YOU MAY ENJOY THE BRITISH COUNTRYSIDE ONLY IN THE RIGHT WAY

You may walk the countryside and you can even shoot foxes there (so far) but you may not use it for hunting with dogs nor may you travel about it on motorbikes. The recent ban on hunting to hounds is explicable as traditional Leftist class envy -- even though the great majority of those affected are just ordinary country people. But the steady closing of tracks to motorbikes is a direct attack on how lots of working class people like to enjoy the countryside. It shows how captive to the arrogant and dictatorial Greenies the British Labour party now is. They may still claim to represent the working class but that is in reality now history. Below is an email to me from one of the bikers affected that explains exactly what is going on

As things stand in Europe there is a move to amalgamate for the sake of harmonisation and conformity - at least from the politicians point of view, and even there, there is uncertainty. From the layman's point of view, his national identity is being stripped piece by piece, amalgamated into ever increasing ethnic communities with which he is encouraged to accept for fear of racism, but in whose presence he feels discomfort. It's not so much a lack of understanding another's race or religion, it's the single minded exclusion to everything that is indigenous that rankles. "When in Rome . . . " but they want none of that.

The 'PanEuropean' policy exists, but the individual does not. In schools our children are not taught feet and inches - they do not exist. No longer excercise books with measurements of the world on the back cover, yet we buy timber in sheets of 8' x 4' or studding 4" x 2" so many metres long. Our road signs are in miles, yet all government communication of linear distance is in kilometres. We are being dragged in against our will.

The Prime Minister says on TV about the latest policy - "We need to do this . . " When he really means 'Tough - you are going to get this like it or not.' Your copied piece on wind farms is a classic example. The Isle of Lewis will be changed forever more. The native people that stay will tell of how it used to be. Those that listen will disbelieve. Those who lobby against such developments will be black brushed as against the environment; cranks, nutters, unrealistic of the futures needs.

I have personally spent many hours researching events around a Rights of Way subject and lobbying the House of Commons and Lords against certain clauses in a Bill currently proceeding through parliament which is about to extinguish the right to drive or ride a mechanically propelled vehicle along certain lanes in England and Wales. The lanes are historic roads, which once carried carriages and carts, some of which developed into major arterial highways, others dwindled into backwaters, became overgrown, hidden from sight in favour of a parallel route. As such, many disappeared completely, others became downgraded to bridleway (foot, cycle or ridden horse only), and others to footpath status. Since the 1930's these lanes were unthought of and largely forgotten. Then in 1968 County Definitive Maps were to be overhauled and an attempt at updating began. All roads, byways and footpaths were to be reclassified, with special attention to RUPP's (Roads Used as Public Paths) - they were to be reclassifed as BOAT's (Byway Open to All Traffic). These remaining Rights of Way with vehicular status are in a small minority, currently making up just 5% of all other unsurfaced byways, they being footpath & bridleway.

Since 1968 local authorities have had a duty to update and reclassify existing RUPP's within their areas to BOAT, but they have singulary failed to do much about them, other things taking more prominent importance. It was left to a few individuals, and organisations which came into being during the early seventies, to apply for Definitive Map Modification Orders to try and catch up on the reclassification process. The reason for this was the old lanes were being lost bit by bit as downgrading became - for the authorities - the easier option as it saved seeking evidence of vehicular use. The haunts of the few who wished to carry on exploring the historic byways on two wheels, was rapidly shrinking.

In 2000 the Countryside Rights of Way act was passed, and gave local authorities until 2026 to get all their aforementioned reclassifications completed. Some did, most have not. Then in 2003 the shit hit the fan. Reports started to spread about groups of 4 x 4 drivers, hoards of maniacs on trail bikes tearing up the countryside disturbing the peace and quiet, and conflict with other users. Much of this however, was being reported by one specific group - the Ramblers Association. Also with vested interests were property and land owners with land adjacent to, or which had a Right of Way passing through their property. The value of which could be seen to be affected by a route with vehicular status nearby. The Tar Brush was waved around with great vigour and influence. The real culprits, (as there are always some culprits) were a few riders with unlicenced machines tresspassing in woodlands and clay pits, and generally acting irresponsibly, but from the few does the 'glory' spread.

The upshot is, that the fine words spoken by Government Ministers at the turn of the century ensuring the bona-fide responsible groups that the available mileage to them will under no way be jeopardised or compromised, and that they have nothing to fear in the way of loss of their pastime and recreation, have been replaced with clauses in a Bill that expressly prevent any further reclassification of RUPP's to BOAT's, and that the existing applications for DMMO's (Definitive Map Modification Order's) will be curtailed. Not only that - but applications made backdated to April 2005 will be denied. The result is a loss of 62% of available route miles, from 5% of the network - to 1.8% - this - after the government had commissioned an independent report a year in the making, that concluded vehicle useage of the routes and byways was perfectly sustainable as was, and that over seventy percent of damage where caused was done by forestry operations and agriculture - it's the recreational user on two and four wheels that gets the chop.

Is it any big deal? Well, to majority of people certainly not. But if you are actively engaged in a hobby through which you get huge amounts of pleasure, and seldom meet any confrontational situations, it makes you wonder where any democratic voice may rest. As the Bill proceed through committee stage, amendments are being attached, but they are carefully and legally worded in such a way as to baffle the layman, and to ensure access denied. Will it stop the illegal riding? Of course not. With existing laws almost unenforceable, what's another one!

Such experiences as this load the camel with more straws. Small businesses suffer at the hands of large multinationals. Corner stores and Post offices close. Green grocers disappear, the independent butchers, the hardware-cum-toolshop replaced by a warehouse do-it-all, with assistants who couldn't-care-less. Identity cards with databases of all personal information, biometrics - iris readers - cardless, cashless - 'look into the scope' security devices in your local cafe. Computer chipped engines speed controlled from some central computer via satellite, charging by the foot travelled - sorry Centimetre!. Fines for misdemeanours such as trying to start your car with one number-plate bulb blown (An MoT failure here, therefore an offence) automatically deducted from your bank account within seconds - the on board computer disabling the engine simultaneously.

David Blunkett (cruelly named Dodgy Blindgit) spoke in an interview yesterday about making no compromises about ID cards - they had to be total with a full database of information to meet the security needs of the 21st Century. Currently shelved, I suspect the policy is in the pits for a tweaking prior to further attempts at re-entry subtly disguised as something else. Straws - every one. No wonder Jack feels at home.

Lies, deceit, incompetence and ignorance - weapons of mass control. Sledgehammers and walnuts. In such ways does the moral of the individual suffer. George Orwell's 1984 is but a history book of the last twenty five years. Whistleblowers get silenced.

My background is working class, parents couldn't have afforded further education, so I started my 'Jack of all trades' education on a farm aged 15. A poor mixer, prone to silence and mechanical devices - with the exception of this one. Never before have I communicated with so many people from around the world, and learned the startling fact - everyone gets shat upon from the same quarter - yet they still sit in the same spot year after year. Deckchairs on a crowded beach. Shout out loud - no-one hears.

The galling part about the whole affair is the devious and back tracking way government have gone about their task. Despite assurances of retaining present mileage for 'mechanically propelled vehicles', and despite a voluntary moratorium of applications to re-classify existing RUPP's to BOAT's - as was requested by goverment - they have in essence gone back on their words (not an unfamiliar strategy). It is fuelled by the popular image of kids tearing around field and woods on unlicenced bikes, and crashing through undergrowth destroying all in their path.On occassions this has been seen, and of course remebered well.

In reality, small groups of bikes will poodle along quiet grassy track, across downs and peaks, maybe tacle some fords and mud. Very often unseen, and barely heard - so to many, we only exist as marauding maniacs. Some go in 4x4's with disabled persons to get away from the tarmac and into the hills for a different day out. The Bill has hundreds of amendments currently attached, and is as wes write going through committee. Much of what is available to view via the House of Lords website reveals a complicated web of denial of access for all but possibly the aforementioned disabled, private access, and agriculture.

I personally used to ride the lanes local to me thirty years ago, and have done precious little since, but the whole overpowerful legislative machine just bugs the hell out of me. It's a tool used by the wealthy and selfish to increase the value of property, in the name of environmentalism on a local scale. It's a pushover. The very few trails left are being slashed further

I recently flicked the radio on - and straight away heard 'The Archers' - and an episode about 'illegal' dirt bikers on a Bridleway!! Terrific!

Just goes to show how much influence some have in scuppering the enjoyment of a few. That's national radio to middle Britain being fed a dose of bias. I went into the BBC website and accessed the message board - and sure enough, plenty of hostile comment to one in defence. I chipped in coming over as Farmer Brown - very middle of the road -- leaning on the discrimination by the majority against the minority. Quite enjoyed that. See here

Update:

I have received the following email comment on the above from another writer:

"Nice to hear from a like minded soul who is able to express himself so articulately. I can only do about two sentences on the subjects you have commented upon without blithering and speaking in tongues, usually with a lot of F's. I just want to quietly poodle up and down the hills and wild places on my monkey bike taking the odd photo and breathing in the vastness and beauty of our island. The only problem is I am now crapping myself that some spotty faced arrogant copper will be waiting at the end of the track to confiscate my bike. Makes me want to emigrate."





SORRY MR LOVELOCK AND SIR CRISPIN: IT'S NOT AS GLOOMY AS YOU THINK

A moderate reply to the doomsters

When researchers scan the global horizon, overfishing, loss of species habitat, nutrient run-off, climate change, and invasive species look to be the biggest threats to the ability of land, oceans, and water to support human well-being. Yet "there is significant reason for hope. We have the tools we need" to chart a course that safeguards the planet's ecological foundation, says Stephen Carpenter, a zoologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "We don't have to accept the doom-and-gloom trends." That's the general take-home message in an assessment of the state of the globe's ecosystems and the impact Earth's ecological condition has on humans.

Thursday, officials released a five-volume coda to the UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an ambitious four-year attempt to explore the relationship between the environment and human development. Summary reports of the findings as they affected four international environmental treaties were released last year. These new volumes represent the detailed information that underpins the earlier reports. In the process, it outlines four plausible ways the planet could develop politically, economically, and socially by 2050, and the effect they would have on people and the environment.

The pathways for political and economic development the authors use - ranging from a relatively wide-open global system to a circle-the-wagons, fragmented world - emerged out of discussions with political and business leaders, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide. The authors then drew on the latest research to estimate the impact of these paths. The assessment was conducted by 1,360 researchers from 95 countries.

By 2050, it estimates that the highly global approach - with liberal trade policies, and concerted efforts to reduce poverty, improve education and public health, yet respond reactively to environmental issues - could yield the lowest population growth and the highest economic growth. But the environmental scorecard would be mixed.

In a fragmented world that focuses largely on security and regional markets and takes a reactive approach to ecological problems, economic growth rates are the lowest and the population is the highest of the four pathways.

Two other paths, which place a greater emphasis on technology and a proactive approach to the environment, yield population growth rates somewhere in the middle, and economic growth rates that may be slow at first, but accelerate with time.

Even under the most environmentally beneficial paths, however, ecological trouble spots are likely to remain - central Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia. In the end, Carpenter says, "there is no optimum approach, no one-size-fits-all. It's all about trade-offs."

To put the planet on a sustainable path, he continues, the report makes clear that people must view Earth's ecosystems as one interlinked system, rather than as fragments. People must begin to actively manage those ecosystems in ways that ensure that they will receive the benefits those ecosystems provide - from blunting the surge from ocean storms and filtering water to feeding a hungry world. Indeed, with efforts now under way to develop worldwide observing systems to monitor the oceans, atmosphere, and land use, technology is moving into place to support such broad management efforts.

Unfortunately, humans have "badly mismanaged" the ecosystems that support them," says Walter Reid, a professor with Stanford University's Institute for the Environment and director of the assessment. "We need to manage for the full range of ecosystem benefits, not just those that pass through markets."

For instance, the report holds that to safeguard the availability of fresh water and encourage its more ecologically prudent use, governments could consider replacing their subsidies with a more market-based pricing system. To ensure that the poor aren't priced out of the system, Carpenter says, one could adapt South Africa's approach. It guarantees a minimum allotment per person. Once the meter ticks beyond that amount, market prices kick in.

Source






THE NASA SCIENTIST WHO THINKS HE IS A POLICY EXPERT TOO

Comment from a NASA insider

A nasty little spat has arisen as a result of NASA's leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), speaking out on the Bush Administration's reluctance to begin imposing carbon dioxide restrictions to help slow global warming.

The first salvo by Hansen was fired on October 26, 2004 when, speaking to an audience at Iowa State University, he said, "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," referring to pressure he apparently has experienced from the Administration. The issue has now surfaced again after a more recent lecture, and Hansen has said he will ignore NASA's restrictions on him. Those restrictions call for coordinating with NASA's public affairs office, and getting management approval for any of his talks that touch on policy, as opposed to science.

I have some familiarity with these restrictions on government employees, as they were a major reason I resigned from NASA over four years ago. But back then, the shoe was on the other foot. NASA knew I was not supportive of the popular gloom-and-doom theory of global warming, and before any congressional testimony of mine on the subject, I was "reminded" that I could speak on the science, but not on policy matters. Well, it turns out that expert witnesses on this contentious subject are almost always asked by a senator or congressman, "What would you do about policy if you were me?" When the question came, I dutifully dodged it.

I am not sure, but disobeying my superiors would probably have been grounds for dismissal, if they wanted to press the point. In Jim Hansen's case, even if this was theoretically possible, I suspect the political fallout would be enormous, as he as done more than any scientist in the world to impress upon the public's consciousness the potential dangers of global warming. Hansen is a smart, productive public servant that is on a crusade for what he believes in. I understand why he believes as he does -- but I still disagree with his conclusions, both scientific and policy wise.

For example, Hansen has been able to devise a scientific scenario whereby all warming in recent decades can be attributed to mankind. I believe, however, he has ignored possible natural mechanisms, for instance a change in cloudiness during the same period of time. And in the policy area, it would be stupid to not do something now about reducing carbon emissions -- if it were that easy. But I believe that major technological advances are the only way humanity can substantially reduce carbon emissions in this century. And as readers of my previous articles here know, I have argued that only the wealthy countries can afford the R&D to make these advances. So, my conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions. While this is also similar to the Bush Administration's position, I have had no influence from them or anyone else the last 20 years to change what I believe on this subject.

If you are concerned about the Administration possibly muting some of its employees' influence in this area (remember, NASA is part of the executive branch), don't despair. Our government heavily funds a marching army of climate scientists -- government, university, and private -- whose funding depends upon manmade global warming remaining a threat. The government agencies, like NASA, that the money flows through also depend upon these issues remaining alive for continued funding. This is not to suggest that there is a conspiracy going on. It's merely to point out that climate scientists aren't always unbiased keepers of truth. The arena of global warming overflows with more strongly held opinions than it does unbiased or scientific truths

Source




CSIRO now warms to that evil coal

Australia's chief scientific organisation has thrown its weight behind the controversial "coal-friendly" technologies favoured by the Howard Government, backing away from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. The CSIRO revealed yesterday that it would boost resources in water, health and energy research, with a focus on developing low-emission projects such as capturing carbon and burying it underground in a process known as sequestration. CSIRO will spend $90million developing new energy and minerals projects, with $50million coming from government funding and $40million from "partnerships" with Australia's resources and power industry. But jobs will be shed from its current workforce of 6500 and cuts will also be made to the organisation's traditional research projects in agriculture and manufacturing.

The shift in research priorities for 2006-07 was blasted yesterday by the federal Opposition and the CSIRO's staff association. "Australia has the world's highest greenhouse emissions percapita but the CSIRO doesn't seem to care about renewable energy research," Labor science spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said.

But CSIRO chief executive Geoff Garrett told The Australian that, "like it or not", industry and consumers remained heavily dependent on coal to fire electricity and that reality was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. CSIRO deputy chief executive Ron Sandland said: "We can have more impact by focusing our energies more in clean coal."

The new six-country Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is focused on developing cleaner methods of developing power using the world's existing coal resources. The group - the US, Australia, Korea, Japan, India and China - has drawn fire from environmental groups concerned that the countries are ignoring renewable energy sources.

Four or five renewable energy projects will be wound up by CSIRO over the next couple of years in areas such as solar power, biological hydrogen and photo-catalytic water-splitting. CSIRO said it would be proceeding with major new R&D in areas such as solar-thermal technology and was not abandoning the renewables field altogether. But its shift in priorities indicates the organisation is conforming to government policy, which argues that the solution to fighting greenhouse gas lies with developing new technologies designed to capture and store carbon emissions.

Dr Garrett also stared down recent criticism of his organisation's pursuit of partnerships with industry, declaring he would continue to chase external revenue - like that generated by the recent best-selling Total Wellbeing Diet part-funded by Australia's meat and dairy industries. Despite the book's popularity, it created a storm of controversy, with some high-profile nutritionists such as Rosemary Stanton questioning the science behind the eating plan. "We have an internal mantra - partner or perish," Dr Garrett said. "Partnerships are absolutely pivotal to our overall strategy. The key point is making great science and great research accessible to Joe Public."

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************