On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:55 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Duncan
writes

wrote in message
m...

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

As if the motorists would sit at home with their cars in their garages
if there was no countryside fair to go to, as they must have done last
year in Scotland where the fair held in the previous few years didn't
happen.

As usual, Malcolm deliberately misses the point. Conservation
organisations should not be encouraging people to use cars. If they
do they're the same an any other entertainment provider advertising
for punters to visit their theme-parks , cinemas, showgrounds, beaches
etc. - who are not claiming to be conservationists. It's the
dishonesty of the conservationists I am criticising.

But as your criticism comes from being a self-confessed nimby, it isn't
exactly very honest either, is it?

Of course it's honest. I don't believe in fake conservation either on
my doorstep or elsewhere.

The use of your word "either" implies that you accept that the
so-called conservationists.are dishonest.

Good for you, Malcolm. I would gp further in the light of information
gained so far under the Freedom of Information Act and say that some
are the next best thing to a bunch of crooks.


The RSPB's slogan is "For birds, for people, for ever". In other words,
their conservation is for the benefit of people as well as of birds,
something that you appear unable to grasp.

That's the problem. They are encouraging environmentally damaging
activities that are damaging to both.



Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.

RSPB have had a policy for the last ten years that means that wherever
and whenever possible, staff must use public transport. And, which I
don't think he believes, this applies to all senior management,
including the chief executive, none of whom have a car provided by the
organisation.

The get out here is "wherever and whenever possible" which makes the
policy mean nothing.

Which is a wholly erroneous opinion.

Not at all. It's a convenient get out.




On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient vehicle
to get there!

That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has
access to a Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he
likes it and not, it seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And
he says he won't consider amending his own environmentally-damaging ways
until compelled to do so by government. When accused of hypocrisy he
just says that he is not a conservationist! I leave you to work out the
logic of his position!

The logic of my position is quite clear. I am not a conservationist
and never have been but I expect those who say they are, to be honest,
and not engage in environmentally damaging activities just to make
money.

Simple really! Obviously not simple enough for Malcolm :-(

You've forgotten (or deliberately left out) one very important fact,
namely that the money the RSPB raise is ploughed back into conservation.
Perhaps if you took the trouble to visit a reserve you would appreciate
this more than you obviously do from your position as
non-conservationist nimby critic.

Good so you accept I'm not a conservationist so how can I be
hypocritical when criticising conservationists for damaging the
natural environment? One doesn't need to be a thief to condemn
thieving.

You're all mixed up , Malcolm. Try to think logically.


And, to bring this back on topic, do you, or your wife, remove weeds
from your garden to prevent them smothering other plants, or cut your
lawn or hedges?

We're not the Royal Society for the Protection of Weeds. If we were
we'd be honest enought not to cut weeds.

Get the point?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk