[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