Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Exactly, it only takes a minute or two. it's a useful way for children to help out too. If there are neighbours who are less able bodied or elderly offer to do theirs. This way our streets would be clear of leaves in no time and we'd save on council bills too.



Rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mynamehere Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It takes one full minute? less ? 2 minutes? to

> > clear the leaves in front of your house... They

> are

> > cutting youth services ffs

>

> ^This. Seriously, I've seen plenty of council leaf

> clearing going on, but leaves will quickly

> accumulate again. Sweep up in front of your house

> if there are a lot of leaves, it only takes a

> minute.

Perhaps when the children have cleared all the leaves, they can start repairing all the uneven paving stones. That would cut council tax bills too. It's what David Cameron (who's he?) used to call the "big society".


While we're at it, why don't we relieve the burden on those hardpressed top rate income tax payers and slash tax rates?

1. It's not just Barry Road that has leaves.

2. Any idea as to how many people would be needed to keep all the Borough's tree lined roads clear of leaves?

3. In this time of cuts many affecting people with care needs where is the money to clear the leaf sweepers going to come from.

4. Crossing the road involves risk taking yet we still do it every day.

5. As a wheelchair user I find people with their eyes fixed on mobiles more of a hazard.

Zebedee, no did not think you were being ironic, seemed more you were offended by my comment.


If saving on tax bills was my main point I'd probably have mentioned it first, no? I think it is reasonably clear that my main point was, as others have said, it is no biggie to take 5 minutes, a broom and dustpan to clear leaves outside one's house- mention of children and, last, council tax savings, were mere asides.

First mate, I didn't say that saving on tax bills was your main point, I said that it was one of your main priorities. There is a difference, as I think you will appreciate.


Perhaps I should have said that it appeared from your post that it was one of your main priorities. Please accept my humble apologies.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate.  The main parties could have been more honest before the election.  Reform is deluded.
    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...