps it was. I know there are now many solar powered street signs in our area and they seem to work well. However, street lighting requires a lot more than just illuminating a small sign; it is projected from a high to cover a considerable square footage of highway. It is perhaps technically too difficult to collect and store the energy required to provide continual lighting during darkness hours.

So, in some areas they are turning to LEDs. These are not ‘environmentally slightly better than normal lights’ but hugely better as far as energy consumption (and CO2 emissions) is concerned.

If we are to get ourselves out of the economic stagnation this coalition has inflicted on this nation, expenditure of infrastructure schemes will be essential. This scheme will contribute to this AND have the added benefit that it is contributing to the new green economy that will be our future if we are serious about mitigation the worse effects of the inevitable global warming that our profligate use of fossil fuels is causing.

I have no intention of pretending to be an expert on solar energy; my info is simply based upon what others have told me.

Few years ago I was told by somebody that solar power can be stored during day time to use for lighting at night. Although at a party the guy was not drunk and was introduced to me as involved in solar research, I assumed that over the years in this area more progress could have been made.

I have also read Dan Soton’s comment under item regarding solar power in Fareham/Stubbington area. He has mentioned 3D solar cells which are more efficient.

A close friend is using solar and wind energy in his house; he bought the solar stuff from some Chinese firm directly, has combined it with wind thingy and is using ordinary car batteries for storing energy. His DIY project has been working for couple of years. He is convinced that with ongoing development in the area of storage within few years what may not be economically viable now will become very cheap when more efficient systems will be mass produced.

So based on such info I made my lay man’s as opposed to expert opinion.

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

While it is your right to use the type of language you feel comfortable with, in fairness have you ever tried to practise what you demand from others?

Before demanding every single details from Southy, try using bit of precise language yourself. As your "Sail Size" could be anything, massive sails of sailing ships or something from a dinghy or even sails of a child's toy.

Southy has posted what he believes to be correct. If you want to prove him wrong then get on your bike and pop down to locations he has mentioned, and check for yourself or simply ignore his comment.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

While it is your right to use the type of language you feel comfortable with, in fairness have you ever tried to practise what you demand from others?

Before demanding every single details from Southy, try using bit of precise language yourself. As your "Sail Size" could be anything, massive sails of sailing ships or something from a dinghy or even sails of a child's toy.

Southy has posted what he believes to be correct. If you want to prove him wrong then get on your bike and pop down to locations he has mentioned, and check for yourself or simply ignore his comment.

spinnaker sail is what I said in an earlier post and solar powered street lights such that meet statutory regulations simply do not exist in the UK. As usual Southy is very confused. "Assistance" street lighting is not the same as mandatory illumination of the highway.... Anyway its basic physics, only a complete idiot would think you could power street lights in the UK by solar power at present. With future advances in batteries then yes it could be possible for the summer collection of solar energy to power the lights all year round with only modest sized cells but we are at least 10 years away from that.... perhaps 20...

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

Are you happy about any of the union barons on their £100K+ packages, and will you publicly condemn them as well as Brendan Barber?

If you got a beef with the Union Leadership go and take it up with the unions, I give the Union Leaderships there due on one thing, they keep there personal money in the UK banking System and pays uk tax on the interest that is made, they also pay full uk tax and not this 20% tax that your bosses get away with and keep there money in tax free banking.

Can't bring yourself to condemn the excesses of the union barons then ? Just out of interest, how have you become so intimately aware of all of their financial arrangements so that you can confidently post their 'whiter than white' images or is it another potential embarrassment, like declaring Stalin to be a fascist, that you're trying to head off? As for paying 20% Income Tax, I only pay a flat rate of 15% as do all the other people in the country.

Easy try asking them for details, or read there publish accounts each year, mind if you done that you soon realise how much garb you been passing about, if you want to find out the real truth and not the right wing news media propaganda then write a letter to the union for a copy of there accounts theres a small fee, unless you go to union head office.
you so quick in running down unions just because they represent the ordinary man, ah but thtas right your not even in the UK are you

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

While it is your right to use the type of language you feel comfortable with, in fairness have you ever tried to practise what you demand from others?

Before demanding every single details from Southy, try using bit of precise language yourself. As your "Sail Size" could be anything, massive sails of sailing ships or something from a dinghy or even sails of a child's toy.

Southy has posted what he believes to be correct. If you want to prove him wrong then get on your bike and pop down to locations he has mentioned, and check for yourself or simply ignore his comment.

spinnaker sail is what I said in an earlier post and solar powered street lights such that meet statutory regulations simply do not exist in the UK. As usual Southy is very confused. "Assistance" street lighting is not the same as mandatory illumination of the highway.... Anyway its basic physics, only a complete idiot would think you could power street lights in the UK by solar power at present. With future advances in batteries then yes it could be possible for the summer collection of solar energy to power the lights all year round with only modest sized cells but we are at least 10 years away from that.... perhaps 20...

10 to 20 years ago you would of been right, but technology as avance a lot since then, solar panels are that advance now they do not just work with light they also work with temp range to.
Lithium batterys have been around now for 15 years and more, there are cars now (not in this country) that there soul engery power is the space that the roof of the car, and electic car engine use up a lot more power than any light bulb

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

While it is your right to use the type of language you feel comfortable with, in fairness have you ever tried to practise what you demand from others?

Before demanding every single details from Southy, try using bit of precise language yourself. As your "Sail Size" could be anything, massive sails of sailing ships or something from a dinghy or even sails of a child's toy.

Southy has posted what he believes to be correct. If you want to prove him wrong then get on your bike and pop down to locations he has mentioned, and check for yourself or simply ignore his comment.

.. while I agree with you on the language, southy is just wrong (and not for the first time).

I explained to you the difference between the power needed to illuminate a small road sign and the tremendous step up in power to provide highway lighting.

As MGRA pointed out in his first post, it is just not possible with existing technology to provide solar powered street lighting that will provide the regulation brightness for the required hours without having solar panels 'the size of a spinnaker sail’.

I too am a lay person when it comes to this field, but both you and I are reasonable intelligent and with a bit of thought can follow the argument as to why solar street lighting is not on the agenda in 2012.

Unfortunately, friend southy is not at all clever, although he deceives himself into believing he is. It is therefore perfectly in order, when he comes out with yet another technologically impossible statement to challenge him to provide the calculations.

It is only by this method that southy will ever learn that he has made a mistake. Unfortunately, he never rises to the challenge because he is intellectually incapable of providing the data requested due to his total scientific and technological ineptitude.

I struggle to get any light from my solar garden lights in the winter. I imagine the street lights will take a lot more power than a garden light.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:

Southampton-lass wrote:
This has really made me angry.. £ 1M to make the skies pretty, when we have so many people in food poverty..Services are being cut, less hospital beds, less police out on the beat... What a joke!!

I see your point.

.. yes, that is ONE point, but if you read the article the reduced light pollution is incidental to the real intention; reducing electricity consumption and CO2 emissions.

Its a crime to put people before money.

.. they’re not. Read the article.

It’s part of a ‘project to replace ageing street lights across the county.’

Are you suggesting that local and national government should not spend ANY money on supplying and/or upgrading infrastructure until such time as everyone is living in relative affluence? Can’t draw any other conclusion from what you have just said.

Yet again you show your limited grip on reality.

Only one who showing limited grip on reality is your self free, You just like any other Capitalist will put money before people even if its in a green way.
Your world never got rid of the classless system what it done is added two new ones to the system, we now got a Supper rich elite, upper class, middle class, Working class and the under privilege class.

Do you have any suggestions to put to Brendan Barber on better use for the Tax Free £100K payoff,his estimated £62K Pension and the £1600 per annum fees at the Muswell Hill Golf Club. People before money in this case is acceptable to you I suppose?

It might be to you but it is not to me, People should all ways come before money.

You said the exact opposite above. Literally. "It's a crime to put people before money"

I did But read the other posts and you might see that I was having a small dig at Free

Oh right, that must've slipped by! Cheers!

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

Thats where your wrong again, take the slip road of the A303 and head towards Huish, Street lights along this road are solar paneled, and there lights go off after you pass, they switch on the moment there is a light distrubance. Stop thinking about those old type panels of yesterday year, they are not the same any more they are a lot smaller than the ones that Greenweilds use to sell in millbrook road,

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

southy wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If idea behind this exercise was to save carbon emission then why the authority did not consider solar powered lights?

Which party is mostly voted for in areas eramarked for these LED lights?

Has this anything to do with County Council elections within next few months?

Which party will be going to voters in those areas claiming credit for providing expensive latest fads, which may be environmently slightly better than normal lights but are they better than solar powered lights?

Give them credit where due, Tories look after their own, who mostly happen to be members of financially better off part of society. To which Southy has rightly described as certain 'class'.

Hilarious post. You clearly have not got the faintest idea about the subject. The amount of power needed for street lights to remain on at the regulatory output from september-april would required 2 huge solar arrays per lamppost the size of a spinnaker sail !!! Solar power is only stuitable for small sign illuminations. LEDs are not the "latest fads" they are the most economic form of street lighting in the long term. Their high cost is due to the precious metals used in the lamp housings but they last 5 times longer than traditional street lamps and also consume far less power.... Before posting utter drivel, maybe just do some basic research... ( no offence ) ;-)

Your wrong there is all ready street lighting with solar panels, and they are no where near as big as you say, they are only about 1 foot x foor, travel down the A303 and you will see them in the Somerset and Dorset/Devon, and theres even a lot more street signs that use soral panels.

total BS, if its not then quickly show me the equations for power input, how its stored and power output ? You can't obviously. You seem ignorant of the Wattage of street lamps at statutory illumination. 150 Watts is typical. During december, they will be on for 17 hours a day, and there will be only 7 hours of daylight with a tiny fraction of the solar energy required to power the lights, unless of course there are huge sail sized solar panels. In your fantasy world where small panels will power these lights, show me the proof !?

Thats where your wrong again, take the slip road of the A303 and head towards Huish, Street lights along this road are solar paneled, and there lights go off after you pass, they switch on the moment there is a light distrubance. Stop thinking about those old type panels of yesterday year, they are not the same any more they are a lot smaller than the ones that Greenweilds use to sell in millbrook road,

and then the wicked witch told Hansel and Gretal..... yeh yeh we know how it goes Southy....

Perhaps we can return to the subject of the article? As an astronomer who images the night sky at every opportunity and as someone with a First Class Honours Degree and a PhD in Physics I can tell you that most of this hype about "environmentally friendly" "astronomer friendly" "low light pollution" LED lamps is a pile of nonsense. At present I am surrounded by at least 6 Sodium street lights (the ones that are meant to be "bad" for astronomy) and I am able to take very nice deep-sky images - why? Because Sodium lamps emit their yellow light in two very narrow bandwidth lines, which in English means I can put in a filter (purpose built for astronomers) and it completely cuts out the Sodium street light, allowing me to take night sky images as if there were no light pollution at all. LED lights are white light sources - you cannot "filter" out white light, apart from sticking a bit of black cardboard in front of your telescope which rather defeats the object of the exercise. These LED lights throw a lot of light out sideways which is far more damaging to me as an astronomer than the Sodium lights doing the same thing. So what I am saying is - if these changes are supposed to be helping astronomers then do me a favour - save your million quid which is going to be wasted on LED light sources that ARE a polluting source for astronomy - and leave the Sodium street lights as they are. Sodium lights ARE annoying, but at least I can work with them, LED lights - no chance.