Get orf moi laaaand

[darkparticle]

Since you're such a caring bunch, some of you may like to sign up to this
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ - it's pretty straight forward

email + money = land = less (unnecessary)polution

To complicte things a bit more you can register a piece of land you buy to someone who wont be 18 for a number of years

[Harvey Winston]

thanks for the link, I've registered, wonder how much it costs....

people fly too much. harumph.

[EvilBastard]

All well and good, but when the government slaps a compulsory purchase order on it (which they will), then all the good intentions get flushed down the crapper.

[nodubmanshouts]

Tackling climate change means stopping airport expansion

What a pure-wank statement.

Wanna stop climate change? Stop eating meat, stop being a consumer and stop supporting out-of-touch and out-of-date organizations like green peace, and do something positive for the world.

[stufarq]

Along with Greenpeace UK, that's the maximum number of owners we can put on the deed, but you can sign up to add your name and ... you will be included as an owner on the legal deed of trust.

How can everyone else get their name on the deed if it already has the maximum names allowed? Their use of the term "beneficial owner" seems to be a bit vague and possibly inaccurate. What legal benefits are the beneficial owners getting from land that they can do nothing with> (No, the benefits of not building the runway don't count in this strictly legal definition.)

And what's the point of adding names to the deed anyway? Or is it just a way of getting people to sign a petition without (for some reason) using the word "petition"?

Gotta love the sweet naivety of the person who thinks they can just introduce lots of protected species to ensure that the site can't be developed. "Perhaps Ken Livingstone can suggest which newts to introduce". Bless. I'm sure the bats'll love the noise from the other two runways.

[Harvey Winston]

woof.

[darkparticle]

then all the good intentions get flushed down the crapper.

Nah, they have to inform the owners who inform the trustees, which is the thing stufarq has highlighted. I think they only ask you for a donation by the way Harvey. The process can be made more consuming by registering on behalf of a child who lives abroad

Tackling climate change means stopping airport expansion

there's no need to tackle climate change, but as it stands being less of a consumer means taking less flights...

I don't, as you see, agree with greenpace. It's putting a body to the levers and the wheels, keeping a little friction going just for fun.

[nodubmanshouts]

keeping a little friction going just for fun

Then you're a bit of a div. Are you sure you're not itInakilpse?

[markfiend]

there's no need to tackle climate change

*blink*

[darkparticle]

there's no need to tackle climate change

*blink*

would you seriously insist that the climate needs to change? If we don't change we wont continue to exist on this planet, not in the life as we know it. Is it the climate or us that needs fixing?

Then you're a bit of a div. Are you sure you're not itInakilpse?

I imagine you as some kind of performing monkey, pulling the levers and watching the wheels go round. You've probably tooled yourself up in some obscure corner of performance. You delight a crowd with your tricks and someone pats you on the head, makes sure you're fed and watered.

Maybe you pay you and delude yourself in some consumer dream that this is indeed freedom, the life you've dreamed of having. I think you and the machine you're working are full of s**t. I don't mean that as a personal insult, but just like your impotent quip...you've got nothing and lost what you had from the beginning

[markfiend]

there's no need to tackle climate change

*blink*

would you seriously insist that the climate needs to change? If we don't change we wont continue to exist on this planet, not in the life as we know it. Is it the climate or us that needs fixing?

Fair enough. I seem to have misunderstood your original point.

Can we calm this thread down a little, discuss the issues, not the perceived failings of other posters? OK? Ta.

[stufarq]

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
woof.

Not negative so much as practical. You can't save the planet with good intentions.

Ideals are great but sadly, a lot of people with really strong ideals are, well, a bit idealistic. And therefore a bit naive and lacking in practical application. I was myself when I was a member of Greenpeace. Then I realised that damaging other people's property and putting people in danger wasn't really the best way to achieve those noble ideals.

I haven't investigated all the arguments for and against the runway (which shows that my ideals have slipped somewhat, sadly) so I don't have a strong opinion either way but I can see that the Airplot scheme is very idealistic without being terribly practical. And, for all my sarcasm, I honestly despair at an environmentalist who thinks that introducing endangered species into an entirely unsuitable environment so that they can then provide an excuse for protecting that environment is a good idea. (It reminds me of someone I once worked with who was a very active CND campaigner, regularly attending demonstrations at Rosyth dockyard. Yet, on 9/11 she was ill-informed enough to have to ask what the Pentagon was. Like I said, good intentions but about as much use as a chocolate tea cosy.)

[Harvey Winston]

well the only reasons I hear that it's a good thing are that it will benefit business, and some CBI type scrote on the radio was banging on about how it's necessary for 'UK plc'.

that's enough for me to want to can it. from my view good on you greenpeace for trying to put a spanner in the works.

Apparently even the Tories are against it.

[Harvey Winston]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... way-labour

I like George.

[markfiend]

some CBI type scrote on the radio was banging on about how it's necessary for 'UK plc'.

that's enough for me to want to can it.

Heh. My thoughts exactly.

[DeWinter]

It won't happen. Bar Cameron making child molestation compulsory under a Tory regime, Labour are out at the next election. Having spat on their core supporters, they may end up the third party afterwards, with massive debts they can't service.
We can also wave goodbye to ID cards, and Gordon's plans to concrete over anything remotely green in England.
I suspect no firm will want to touch any of these projects anyway, given there is no guarantee they'll ever happen.

[markfiend]

Cameron is a complete cypher though. Empty head under that botoxed face.

[Brideoffrankenstein]

botoxed face.

[DeWinter]

Cameron is a complete cypher though. Empty head under that botoxed face.

He does have a bizarre face! And I expect there's a hint of toupee action going on there as well.
I doubt he'll last more than a term. I expect he'll get dumped for someone like Davis fairly quickly. As long as he has a few decent ministers around him there's no way he can be as bad as Gordon is now being.
But back to the thread topic, much as I hate Littlejohn, he did make a good point about Emma Thompson jetting off to attend the Golden Globes afterwards does rather contradict her noble efforts..

[darkparticle]

Fair enough. I seem to have misunderstood your original point.

Thought that might be the case.

Ideals are great but sadly, a lot of people with really strong ideals are, well, a bit idealistic. And therefore a bit naive and lacking in practical application.

I don't know if you mean this, but I find single issue groups to be that way. Such as Greenpeace, ALF, GM resistance or Amnesty, to some extent.

In order to become a lobbying group the general grumbling has to become a coherent and reasoned argument. Even in this action 'the runway protests' devolve a broad environmental concern to a focussed campaign that deals with specifics instead of the wider concerns.

In isolation, I guess I agree with stufarq, these actions don't achieve much. There's a parliamentaery or judicial process designed to deal with such disturbances. People can be more demanding and take creative choices, if what we're told to accept doesn't seem good enough

[stufarq]

Ideals are great but sadly, a lot of people with really strong ideals are, well, a bit idealistic. And therefore a bit naive and lacking in practical application.

I don't know if you mean this, but I find single issue groups to be that way. Such as Greenpeace, ALF, GM resistance or Amnesty, to some extent.

In order to become a lobbying group the general grumbling has to become a coherent and reasoned argument. Even in this action 'the runway protests' devolve a broad environmental concern to a focussed campaign that deals with specifics instead of the wider concerns.

In isolation, I guess I agree with stufarq, these actions don't achieve much. There's a parliamentaery or judicial process designed to deal with such disturbances. People can be more demanding and take creative choices, if what we're told to accept doesn't seem good enough

Wasn't really what I was getting at but I take your point. For instance, single issue political parties aren't really political parties at all but lobbying groups trying to hijack the political process. But, as you say, focussing the argument can sometimes make lobbying easier if it's done within a wider context.

My point was more that a lot of people and groups are very idealistic in the sense that they know what they want but don't really think through the means of getting it. The Airplot campaign is a case in point. They know exactly what they want and may even be completely right but the plan doesn't seem that well thought out to me and the person I'd picked out who wanted to introduce rare species into the area is hopelessly deluded. It's fluffy bunnies syndrome.

And all that may be because of the exact point you made. Because their aims and arguments are largely in isolation, they don't seem to be particularly aware of the wider issues such as basic practicality. Which brings me back to the CND campaigner I knew who had no idea what the Pentagon was. She wanted disarmament but didn't even know who she wanted to disarm because she wasn't aware of the context.

I'm going a bit off topic here but it reminds of something I began to realise when the Make Poverty History campaign swung into gear a while back. Issues are always complicated and boiling them down to a single, focussed issue can be dangerous. On the one hand we've got Bono talking - rightly - about the global community and Chris Martin urging us to buy Fair Trade products to help people in poorer countries. But on the other we've got Rick Stein telling us to consider food miles. The two are absolutely contradictory and yet they're both absolutely right. Single issue lobbying can never resolve these kinds of issues unless it has an awareness of the wider context.