Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Wild Garlic
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... | 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. That's just silly. Bluebells are merely part of their habitat in the same way as any other plant species are. | No I'm not. I'm ridiculing the conspiracy theory concept. So you are claiming that conspiracies don't exist? Yes. but maybe that's 'cos I'm in on it. | 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? Calm down, no one here is calling anyone else anything, as far as I can make out. Unless you're accusing me of calling you a liar, in which case that might happen soon I simply liked the idea of using your statement above (or something like it) as a general defence of any conspiracy theory, as it's utterly irrefutable and in itself completely consistent. Taken out of context, therefore, it's a complete gem of a statement. | 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. Come off it; that's not naivety it's an acceptance of the strangeness of our political/legal establishment in the UK. It would be naive to insist that this isn't the case, IMHO. 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. Claims? What claims? I've just pointed out a few truths about how we draft laws in the UK, and why, strangely, flawed legislation somehow seems to work very often. You seem to be rather spoiling for a fight. Wassup? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Garlic - garlic.jpg | Garden Photos | |||
Supplier of Wild Garlic wanted ??? | United Kingdom | |||
Wild Garlic and back to bluebells non-scripta | United Kingdom | |||
Wild garlic | United Kingdom | |||
wild garlic/onion. | United Kingdom |