[Discuss] points

Wed Apr 21 15:44:14 BST 2010

 No absolutely no disagreement whatever. Just a matter of what works. Of
course it¹s good for responsible people to have fun, but sadly the evidence
is that there are plenty of the other sort.

I was wondering what you thought about those barbecue Œstalks¹ they have in
Australia.? They¹re electrically powered ( you put a coin in the slot) and
sit there in a row on the grass, look quite nice??

On 21/4/10 14:04, "ian manning" <manning.ian at gmail.com> 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
> <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 won¹t and again sadly they are the ones
>> that leave the big brown marks and spoil it for everyone else.
>> 
>> There are limits to democracy. It¹s 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 they¹re burning the grass but by the time they are it¹s too late and
>> they don¹t care anyway and just want you to go away. I would rather \ the
>> State¹ 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. Isn¹t 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/>
>>> <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 doesn¹t
>>>> 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 don¹t 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 Œdo the right
>>>> thing¹ and reminded that they shouldn¹t 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 can¹t
>>>> 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/>  <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/20100421/7d9d3178/attachment-0001.htm>