colony

[bigpaul]

the only way i can buy my own house or even a bit of land is to win the lottery and i am sure that goes for 99% on here!

[Skean Dhude]

I image we will all be pretty much the same. Some will have more preps, some will already be living the life a little, we will all want more money, more land and more time. We will have different skill levels, different support systems and live in different environments but the important thing is we are all ready to take action after an event so that we and our loved ones will live.

That really is the most important thing here. The rest is not always in our control.

[Barneyboy]

(17 April 2012, 14:39)Skean Dhude Wrote: Voting sounds like a great idea we could do what we do now and call them elections. What could possibly go wrong with that?

In everywhere we have made great strides there has been one dominant person. As soon as we look to 1 person one vote we end up in the situation we have now.

If a group gets too big them we have issues. I'm all for small villages each with its own stores, land, control. Communes don't work very well. Human nature doesn't allow it.

So Lundy sounds great. Most won't make it because of the distance and the scavangers. Those that do may find it already occupied and what then. A steady stream of refugees with stores to top up their supplies.

You either make one now and live in it or it is impractical. Now setting up comms to keep in tough and perhaps arrange things ... Maybe... A meet after an unnown event at a common BOL. Unlikely.

maybe we can centralise the mass bug out location .
as for the boss one person one vote i think is best.
tents and campers or dens .
does not have to be a static location .
as for fuel save the stuff we all sould be rotateing the fuel .
as for distance that is why we have to centralise the location.
as for skills me my self security doorman boxing mma hunting some motor mechanics and i was brought up by my nan and granddad so i respect my elders.

but on my own when every one and there aunty is trying to fuck you over i for one would like to have like minded people about me
or just have the option.
but as for

[The Local Ned]

People talk.

One thing you can be really ,really sure of.
Either under intimidation , or casually - and to , unfortunately , the wrong person.

Any location preppers choose and congregate in , will immediately become a target for the larger 'scavenger' groups nearby.
Unless it is very very remote - it will be common knowledge and will become a target.
The locals will remember that there were a lot of people who looked kinda switched on , either heading for , or already living in - said location.

The 'colony' will face many problems - population being the chiefmost.
Skill-mix being the next.

Even if both are correctly addressed ,it still leaves the colony vulnerable to outsiders who will only see 'us and them' , 'haves and have-nots'....'hunter and prey'.
Any location that lends itself to - defence , food , shelter - will more than likely already have been sussed by the leaders of these scavenger groups as time progresses.

I do not think that a colony would be the safest option.....I think a more scattered , but local to each other , series of 'prepper posts' is a more logical choice , to any wanderers it will look like isolated survivors ( instead of organised preppers ) , to any aggressor - they face having to simulataneously attack and hold multiple posts , instead of a larger attack on a single colony which , if it falls , takes everyone with it.

Single 'posts' , all knowing their 3 or 4 nearest 'prepper' neighbours , in contact with and sharing resources and information....any individual 'post' being hit should be noticed by some of their neighbours as radio comms go down , some form of visual sign ( beacon ? ) to let others know trouble is coming and try to organise or flee.

Islands - depending on size and location - inshore or offshore ?? - are generally a closed habitat and have a finite amount of resources/land to exploit.

Offshore = Location itself will be safer and more secure , but more vulnerable in regards to land , wildlife being misused. If resources fail then the constant trips to the mainland are a potential security risk.

Inshore = Location will be safe also, but less secure.
More vulnerable to observation unless really remote. Will also be vulnerable in regards local resources.

Perhaps the ideal setup would be a ring of prepper 'posts' all trying to be self sufficient , but linked to a safer,more secure 'Hub' such as an island stronghold to move to when things go bad ?

To be brutally honest my own opinion is that if we bunker down in or near a larger urban area , sooner rather than later we will fall to stronger groups.

If we remain static, even when prepared - I think we will die by aggressors.
If we go mobile once the police force fails , and then leave the contended areas - I think we may live slightly longer.

Those already in their chosen 'safe' place will have decided so, as it offers them their objectives , safety/shelter/supplies.
Those not in their safe place...should have their routes mapped , supplies 'cached' if possible , and an objective to move to that does offer them the 3 magic S's.

I believe that only the remotest areas will be safe...one whiff of smoke that is spotted from miles away is all it takes to compromise you.

Inshore ? find and sabotage any or all means of reaching your island that can be found nearby , or take control of them , narrow the possibilities down that you can be reached easily.

Offshore ? All likely landing points should be continually observed with some form of traps being fixed in position at low tide if possible.

Debate please.

Is a colony a wise idea ?
The more there is to gain , the more attractive a target will become.
The greater the gains , the greater the dangers involved.

[Barneyboy]

(17 April 2012, 19:24)The Local Ned Wrote: People talk.

One thing you can be really ,really sure of.
Either under intimidation , or casually - and to , unfortunately , the wrong person.

Any location preppers choose and congregate in , will immediately become a target for the larger 'scavenger' groups nearby.
Unless it is very very remote - it will be common knowledge and will become a target.
The locals will remember that there were a lot of people who looked kinda switched on , either heading for , or already living in - said location.



that is why we must make decisions now and organise in mass if we meet a unorganised group of people rabble will be no match for us as for the tents idea just for the start not long term.

The 'colony' will face many problems - population being the chiefmost.
Skill-mix being the next.

Even if both are correctly addressed ,it still leaves the colony vulnerable to outsiders who will only see 'us and them' , 'haves and have-nots'....'hunter and prey'.
Any location that lends itself to - defence , food , shelter - will more than likely already have been sussed by the leaders of these scavenger groups as time progresses.

I do not think that a colony would be the safest option.....I think a more scattered , but local to each other , series of 'prepper posts' is a more logical choice , to any wanderers it will look like isolated survivors ( instead of organised preppers ) , to any aggressor - they face having to simulataneously attack and hold multiple posts , instead of a larger attack on a single colony which , if it falls , takes everyone with it.

Single 'posts' , all knowing their 3 or 4 nearest 'prepper' neighbours , in contact with and sharing resources and information....any individual 'post' being hit should be noticed by some of their neighbours as radio comms go down , some form of visual sign ( beacon ? ) to let others know trouble is coming and try to organise or flee.

Islands - depending on size and location - inshore or offshore ?? - are generally a closed habitat and have a finite amount of resources/land to exploit.

Offshore = Location itself will be safer and more secure , but more vulnerable in regards to land , wildlife being misused. If resources fail then the constant trips to the mainland are a potential security risk.

Inshore = Location will be safe also, but less secure.
More vulnerable to observation unless really remote. Will also be vulnerable in regards local resources.

Perhaps the ideal setup would be a ring of prepper 'posts' all trying to be self sufficient , but linked to a safer,more secure 'Hub' such as an island stronghold to move to when things go bad ?

To be brutally honest my own opinion is that if we bunker down in or near a larger urban area , sooner rather than later we will fall to stronger groups.

If we remain static, even when prepared - I think we will die by aggressors.
If we go mobile once the police force fails , and then leave the contended areas - I think we may live slightly longer.

Those already in their chosen 'safe' place will have decided so, as it offers them their objectives , safety/shelter/supplies.
Those not in their safe place...should have their routes mapped , supplies 'cached' if possible , and an objective to move to that does offer them the 3 magic S's.

I believe that only the remotest areas will be safe...one whiff of smoke that is spotted from miles away is all it takes to compromise you.

Inshore ? find and sabotage any or all means of reaching your island that can be found nearby , or take control of them , narrow the possibilities down that you can be reached easily.

Offshore ? All likely landing points should be continually observed with some form of traps being fixed in position at low tide if possible.

Debate please.

Is a colony a wise idea ?
The more there is to gain , the more attractive a target will become.
The greater the gains , the greater the dangers involved.

[The Local Ned]

Sorry Barney I can see some of a reply mixed in with my own post there mate , but not clear at all ?

[Skean Dhude]

OK then lets imagine that we are now a group that is going to set up our own colony in the UK. Lets have a bit of fun and see how it goes. I'll create a new thread called Colony and we can start there.

[Barneyboy]

(17 April 2012, 19:47)The Local Ned Wrote: Sorry Barney I can see some of a reply mixed in with my own post there mate , but not clear at all ?

sorry pal messed up the post just going to say the rabble you talk about are going to be scared and hungry and unorganised we will be feed and ready with lots of skills together that all pal