This is 2020 and while in the past attitudeX or behaviourY might have been acceptable we have now come to understand (through Social Science Studies or NY Times bestseller that a particular academic has written) that both are wrong, toxic, in fact.
If it's not causing pollution from leaks or whatever and it's effectively worn out then you could view it as being as good a place as any to store something that someone could later salvage for its scrap value. I remember someone saying similar about plastics (I think). That if we just stored those plastics we can't effectively recycle until such time as it is possible, it would be a greener solution than e.g. incineration
Deduct from the cost the price they'd have had to pay for valuable land by going over-ground, maybe?
I mean there's a reason the London Underground is underground.
It's much cooler that Dunkirk should hold this distinction, isn't it, so can we agree please that these rather undistinguished places in Canada don't count? Anyway Dunkirk is a proper town/city (91K people, interesting history) not like this awful sounding place where everyone lives in a single building because it's like the moon there or something.
I don't know if this is off-topic or not. More times than I care to admit I've lost hours of coding due to crashing without saving first. Without exception when I redo the lost code it's far better designed than the original and usually (not always) in a lot less time. I'd almost be inclined to recommend always throwing away your first completed effort and rewriting it while your mind's fresh.
Well that would be a turn up for the books because one of the often mentioned bad consequences of global warming is a loss of the North Atlantic Drift (gulf stream) from Europe and us ending up with a climate similar to what the same latitude of Canada has.
Interesting but I'm not sure I'm buying it ;-)
Radisson is a small unconstituted locality so whether it qualifies as a town is questionable.
It also has a population small enough to fit in two or three buses.
Demonising your enemies as racists or fascists, ie nazis and employing mob tactics to "no platform" them or otherwise shut them up as in "no free speech for racists", strike me as exactly the sort of tactics the real fascists employed in the 1930s. So in that sense, yes, Antifa groups/coalitions/collectives/networks frequently behave like fascists. Which is no surprise really if you subscribe to the horseshoe model of the political spectrum.
Quite a lot of innuendo in there.
The person I responded to suggested that Britain only welcomed immigrants to help it because it was "on its back economically". I suppose that all would have been fine if, at worst, Britain was ranked exactly the same today as it was then but because it's actually ranked slightly lower (as I'd expected) the inference now is that I'm anti-immigration. Squeeze a bit more from the tube and you can openly brand me a racist and then you win. Anticipating that I might not oblige, you added your last sentence as insurance to cover that eventuality.
Say you said using Wonderhair would prevent baldness and I said that there was no evidence for that and that in fact in the cases that I know of the people now have less hair than they had when they started using Wonderhair.
Do I then have to defend myself from questions that infer I believe that Wonderhair causes hair loss?
The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600
I don't have a vendetta against India, that's way OTT sensitivity on your part. And if you're going to accuse me of having a simplistic view of India then I'll respond to you by saying your comments on Britain are risible. Tommy Robinson's rise to fame is somehow to be taken as a criticism of Britain.
The man's notorious, and has served prison time for it.
Does it reflect badly on a country that such a man exists?
The rest of your criticisms are similarly simplistic.
What are your country's policies around the issuing of passports? As for immigrants building the country up, for what it's worth, Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration from the former colonies began. Immigration gives you more people, that's all we can say for certain about its effects.
Which native communities would those be? Your comment does not sound like that of someone overly familiar with the UK. Nativist for example is not a term used in the UK.
True but it definitely doesn't do much to stamp it out.
In Britain, if you want to see racism, try being a white boy dating a non-white girl. If she's black, black males in general won't like it and if she's Indian, her family will almost definitely not like it.