In article ,
"Colin Davidson" writes:
|
| I perhaps should have pointed out that the few truly interesting forested
| bits of my home town tend to be on really steep slopes; digging things up
| and leaving holes does a lot of harm next time it rains. Bit it ain't just a
| cosmetic matter anyway; removing plants from the context of the habitat they
| 're in is way more important than that.

Not in the case of bluebells.

| | I see... So it's all a big conspiracy... Come on Nick, you can't
| seriously
| | post a conspiracy theory and then accuse anyone else of being gullible.
|
| You are now being Conveniently Forgetful.
|
| No I'm not. I'm ridiculing the conspiracy theory concept.

So you are claiming that conspiracies don't exist?

| No, I am not posting a conspiracy theory - I am saying that I saw
| evidence of a conspiracy at work.
|
| Sorry, Nick, but can I use that quote elsewhere? It strikes me that it could
| be used as a defense of any conspiracy theory at all.

You may quote me IN CONTEXT. I have not said that about conspiracies
in general, let alone imagined ones.

Or are you calling me a liar?

| The act, like any other, is a flawed bunch of ideas that has passed through
| the hands of two 600 member plus committees (commons and lords) plus a whole
| load of other interested parties. That's how we make laws here. And as well
| as generally working in an inexplicable way, it also means that a lot of
| laws are passed in such a way as to be never enforceable (or only rarely
| worth enforcing). That's one of the beauties of our system, when you think
| about it.

You are now being naive to the point of bias. There were public
statements from pressure groups that they wanted a new property right
over plants, there were predictions IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF DRAFTING
that it would create a new property right. It did. There were
predictions that DESPITE CLAIMS THAT IT WASN'T THE INTENTION, that part
of the Act would remain unchanged, no matter what else was changed.
It did.

How much more evidence do you want? Note that I am not claiming
proof. You, apparently, are happy to base your claims about the
reasons for this Act on no evidence whatsoever.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.