In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| You are being forgetful. The excuse for the Act was conservation
| grounds. If that had been a genuine reason, the law would have been
| changed to address the main abuses and not to do other things as well.
|
| You really believe that the act was there as a conservation tool, and not
| just a dumping ground for ideas to satisfy government spokesmen who could
| say 'something is being done'?

No and no. Obviously.

| Then you should be supporting me in regarding that Act as anathema!
| Its faults include precisely those of applying SINGLE-SIDED absolute
| rules.
|
| That doesn't follow from my statement at all. Single sided? I've come across
| land owners ruining habitats, but I've not come across one who uprooted a
| wild plant en masse to plant elsewhere. Habitat protection is a different
| (but very worthwhile) issue.

You are now playing political word games. They don't do it PERSONALLY;
they sell the rights.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.