Call to put clocks forward permanently (From Daily Echo)

Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

12.36

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

This proposal would align us with the rest of Western Europe and I am strongly in favour of it. We are closer to Paris and Brussels than to Edinburgh and if it wasn't for Scottish opposition concerned about the impact in the far north it would have happened by now.

Dont understand the logic, reduce traffic accidents? You'll just get more in the mornings then! The reason the clocks go back is because of farming isnt it? Also there was this story of a school bus accident being blamed because of the lack of light where children were killed. Myself personally would prefer later evenings, but think this campaign is a bit short sighted.

Scotland have their own Parliament, make their own decisions, interfere with our decision making and live of the back of us anyway. If they don't like it, they can carry on being separate from us and do their own thing, they always have so what's stopping them now. I'm all in favour of it. We should have done this a long time ago.

It only concerns the Scottish turning the clocks back, because the children would have to walk to school in the dark.

The rest of the UK should stay in BST.

What about the impact on global businesses due to the increased gap between UK/US?
.
It would mean that UK companies dealing with businesses based on the west coast uf USA would be 9 hours ahead, making it even more difficult to organise conference calls than it already is.

I think the only reason it changes now is something to do with WW2 not sure why though i thinks its to do with bombing raids only being able to happen during the day time at some point ????
Its a good idea though.

Saint Bean wrote:
I think the only reason it changes now is something to do with WW2 not sure why though i thinks its to do with bombing raids only being able to happen during the day time at some point ???? Its a good idea though.

In fact, during WW2 they had GMT+1 during the winter and GMT+2 (Double summer time) during the summer. If there were advantages in it then, (and Scotland didn't perish) why not now?

StEmmosfire wrote:
Dont understand the logic, reduce traffic accidents? You'll just get more in the mornings then! The reason the clocks go back is because of farming isnt it? Also there was this story of a school bus accident being blamed because of the lack of light where children were killed. Myself personally would prefer later evenings, but think this campaign is a bit short sighted.

THis proposal would give you later evenings. Western Europe is one hour ahead of us all year - this would bring us into line, so if today it gets dark at (say) 8pm under this proposal that would become 9pm so I think you should be in favour. The farming argument was originally used by crofters in north Scotland as a reason to reject the proposal, but livestock does not know what the time is - animals are regulated by light and dark, not by what o'clock we reckon it is so it should be irrelevant to a farmer - apart from things like the relative timings of radio and TV programmes, but now we all have DVD recorders even that argument is spurious and outdated.

Sorry but how would this safe energy? It just means i'd get to work in the dark and put the lights on there, rather than in my house.

Under this proposal in Southampton sunrise would be until 8:30 am from the 16th of October to the 9th of February each year. with the latest sunrise being at 9:08 am.

Would we really want to make out children walk to school in the dark for four months of the year?

and do we really want it to be light until 10:30 pm as it would be in Southampton at the summer solstice? the same time of year the sun would only be down at 10:50pm in Newcastle.

Keep it as it is.

Huffybear wrote:
Scotland have their own Parliament, make their own decisions, interfere with our decision making and live of the back of us anyway. If they don't like it, they can carry on being separate from us and do their own thing, they always have so what's stopping them now. I'm all in favour of it. We should have done this a long time ago.

Now we have an anglo-centric government you may find that Scotland may have toe the line more than it did in the recent past.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

This proposal would align us with the rest of Western Europe and I am strongly in favour of it. We are closer to Paris and Brussels than to Edinburgh and if it wasn't for Scottish opposition concerned about the impact in the far north it would have happened by now.

missing one small point, in the winter it will add to the co2 not reduce it, it will remain darker for longer in the mornings, has it is under gmt in winter its only just getting light between 8-15 and 8-30 in the mornings at the winter solstice (dec 21), kids would be at risk going to school if this extra hour is added unless you change the timing for kids, and if you do this then you will need to change the business hours also. if any thing we should just stick to gmt all year round.

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

This proposal would align us with the rest of Western Europe and I am strongly in favour of it. We are closer to Paris and Brussels than to Edinburgh and if it wasn't for Scottish opposition concerned about the impact in the far north it would have happened by now.

missing one small point, in the winter it will add to the co2 not reduce it, it will remain darker for longer in the mornings, has it is under gmt in winter its only just getting light between 8-15 and 8-30 in the mornings at the winter solstice (dec 21), kids would be at risk going to school if this extra hour is added unless you change the timing for kids, and if you do this then you will need to change the business hours also. if any thing we should just stick to gmt all year round.

You seem to add 20 times more co2 with the hot air you spout.

Let's just pass a law that the sun shines twenty four hours a day and everyone will be happy!

What nonsense!!!

didicoy wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

This proposal would align us with the rest of Western Europe and I am strongly in favour of it. We are closer to Paris and Brussels than to Edinburgh and if it wasn't for Scottish opposition concerned about the impact in the far north it would have happened by now.

missing one small point, in the winter it will add to the co2 not reduce it, it will remain darker for longer in the mornings, has it is under gmt in winter its only just getting light between 8-15 and 8-30 in the mornings at the winter solstice (dec 21), kids would be at risk going to school if this extra hour is added unless you change the timing for kids, and if you do this then you will need to change the business hours also. if any thing we should just stick to gmt all year round.

You seem to add 20 times more co2 with the hot air you spout.

its not hot air, check your sun rise and sun sets for the uk, like here in southampton the latest sun rise is dec 27th to jan 5th and the earliest sun set is between dec 6th to dec 17th, between 13th dec to 18th jan sun rise is after 8am, if you go east the sun rises just that tiny bit earlyier and west it later only by seconds, and if its one of those dark rainy days, day light hours are much shorter.
so all you be doing will be swapping what happens in the evenings to the mornings in the winter time.

Another pathetic attempt by the scare monger lot. Wind your necks in, we are GMT, and always have been, its how the world works.

southy wrote:

didicoy wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Rather than all the rubbish.
Just re-align GMT altogether... So that it is put forward internationally, because if it befefits us, then it must benefit other countries to be adjusted too

This proposal would align us with the rest of Western Europe and I am strongly in favour of it. We are closer to Paris and Brussels than to Edinburgh and if it wasn't for Scottish opposition concerned about the impact in the far north it would have happened by now.

missing one small point, in the winter it will add to the co2 not reduce it, it will remain darker for longer in the mornings, has it is under gmt in winter its only just getting light between 8-15 and 8-30 in the mornings at the winter solstice (dec 21), kids would be at risk going to school if this extra hour is added unless you change the timing for kids, and if you do this then you will need to change the business hours also. if any thing we should just stick to gmt all year round.

You seem to add 20 times more co2 with the hot air you spout.

its not hot air, check your sun rise and sun sets for the uk, like here in southampton the latest sun rise is dec 27th to jan 5th and the earliest sun set is between dec 6th to dec 17th, between 13th dec to 18th jan sun rise is after 8am, if you go east the sun rises just that tiny bit earlyier and west it later only by seconds, and if its one of those dark rainy days, day light hours are much shorter.
so all you be doing will be swapping what happens in the evenings to the mornings in the winter time.

Yet more co2 poured into the atmosphere from Southy. Ssssssssssssshhhhhhh
hh, no one cares. xxx

teh wrote:
Another pathetic attempt by the scare monger lot. Wind your necks in, we are GMT, and always have been, its how the world works.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. For a start we are currently on BST not GMT so you are immediately out on your facts. And why should it be scaremongering? And which "lot" are doing it? And why? This is a sensible proposal that many people would like to see. And Southy doesn't seem to have considered that the civil servants who have carefully calculated the cost v benefit of this proposal are hardly going to overlook something as fundamental as he suggests in his oversimple calculations. It is clearly not a simple swap as he implies because the activity "lost" in a darker morning is not identical to the activity "gained" in the lighter evening!

I'm all for putting the clocks forward permanently. Unfortunately we have a government that is committed in turning the clock back to the mid 80's!!
Never mind eh?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

teh wrote:
Another pathetic attempt by the scare monger lot. Wind your necks in, we are GMT, and always have been, its how the world works.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. For a start we are currently on BST not GMT so you are immediately out on your facts. And why should it be scaremongering? And which "lot" are doing it? And why? This is a sensible proposal that many people would like to see. And Southy doesn't seem to have considered that the civil servants who have carefully calculated the cost v benefit of this proposal are hardly going to overlook something as fundamental as he suggests in his oversimple calculations. It is clearly not a simple swap as he implies because the activity "lost" in a darker morning is not identical to the activity "gained" in the lighter evening!

world time is set against gmt andy even bst is set to gmt. i have given you southampton sun rise and sun set times at there worse, if you travel east of southampton sun rise comes bit earlier, go west and comes later only by seconds lo, go north and it comes later again by minutes. the time between first light and sun rise is less than 15 mins in the winter but hours in the summer (in southampton). you add that hour in the winter and kids will be going to school in the dark, so all you be doing is swapping the times of the problems from even to morning.
you will need to change your CH timing so it fires up earlier it the silly things that you dont think about that alters about, street lighting going to remain the same amount of time switch on just that it will be on longer for the mornings, and you do most of your work first thing in the mornings.
there are no real savings you do just put the problems in the evening to the mornings. really its a none starter can not see this getting pass in government, the only ones likely to vote for it are down here in the south.

Southy you don't need to explain to me or anyone else the effect of the earth's rotation. The simple fact (which is borne out by statistical evidence) is that more people are injured in a dark evening than in a dark morning. This is because in the morning people and children tend to go straight to their workplace, school etc whereas in the evenings people loiter more, or take more diversions to do other things, all of which exposes them to more dangers from traffic etc so a "swap" of an hour's daylight from morning to evening results in fewer accidents even though the actual amount of light in 24 hours is of course exactly the same. This is all accepted by Government, road organisations and education committees. If only they'd thought to give you a call you could have put them all straight!

Co2 is NOT a poison. Another load of claptrap from the climate change cranks

GMT is the natural time for this country. Noon is when the sun is highest in the sky. I'm in favour of scrapping BST and using GMT all year. There is no law that says we must start work or school at a particular time. These could easily be altered at different times of the year if starting or finishing in the dark is a problem. Many businesses already have different opening hours in the summer to from the opening hours used in winter.

Leave our clocks alone! Changing the clocks has no effect on the number of hours of daylight in a day.

forest hump wrote:
Co2 is NOT a poison. Another load of claptrap from the climate change cranks

CO2 isn't a poison? Ok, fill a sealed room with it, go in there for one minute and come out and tell us all then that it's not a poison. Bet you won't be able to. Want to know why? Because you'll be dead. Killed by a 'non-poison'.
-
Unless, of course, you are a real forest, as your name implies, in which case, for a group of trees, you have magnificent I.T skills and long may you keep sucking up NOT poisonous CO2.

You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Southy you don't need to explain to me or anyone else the effect of the earth's rotation. The simple fact (which is borne out by statistical evidence) is that more people are injured in a dark evening than in a dark morning. This is because in the morning people and children tend to go straight to their workplace, school etc whereas in the evenings people loiter more, or take more diversions to do other things, all of which exposes them to more dangers from traffic etc so a "swap" of an hour's daylight from morning to evening results in fewer accidents even though the actual amount of light in 24 hours is of course exactly the same. This is all accepted by Government, road organisations and education committees. If only they'd thought to give you a call you could have put them all straight!

i under stand what your getting at andy, but your going to mess about with every body, natural body clocks, and you will only move things about like co2 gases build up. at the moment kids go to school in day light just about in winter down here in the south. wet dark mornings and evenings are the most dangerous times. and is when most accidents happen. and if you really look hard in to it the biggest accidents on the road have happen in the morning and not evening. when there black ice about or heavy fog.
all they need to do is change the working time hours it would have the same effect as what they are requiring to do

forest hump wrote:
You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Stop taking things out of context? You stated an alleged 'fact' that CO2 is NOT a poison. There was no context there to take wrongly. I then, light heartedly, countered your poxy 3 line statement and then you come back saying that oxygen is a poison too so you've negated your first post right there, haven't you? If you want to post a substantial arguement then do so. Don't just type out your own mundane and made up 'claptrap' to suit your own ramblings and, you really should think carefully before you start insulting other people because you are no good at it.
-
Yes, I'm pedantic because of idiots like you, coming on here and spouting your pathetic attempt at sounding intelligent when in actual FACT, you're nothing but a completely brainless cretin.

bigronthestaff, in a way he is right co2 in not poison gas its asphyxiation gas, like pure oxygen can lead to death to. mustard gas is a poison gas.

bigronthestaff wrote:

forest hump wrote: You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Stop taking things out of context? You stated an alleged 'fact' that CO2 is NOT a poison. There was no context there to take wrongly. I then, light heartedly, countered your poxy 3 line statement and then you come back saying that oxygen is a poison too so you've negated your first post right there, haven't you? If you want to post a substantial arguement then do so. Don't just type out your own mundane and made up 'claptrap' to suit your own ramblings and, you really should think carefully before you start insulting other people because you are no good at it. - Yes, I'm pedantic because of idiots like you, coming on here and spouting your pathetic attempt at sounding intelligent when in actual FACT, you're nothing but a completely brainless cretin.

Missing the point again! I did not say O2 is a poison, I said, fill a room and it will kill you. You "light heartedly" mentioned trees. Well sunshine, you are barking up the wrong one and clearly not smart enough to grasp the intent of my post.
I'm also not going to rise to your accusations of intelligence quotient. AGAIN, AGW, in my opinion is manufactured claptrap, driven by politicians wanting to raise taxes and "scientists" wanting more research money to feather nests.
Oh, and for the record, I do not suffer from iodine deficiency.

forest hump wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote:

forest hump wrote: You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Stop taking things out of context? You stated an alleged 'fact' that CO2 is NOT a poison. There was no context there to take wrongly. I then, light heartedly, countered your poxy 3 line statement and then you come back saying that oxygen is a poison too so you've negated your first post right there, haven't you? If you want to post a substantial arguement then do so. Don't just type out your own mundane and made up 'claptrap' to suit your own ramblings and, you really should think carefully before you start insulting other people because you are no good at it. - Yes, I'm pedantic because of idiots like you, coming on here and spouting your pathetic attempt at sounding intelligent when in actual FACT, you're nothing but a completely brainless cretin.

Missing the point again! I did not say O2 is a poison, I said, fill a room and it will kill you. You "light heartedly" mentioned trees. Well sunshine, you are barking up the wrong one and clearly not smart enough to grasp the intent of my post. I'm also not going to rise to your accusations of intelligence quotient. AGAIN, AGW, in my opinion is manufactured claptrap, driven by politicians wanting to raise taxes and "scientists" wanting more research money to feather nests. Oh, and for the record, I do not suffer from iodine deficiency.

Also I stand by my post that Co2 is not a poison. It is a fundamental requirement in sustaining life on Earth (that's before you reply and say i'm not reading your post correctly)

southy wrote:
bigronthestaff, in a way he is right co2 in not poison gas its asphyxiation gas, like pure oxygen can lead to death to. mustard gas is a poison gas.

Thanks Southy but I suspect trying to explain could be a waste of effort

forest hump wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote:

forest hump wrote: You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Stop taking things out of context? You stated an alleged 'fact' that CO2 is NOT a poison. There was no context there to take wrongly. I then, light heartedly, countered your poxy 3 line statement and then you come back saying that oxygen is a poison too so you've negated your first post right there, haven't you? If you want to post a substantial arguement then do so. Don't just type out your own mundane and made up 'claptrap' to suit your own ramblings and, you really should think carefully before you start insulting other people because you are no good at it. - Yes, I'm pedantic because of idiots like you, coming on here and spouting your pathetic attempt at sounding intelligent when in actual FACT, you're nothing but a completely brainless cretin.

Missing the point again! I did not say O2 is a poison, I said, fill a room and it will kill you. You "light heartedly" mentioned trees. Well sunshine, you are barking up the wrong one and clearly not smart enough to grasp the intent of my post. I'm also not going to rise to your accusations of intelligence quotient. AGAIN, AGW, in my opinion is manufactured claptrap, driven by politicians wanting to raise taxes and "scientists" wanting more research money to feather nests. Oh, and for the record, I do not suffer from iodine deficiency.

Maybe you should have made all these points in your first post. My point was that you cannot have a substantive arguement by just typing three lines. Sorry for name calling but you started it.

bigronthestaff wrote:

forest hump wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote:

forest hump wrote: You really are a sad, pedantic individual. Fill a room full of oxygen and it will kill you. Stop taking things out of context. The point I was trying to make, which was obviously too lateral for you to grasp, was the fact that C02 and AGW are either being blamed for most things or used as an excuse to gain advantage. It's naive and easy to use the green argument as it requires little thought to jump on the hair-shirt bandwagon.

Stop taking things out of context? You stated an alleged 'fact' that CO2 is NOT a poison. There was no context there to take wrongly. I then, light heartedly, countered your poxy 3 line statement and then you come back saying that oxygen is a poison too so you've negated your first post right there, haven't you? If you want to post a substantial arguement then do so. Don't just type out your own mundane and made up 'claptrap' to suit your own ramblings and, you really should think carefully before you start insulting other people because you are no good at it. - Yes, I'm pedantic because of idiots like you, coming on here and spouting your pathetic attempt at sounding intelligent when in actual FACT, you're nothing but a completely brainless cretin.

Missing the point again! I did not say O2 is a poison, I said, fill a room and it will kill you. You "light heartedly" mentioned trees. Well sunshine, you are barking up the wrong one and clearly not smart enough to grasp the intent of my post. I'm also not going to rise to your accusations of intelligence quotient. AGAIN, AGW, in my opinion is manufactured claptrap, driven by politicians wanting to raise taxes and "scientists" wanting more research money to feather nests. Oh, and for the record, I do not suffer from iodine deficiency.

Maybe you should have made all these points in your first post. My point was that you cannot have a substantive arguement by just typing three lines. Sorry for name calling but you started it.

Your point is valid BR. Brevity is one of my many faults.
nescit vox missa reverti

capit a sapiens vir scio suus mendum quam unus ut operor non.
lawer chan 'r adwaen 'i pawb a gwisga t cyffelyb i bod brofedig c bostio acha 'ma

Don't know what the code is afterwise man understands how one as work not. Either spelling or whatever!

forest hump wrote:
Don't know what the code is afterwise man understands how one as work not. Either spelling or whatever!

It's Welsh for"Chinese lawyer goes into pub in disguise but gets caught out and beaten by his mother".
My Latin is rusty but I'm sure it should read "capita", 'us nedum", the rest is suspect! :)

B. L. wrote:

forest hump wrote: Don't know what the code is afterwise man understands how one as work not. Either spelling or whatever!

It's Welsh for"Chinese lawyer goes into pub in disguise but gets caught out and beaten by his mother". My Latin is rusty but I'm sure it should read "capita", 'us nedum", the rest is suspect! :)

Thanks BL, all is now clear ?

forest hump wrote:

B. L. wrote:

forest hump wrote: Don't know what the code is afterwise man understands how one as work not. Either spelling or whatever!

It's Welsh for"Chinese lawyer goes into pub in disguise but gets caught out and beaten by his mother". My Latin is rusty but I'm sure it should read "capita", 'us nedum", the rest is suspect! :)

Thanks BL, all is now clear ?

That's OK, it's a Redbridgese translation. :)