Extraordinary Meeting of blah blah blah

[graham]

Graham,

The ?law? itself would prevent a partially sighted person from driving a taxi. In your example there is no ?choice? available to the employer which is the point I was trying to make in drawing the analogy to Kay?s cave digger.



Ian

The "law" is not an abstract phenomenon that appears out of nowhere; the bit that says that disabled people should not be discriminated against has the same source as the bit that says that taxi drivers should not be blind and the bit that says that your neighbour should not build a petroleum refining plant in a residential area. Every choice that we make that might affect our neighbours is constrained in some way.

 

[cap n chris]

I would say that something that has been influenced by man is still ?natural? if it occurred within the normal course of human activity (ie. a spoil heap from mining is a natural consequence of man?s ?normal? activity).

Other people might not share that definition

I do but also go one further since I believe anything which humans do is natural until such time as humans are proven to be alien to planet Earth whereupon everything we have done, and will continue to do, will need to be subsequently re-labelled as unnatural.

 

[panzy]

Is there any truth in the rumor that a Show Cave is planned or has been suggested for Ogof Draenen?  Good idea if it is, with the lack of jobs in this area, it would compliment the tourist stuff in the area well ( thinking of the Big Pit!).
Panz

 

[graham]

I would say that something that has been influenced by man is still ?natural? if it occurred within the normal course of human activity (ie. a spoil heap from mining is a natural consequence of man?s ?normal? activity).

Other people might not share that definition

I do but also go one further since I believe anything which humans do is natural until such time as humans are proven to be alien to planet Earth whereupon everything we have done, and will continue to do, will need to be subsequently re-labelled as unnatural.

Lots of perfectly natural human activities, like genocide, infanticide, rape, habitat destruction, despoilation, producing reality TV shows. All these things are "natural" by that definition.

"Natural" does not mean "good" "useful" or indeed "nice".

 

[Ian Adams]

Kay,

Your Para 1 ~ Agreed and equally one person should not be empowered to compel another person to accept their ?opinion?.

Your Para 2 ~ I could say exactly the same to you as you did to me in your Para 1, that others might not see it that way. ?Mother nature? did a perfectly good job of messing around with plants and animals before humans were even around causing goodness knows how many extinctions. The Earth?s ?innards? have caused goodness knows how much metamorphosis of the our landscape and the last Ice age alone had more than a small effect on our ?environment?. Arguably the existence of humanity and the consequences of our actions are just another part of the history of the planet especially as ?man? behaves as ?man? does.

Your para 3 ~ Yes because those affected negatively represent a minority whose voice cannot be heard and, more importantly, those particular voices are unlikely to vote in favour of the government that introduced that law regardless.  That doesn?t make it ?right? nor does it mean we have to ?like it?. It does means that we have to ?accept it? but I remain of the view that it is inequitable.

Your para 4 ~ It is my understanding that an employer (as of April this year) has no defence against a case of discrimination If the reason a job applicant is rejected is because of the disability ?per se?. I understand your example but it has convoluting factors.

Your para 5 ~  I almost agree with you except that in SME?s and upwards you have to positively discriminate in favour of certain demographical elements such as the ethnic minority.

Your para 6 ~ I do agree with you and the law already protects us from injury from our neighbour. I am simply suggesting there is no need to go any further.


Graham,

Yes you are essentially right. I wouldn?t have used the word ?constrained? at the end of your statement but we must certainly give consideration to and in come cases we may be unable to carry out our desired wish because of constraints placed on us (basically the same as you are saying I think).

It doesn?t make it ?right? though does it?

What happened to ?my? right to go about my lawful business/recreation on ?land? without a quango saying ?we now are of the opinion that etc. etc.? and thusly preventing me from doing something that was ?ok? 5 minutes ago?

Finally, Cap?n Chris and your last comments Graham, - yup, bang on.

I remain well meaning

Ian

 

[graham]

What happened to ?my? right to go about my lawful business/recreation on ?land? ...

You gave it up in return for the collective security of a democratic state, with all that entails.

 

[cap n chris]

Surely we were born into it, the democratic state having been established before we had a chance to vote on it!

Given we had no opportunity to vote on it, does that actually make us a democracy?

:-\

 

[Hughie]

I have been arguing, amongst other things, (with respect to the quangos) that; 

1) The degree to which they are protecting the environment is beyond necessity
2) That they are, in some cases, unnecessarily obstructive
3) That they are clandestine when they ought not to be
4) That their pro-active actions are, in some cases hypocritical and contrary to their own mandate
5) That some of their actions are actually damaging the very thing they are supposedly conserving

In support (though I don't think he needs it!), of Jackalpup, I have to say that all the above rings very true. This is from the perspective of being within an SSSI for the last 25 plus years. It's all very good looking in on an SSSI from outside, but when you work within them you realise quite how these things work.

In the early days, things worked pretty well, although there was no compensation for restrictions. Subsequently the lies have become more apparent - admitted by an NE big wig.

We've been involved quite closely with NE in changes to the SSSI in which we farm recently, and found them professionally inept, technically inept, unable to extract themselves from their office and get their feet dirty, discourteous, clandestine (ie obtaining qoutes for their required works before even starting the consultation process), the consultation process was farcical - they used a third party who actually managed to feed back a reverse opinion of our position. They even attempted to get the project underway without consulting landowners - whom they hadn't even bothered to track down.

The project considered is an attempt to bring what is termed an SSSI back into "favourable condition" - however, the proposed measures will ensure the SSSI remains "unfavourable" because of their proposals, but in other respects. This fact was admitted to me by the guy running the show in this area. I questioned the integrity of this, to which he replied "we have to be seen to be doing something".

Bear in mind this SSSI was in favourable condition when designated, 25 years on, under NE control it is now "unfavourable".

I have no confidence in them, and no trust in them.

Apologies for vagueness - will happily fill in any details if required.

 

[kay]

Your Para 2 ~ I could say exactly the same to you as you did to me in your Para 1, that others might not see it that way. ?Mother nature? did a perfectly good job of messing around with plants and animals before humans were even around causing goodness knows how many extinctions. The Earth?s ?innards? have caused goodness knows how much metamorphosis of the our landscape and the last Ice age alone had more than a small effect on our ?environment?. Arguably the existence of humanity and the consequences of our actions are just another part of the history of the planet especially as ?man? behaves as ?man? does

Things are going extinct at rather a high rate at the moment.

But aside from whether it's 'natural' or not - is it sensible to allow things to vanish before we have fully understood their usefulness or otherwise to us?

Your para 4 ~ It is my understanding that an employer (as of April this year) has no defence against a case of discrimination If the reason a job applicant is rejected is because of the disability ?per se?. I understand your example but it has convoluting factors.

I can't see the problem with that. It doesn't mean you have to accept a disabled candidate in preference to better able bodied candidates. It means you can't reject a disabled candidate purely because of their disability. And as I understand it, the adjustments made to allow them to take up the job have to be 'reasonable'. There are advantages to society -  a disabled person with a job isn't living on disability allowances. And there's arguably compensating advantages to the employer- a disabled staff member is more liable to show loyalty to the company, lwess likely to move on in search for a better job.

Your para 5 ~  I almost agree with you except that in SME?s and upwards you have to positively discriminate in favour of certain demographical elements such as the ethnic minority.

I think you've misunderstood something there. Positive discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities is illegal in employment law. The only place where positive discrimination is legal is in the case of disability -  and it doesn't mean 'you have to employ the disabled candidate in preference to better qualified candidates' it means 'you can take steps to make things easier for the disabled candidate'.

Your para 6 ~ I do agree with you and the law already protects us from injury from our neighbour. I am simply suggesting there is no need to go any further.

What do you mean 'go any further'?

 

[NigR]

Is there any truth in the rumor that a Show Cave is planned or has been suggested for Ogof Draenen? 

No.

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham,

I didn?t give up my right to be protected from my neighbours (and we all still have that right). I am arguing that my neighbours (in this instance) are the various quangos who are damaging me with their actions.


Cap ?n chris

Very interesting point 


Hughie,

Your example takes my argument a step further. Not only are we being ?led? by the quangos, it now seems that (in some cases at least) they are bumbling along in an incompetent manner. Given they have a specific mandate to work from, should these individuals be dismissed from service and replaced by people who can understand their function and perform it properly? At least then we could return to the argument of whether or not such a ?function? should exist at all. As it stands it seems difficult to justify even their existence.


Kay,

I do enjoy your feedback and I do enjoy the debate with you.

With regards your first para ~ ?is it sensible to allow things to vanish before we have fully understood their usefulness or otherwise to us?? Yes. I agree with your sentiment entirely, it is both wise and sensible to learn as much as we can. Should we legislate to enable ?certain parties? to do that where that legislation ?damages? other parties? I think that is a more difficult question to answer.

Your second para regarding the disabled worker; I take your point on allegiance and accept it. I think we are dangerously close (if not beyond) the line of crossing into ?off topic? but what I mean by this is that the employer?s ?choice? is restricted and his business may be ?damaged? as a result of legislation positively discriminating in favour of someone with a disability. I am certain we can throw examples at each other over and over to support our own positions and am happy to do so if you wish but I do think we have moved away from the essence of the argument with regards to quangos/caving and so forth.

Your para three, again we are on the line of ?off topic? but would respectively point out that employers of SME?s and upwards are required to have proportionately representative workforce of the demographics. Some businesses may apply for an exemption (certificate) on the basis that it would undermine their business (such as an Indian restaurant whose business relies on creating an atmosphere and experience of ?India?)

Lastly, you ask me to expand on my statement that the law already protects us and it is not necessary to go any further ?. Yes, of course I can and will ?..

It is already an offence to interfere with SSSI land without seeking the proper  prior approval and the penalties can be quite severe. Graham gave an example of a land owner polluting water with lead ore which affected other parties and the law already covers that event (and anything like it). As such, a landowner is already constrained (arguably rightly) and I can see no reason why the mandate that the various quangos operate on should be expanded further and nor can I see any value in increasing any penalties.

I still remain well intentioned



Ian

 

[kay]

With regards your first para ~ ?is it sensible to allow things to vanish before we have fully understood their usefulness or otherwise to us?? Yes. I agree with your sentiment entirely, it is both wise and sensible to learn as much as we can. Should we legislate to enable ?certain parties? to do that where that legislation ?damages? other parties? I think that is a more difficult question to answer.

I don't think we'll get any closer to agreement on this one. Nor on your second point about employing disabled people.

Your para three, again we are on the line of ?off topic? but would respectively point out that employers of SME?s and upwards are required to have proportionately representative workforce of the demographics.

But you aren't being asked to get to that position by positive discrimination, eg by choosing the BME candidate over the white one, and it would still be illegal to do so.

As such, a landowner is already constrained (arguably rightly) and I can see no reason why the mandate that the various quangos operate on should be expanded further and nor can I see any value in increasing any penalties.

I can see a good deal of point in bringing in a few 'carrots'. If we don't want landowners to dump waste on their own land polluting  water courses, is it right that society as a whole (the beneficiaries) should ask the landowners to bear the entire cost of disposal?  Ad if they ever implement the ideas of charging householders according to how much landfill rubbish they produce, one of the most obvious results is going to be a big increase in fly tipping.

 

[graham]

And if they ever implement the ideas of charging householders according to how much landfill rubbish they produce, one of the most obvious results is going to be a big increase in fly tipping.

Exactly that happened in Ireland when they started charging by the bin. More crap was deposited in caves.

 

[Ian Adams]

Kay,

I think you are right that we won?t get any closer on agreeing the disabled and ethnic minority issues and perhaps, after all, we digressed too far off topic.

As for your example of the landowner and the waste on the land ?well, two wrongs don?t make a right (if I understand you correctly). The landowner is currently prohibited from ?dumping waste? on his own land that pollutes the water course used by the rest of us (as we are damaged in the process). So, should we (as society) compensate him for that ? (I think that is what you are suggesting) ? I would answer ?No.?.

Will it lead to more fly tipping? Well, possibly but fly tipping is illegal and I cannot see any virtue in bribing someone not to break the law.  The increasing taxation of landfill has already caused an increase in fly tipping anyway.

Graham,

I share your concerns.

Regards,

Ian

 

[panzy]

Can you tell me whether the rumor is true?  I have heard that there is interest in opening part of Ogof Draenen as a show cave.  Personally I think it would be a great idea for the area, given that we have the Big Pit down the road. It might mean some jobs for 'redundant cavers'
Panz

 

[Les W]

Can you tell me whether the rumor is true? I have heard that there is interest in opening part of Ogof Draenen as a show cave. Personally I think it would be a great idea for the area, given that we have the Big Pit down the road. It might mean some jobs for 'redundant cavers'
Panz

See this message, you were answered in this thread previously.

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,8503.msg113930.html#msg113930

 

[kay]

As for your example of the landowner and the waste on the land ?well, two wrongs don?t make a right (if I understand you correctly). The landowner is currently prohibited from ?dumping waste? on his own land that pollutes the water course used by the rest of us (as we are damaged in the process). So, should we (as society) compensate him for that ? (I think that is what you are suggesting) ? I would answer ?No.?.

Will it lead to more fly tipping? Well, possibly but fly tipping is illegal and I cannot see any virtue in bribing someone not to break the law.  The increasing taxation of landfill has already caused an increase in fly tipping anyway.

I can see why you view it as bribing someone not to break the law. I would see it as paying someone to provide a benefit to society. But then, where do you draw the line? Will someone pay me not to let my bonfire smoke obscure the road outside my house?

Fly tipping affects me personally - I help manage a local nature area, and I clean up the results of fly tipping. So I would like to see something that works, and I'm less concerned about the ethics. The fact that fly tipping is illegal is not a solution, since it is prohibitively expensive to provide the necessary policing to catch anyone in the act.

We ought to be asking Bubba to move this into idle chat!

 

[Ian Adams]

Fly tipping affects me personally - I help manage a local nature area, and I clean up the results of fly tipping. So I would like to see something that works, and I'm less concerned about the ethics.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear 

You are not concerned about ethics? And yet, your whole raison d'etre within conservation is based precisely on that. I can very much understand your frustration as nothing seems to be happening to fix the problem of fly tipping and it is affecting you personally but I have to put it to you that the failure is within the enforcement of existing legislation and the failure of the relevant "body" to act as such.

Furthermore, you have "undemocratically" decided that the solution is that society should cough up money to the villains to ease your problem. As I put to Graham in an earlier post, this is commanding dominion over the rest of the populous and is clearly unacceptable in a democratic society.

I do understand your frustration though, as similar inept bodies are already commanding dominion over ?me? telling me what I can and can?t do except that if I break ?their? rules the full force of the law comes down on me like a ton of bricks.

I find it exceptional that a report of a small hole being dug on private land away from the public eye should bring about a (hostile) police sergeant  threatening to prosecute because the land is (and I quote) ?being butchered? and yet, in your case, the persons responsible are left unmolested.

This whole business of bestowing power onto appointed bodies to impose rules, regulations and law on ordinary people and to police them is, in my opinion, bordering on iniquitous and certainly the examples seen on this forum alone can, at best, lead the ordinary person to despair.

I said earlier I was not a political activist and that I am committed to working with the relevant bodies to achieve progress. I have begun to feel that maybe I should now begin to become pro-active in bringing back balance and by that I mean I feel extremely aggrieved at the manner in which the footpaths in the mountains of Snowdonia have been ?butchered? and although some may see the actions of the responsible body as ?farcical?, ?laughable? or ?negligent?, I am beginning to believe that someone actually needs to bring these people to account not just to stop them and make them face the very same ?prosecution? they bring upon us, but to put ?in check? the whole process.

This business of people believing they can simply impose their own opinions(undemocratically) on the rest of society has simply got to stop.

The answer to your problem of fly tipping (and mine with quangos in general) is to ease up on legislation and not to continually convolute it.

Kay, please don?t take my post personally, you are a keen debater of the philosophy of the argument.

I still remain with the best of intentions.



Ian

 

[kay]

You are not concerned about ethics?

the ethics. Don't take thintgs out of context and then criticise me for something I didn't say  :spank:

I have to put it to you that the failure is within the enforcement of existing legislation and the failure of the relevant "body" to act as such.

And I have to repeat that to catch any of the perpetrators would cost such an amount in terms of policing the area that it is not practically possible. Rubbish that is fly tipped rarely has identifying marks, and it takes a matter of minutes to draw up in a vehicle and heave a few bin bags  down a bank.

Furthermore, you have "undemocratically" decided that the solution is that society should cough up money to the villains to ease your problem

It would be undemocratic were I in a position to impose my solution on a everyone. But to state what I believe may be a solution is the essence of democracy. You have stated you opinion, ideally everyone else will do the same, and we well finally reach a consensus on what is to be done, or vote on it, or whatever. (Of course, our society is far too large to have a true democracy, but that's another issue entirely).

. As I put to Graham in an earlier post, this is commanding dominion over the rest of the populous

With respect, that's utter nonsense! I've stated an opinion. - well, in fact, I didn't even do that, I asked a question.

This business of people believing they can simply impose their own opinions(undemocratically) on the rest of society has simply got to stop.

It's not undemocratic. We have, as democratically as we are able, elected a government (by which I mean whatever government is in place, not the current government) to run the country on our behalf. That government has set up a body to look after the natural heritage of the country, and that body is charged with making informed decisions on how to manage the natural heritage. Democracy doesn't require a referendum on every individual decision, or an election for the appointment of every single public servant (and would be unmanageable if it did).

The answer to your problem of fly tipping (and mine with quangos in general) is to ease up on legislation and not to continually convolute it.

You mean, stop charging them to put their waste in landfill or to dispose of it correctly?
Or to allow them to bury it on their own land, and instead spend more (public) money on water purification?
:tease:

 

[Hughie]

And I have to repeat that to catch any of the perpetrators would cost such an amount in terms of policing the area that it is not practically possible. Rubbish that is fly tipped rarely has identifying marks, and it takes a matter of minutes to draw up in a vehicle and heave a few bin bags  down a bank.

I accept it's going off on a tangent, but recently a couple of fellow peasants effectively trapped some fly tippers on a narrow road with some large tractor bling - contacted plod - who refused to turn out.

Obviously busy looking out for cave diggers on some SSSI land somewhere!