[Discuss] points
Peter Constable
p.constable at ntlworld.com
Wed Apr 21 14:13:39 BST 2010
Yes there really is disagreement. It is with your use of the word
"responsible" . Can't think of any way this could be fairly interpreted.
Peter
On 21 Apr 2010, at 14:04, ian manning wrote:
> Ok, well I don't think there is really disagreement is there?
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't discourage irresponsible bbqs, I'm
> saying that we shouldn't ban all bbqs full stop. yes it will need
> continuous policing, but i would rather that than stopping
> responsible people from having fun.
>
> VIE is the estate next to the riverside bridge ( http://vieresidents.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56
> ).
>
> On 21 April 2010 13:44, Anne Garvey <annemgarvey at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Personal optimism is great. But to expect people to behave
> reasonably has been shown to be sadly misconceived. Some will. But
> those scorch marks all over the Green show you that many won’t and
> again sadly they are the ones that leave the big brown marks and
> spoil it for everyone else.
>
> There are limits to democracy. It’s surely about the greatest good
> for the greatest number. People should not be able to express
> freedoms by damaging the lovely scene for others surely?
>
> On balance you cannot check every single barbecue . I have tried
> telling people they’re burning the grass but by the time they are
> it’s too late and they don’t care anyway and just want you to go
> away. I would rather \ the State’ told people not to do this rather
> than people like me opening themselves up to ridicule and abuse by
> trying to police the vandalism right in front of our eyes. Isn’t
> this what we have a civil society for?
>
> Btw what is VIE?
>
>
>
> On 21/4/10 11:33, "ian manning" <manning.ian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This all sounds rather conservative with a small c, and very
> negative. It is a shame I didn't get a single reply to my request
> for help, yet this thread with people generally moaning and being
> negative gets so many replies.
>
> It is perfectly possible to have a bbq without damaging the
> environment or disturbing other people - and no one should have any
> right to stop reasonable people being reasonably. Democracy is
> about each individuals right to express themselves, not the state
> telling them what to do.
>
> Of course I agree that people not behaving reasonable should feel
> the force of the law/enforcement.
>
> And, on your specific point Anne, yes I am an optimistic person, I
> dont' see a need to apologise for that! :)
>
> Ian
>
> Ian Manning
> Chair, VIE Residents' Association
> http://www.vieresidents.org.uk <http://www.vieresidents.org.uk/>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 April 2010 11:18, Anne Garvey <annemgarvey at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Good point on the barbecue spelling, shall adopt immediately.
>
> Booking a party on a barbecue site? A really good idea, but that
> doesn’t detract from the very real Libertarian problem. We are ruled
> by Liberal Democrats and their emphasis is more liberal than
> demotic. It is hard to ban things for them. Other countries, sites,
> parks don’t share ( thank God) this aversion to telling people what
> to do but our Council and its adherents and followers still hope
> that people will just ‘do the right thing’ and reminded that they
> shouldn’t permanently burn the grass for the whole season will
> desist from so doing.
>
> People in the past would have fount this approach risibly
> optimistic. And so do many citizens today. There is nothing wrong I
> contend with introducing signs to remind Green Users ( yes Simon I
> have just got the confusion in a General Election) that there exists
> a ban on fires as I prefer to call them, as barbecues are just as
> destructive and you can’t have any smoke without either.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20/4/10 20:08, "Simon Norton" <S.Norton at dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if it makes me seem pedantic, but "barbecue" is not spelt
> with a Q. If
> > it
> > was it would be pronounced quite differently ! I regard the
> abbreviation BBQ,
> > which does suggest the correct pronunciation, as acceptable.
> >
> > Also, with the forthcoming general election, I initially
> misinterpreted the
> > start of the first message on this thread "the Greens are being
> badly
> > damaged..." (with a capital G).
> >
> > Now for a couple of more substantive issues. First, in yesterday's
> Guardian
> > there is an article suggesting that eating barbecued food can
> cause cancer.
> > Search for "barbecue cancer" on http://www.guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/
> >
> >
> > Secondly, I would have thought that most people would want
> barbecuing
> > facilities
> > for parties rather than family meals. Could one therefore
> introduce a booking
> > system whereby people contacted the Council in advance, saying
> where they
> > wanted
> > to hold the barbecue and roughly how many people they expected,
> and the
> > Council
> > would then tell them whether there was anywhere suitable that fit
> their
> > requirements ? This would have the advantage of eliminating the
> need for
> > special
> > notices. Bye laws would read something like "no cooking unless
> authorised" --
> > which I think is appropriate anyway because of the number of
> special events on
> > Midsummer Common (and other greens) where freshly cooked food is
> sold (more
> > pedantry !). I would expect that the Council would impose some
> kind of payment
> > for the facility, which should be refunded if the weather was such
> that the
> > barbecue had to be cancelled. Is this a feasible way of doing
> things ?
> >
> > If this was agreed then SOS should ask to be consulted as to what
> places would
> > be considered suitable -- that is, assuming that the answer isn't
> "none".
> >
> > Simon Norton
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> > http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/
> discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/
> discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/
> discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/
> discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://soscambridge.org.uk/pipermail/discuss_soscambridge.org.uk/attachments/20100421/e95468dc/attachment.htm>
More information about the discuss
mailing list