@StanHighfield @SeeDeeMcLeod@Cmcallister008@mattwridley Right, and there was no Supplementary 10% tax until the North Sea gas boom kicked off.
The point is there's precedent in the UK, and globally, to derive a public income from hydrocarbon extraction. It's not beyond the wit of legislators to resume such taxes.
@SeeDeeMcLeod@Cmcallister008@mattwridley The energy company that extracts it sells it (and then pays around 75% tax on profit).
Are car, or food exports a pointless economic exercise?
@SeeDeeMcLeod@Cmcallister008@mattwridley Selling natural gas internationally would create a current account balance that could be spent on other things, like buying in energy.
Do exported cars not matter? Exported food?
@AvonandsomerRob@nickdhurt Bill of Rights 1688 renders super-injunctions inert in parliament.
"The Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament."
@energygovuk Electricity is 24.50 pence per kWh, and gas is 6.24 pence per kWh. A heat pump might have a COP of 3x (and a ยฃ10k upfront cost), but electricity is 4x as expensive compared to gas. ๐
@fifeenv@adamtranter Newport could indeed have sleepy urban streets with no traffic. The consequence would be an economically undeveloped Wales with a population of 500k.
Each bypass allowed the (population + economic) growth of South Wales.
Constraining new communication links does the opposite.
@adamtranter Which is to say; "build it and they will come", but surely that's the point. If you build a 12 lane motorway into a desert no one will use it because rational actors don't waste fuel for zero reason.
The question then is "so you want economic development, or not"?
@adamtranter Increasing traffic capacity simply allows for increased economic activity downstream of said capacity. A new bypass/lane will allow for a new factory or housing estate, which will put lorries and cars on the road.
@ChaponaBike123@LauraON72@film_quiz@sarjsrihari Why are you still pushing this incorrect line? It's been explained multiple times that the Road Traffic Act allows motorists to cross cycle paths in emergencies. Are you intentionally being dense?
@ChaponaBike123@RikLivetweet@thespikyclub@ChrisLe00857089@itsbigwullie Road Traffic Act 1988 Part 1 21(2):
'A person shall not be convicted [...] if he proves [...]โ
that the vehicle was driven [...] in contravention of that subsection for the purpose of saving life, or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency...
@jamiemchale@ChaponaBike123 @sheffieldlamby Road Traffic Act 1988, Part 1 21(2) for anyone that's interested. @ChaponaBike123
resoundingly BTFO - please come to the stage to accept your award!
https://t.co/4m8ezsZ5xc
@ChaponaBike123@phuecn@Amadeus_IOM Common law Duress of Circumstance defence. It is proportionate and reasonable to cross a cycle path marking that would otherwise be unlawful if the defendent believed they were pressured to preserve the life and limb of others in doing so.
@SisterDemeter @ThingBeak@saudisandbox@uncledoomer Literally every time "radah" ("ืืืจืื") appears in the pentateuch it is in the context of domination, not "descending/falling".
Lev 25:43 - Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour
Num 24:19 - Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy
@SisterDemeter @ThingBeak@saudisandbox@uncledoomer No, your description is of "ืืืจืื" not โืึฐืึดืจึฐืึผืึผโ. Without diacritics there are no vowels, so the meaning is entirely different. The ancient Hebrew mesorah describes the pre-diacritic "ืืืจืื" as prounced โืึฐืึดืจึฐืึผืึผโ - meaning subjugation/domination/ruling.