Originally found in http://community.livejournal.com/pagan_uk/55703.html
and x-posted around a bit 'cause I think it deserves support.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

Traditional folklore dances in England since as far back as 1700s have
been known to use props such as sticks and sword as part of their
dances. Currently, the government does not recognize dance as either a
Historical re-enactment or sporting activity and therefore dancers are
not included within the exemption for the purchase & use of swords
with regards to the VCR (Vilolent Crime reduction) bill. These dances
are forms of art that are of great historical & cultural relevance,
Banning the use of these swords will inevitably cause them to die out.
It is crucial that they are preserved & allowed to continue. I have
written a petition which is up on the home office website

Please show your support and sign my petition to get dance included so
that we can continue preserving the beautiful art of sword dance.

Whether you are a dancer or not, we need your support!

We desperately need more signatures!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

--
trin

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT), trin
 wrote:

>Originally found in http://community.livejournal.com/pagan_uk/55703.html
>and x-posted around a bit 'cause I think it deserves support.
>
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers
>
>Traditional folklore dances in England since as far back as 1700s have
>been known to use props such as sticks and sword as part of their
>dances. Currently, the government does not recognize dance as either a
>Historical re-enactment or sporting activity and therefore dancers are
>not included within the exemption for the purchase & use of swords
>with regards to the VCR (Vilolent Crime reduction) bill. These dances
>are forms of art that are of great historical & cultural relevance,
>Banning the use of these swords will inevitably cause them to die out.
>It is crucial that they are preserved & allowed to continue. I have
>written a petition which is up on the home office website
>
>Please show your support and sign my petition to get dance included so
>that we can continue preserving the beautiful art of sword dance.
>
>Whether you are a dancer or not, we need your support!
>
>We desperately need more signatures!
>
>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

WTF is this government about any more?  Thanks, trin, hadn't spotted
this one (though the gods know there new bits of stupid legislation
every day).  As the daughter of two sword-dancers ( my mother danced
in the Albert Hall, back in the 30s when English folk-dancing had a
bit of respect), I'm 100% behind this petition.  Please sign it!

-- 

Wood Avens

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?"

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

On 2008-06-02, Wood Avens  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT), trin
> wrote:
>
>>Originally found in http://community.livejournal.com/pagan_uk/55703.html
>>and x-posted around a bit 'cause I think it deserves support.
>>
>>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

Well spotted!  Signed and forwarded to my folk-dancing mates.

> WTF is this government about any more?  

Two things IMHO: they are so inured to their incompetence that they no
longer  even try  to  do anything  right,  and they  think people  are
nothing but  worker/consumers and have forgotten (or  just don't care)
that people have lives.

Cheers, 

Jeremy Henty

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:05:57 -0500, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2008-06-02, Wood Avens  wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT), trin
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Originally found in http://community.livejournal.com/pagan_uk/55703.html
>>>and x-posted around a bit 'cause I think it deserves support.
>>>
>>>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers
>
>Well spotted!  Signed and forwarded to my folk-dancing mates.

But didn't the public music performance laws from a couple of years
back put paid to this sort of thing before this newest killjoy law
did? I'm fuzzy on the details but I remember a sad outcry at the time.

>
>> WTF is this government about any more?  
>
>Two things IMHO: they are so inured to their incompetence that they no
>longer  even try  to  do anything  right,  and they  think people  are
>nothing but  worker/consumers and have forgotten (or  just don't care)
>that people have lives.

<adopts glassy-eyed look> But it's all for the greater good. It's for
our own safety. We must do everything possible to ensure the safety of
the population as a whole. </adopts glassy-eyed look>

IOW, "but we *are* nothing but workers/consumers, aren't we?"


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

On 2008-06-02, Halla  wrote:

> But didn't the public music  performance laws from a couple of years
> back put paid  to this sort of thing before  this newest killjoy law
> did? I'm  fuzzy on the  details but I  remember a sad outcry  at the
> time.

The outcry resulted in a specific exception for Morris Dancing.  Which
is stupid, but better than no exception at all.

><adopts glassy-eyed look> But it's all for the greater good. It's for
> our own safety. We must  do everything possible to ensure the safety
> of the population as a whole. </adopts glassy-eyed look>
>
> IOW, "but we *are* nothing but workers/consumers, aren't we?"

I've always loved  this quote from _Sleeper_: "Why  does there have to
be an  underground?  After all,  there's the orb, the  telescreen, the
orgasmatron.  What more  do they want?", but I'm  scared when laws are
written by people  who really seem not to know  what more anyone might
want.  I suppose it's the natural outcome of a system that filters out
anyone who's not a workaholic power-whore.

</rant>

Cheers, 

Jeremy Henty

Quoting from message 

 posted on 2 Jun 2008 by trin
 I would like to add:

> Originally found in http://community.livejournal.com/pagan_uk/55703.html
> and x-posted around a bit 'cause I think it deserves support.

> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

You beat me to it Trin, I was going to post about it as Child 
forwarded on to me an email which she'd had at work (so it's obviously 
circulating round LA Heritage officers).

-- 
.ElaineJ.  Home Pages and FAQ of uk.food+drink.indian can be viewed at 
.Virtual.  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones/ufdi/index.html 
StrongArm  Under construction, FAQ, recipes, tips, booklist, links
.RISC PC.  Questions and suggestions please, email or to the newsgroup

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:24:25 -0500, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2008-06-02, Halla  wrote:
>
>> But didn't the public music  performance laws from a couple of years
>> back put paid  to this sort of thing before  this newest killjoy law
>> did? I'm  fuzzy on the  details but I  remember a sad outcry  at the
>> time.
>
>The outcry resulted in a specific exception for Morris Dancing.  Which
>is stupid, but better than no exception at all.
>
>><adopts glassy-eyed look> But it's all for the greater good. It's for
>> our own safety. We must  do everything possible to ensure the safety
>> of the population as a whole. </adopts glassy-eyed look>
>>
>> IOW, "but we *are* nothing but workers/consumers, aren't we?"
>
>I've always loved  this quote from _Sleeper_: "Why  does there have to
>be an  underground?  After all,  there's the orb, the  telescreen, the
>orgasmatron.  What more  do they want?", 

Well quite.

>but I'm  scared when laws are
>written by people  who really seem not to know  what more anyone might
>want.  

Or they are nonplussed because it is irrelevent. They provide a health
service[1], they provide benefits, at a push they'll provide housing,
they give advice on what to eat, not to smoke, not to drink, how to
drive... we don't listen, people get hurt so they are compelled to
make laws instead of give advice, because people ask them to, then
people complain about the laws. What can they do? 

Or is that too gloomy? :-)

>I suppose it's the natural outcome of a system that filters out
>anyone who's not a workaholic power-whore.
>
></rant>

I was reflecting earlier on (as we trundled to Blair Drummond and
back) on how some families rose to prominence and why, and why there
are various organisations which try and preserve their history now.
It's a thought that needs more, er, thought, but those families were
in a position to make real change, either politically or locally by
how they ran their affairs. I was wondering where those sorts of
people are now, and with a few exceptions they seem to be politicians.
So we got career politicians trying to run things but of course their
world view may have been narrowed by pursuing politics as a career...

[1] All from the 'they' point of view, of course, so perhaps rather
cynical and not making any comment about the quality of any of these
things. <g> 


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

trin wrote:

> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers

It's been pointed out that this could be a misunderstanding:
http://blog.pint.org.uk/2008/05/ianal.html

The following has also been (wisely) pointed out:
<quote>
Unfortunately that petitions site is completely useless and signing it
will achieve nothing unless you can set a new record for signatures
(see congestion charging or whatever mobile death greenhouse cause it
was).

Encouraging people to write to their MP http://www.writetothem.com/
will have more effect, as will involving any historical re-enactment
etc. societes you can find.
</quote>

Sorry to waste your time peeps.

--
trin

On 2008-06-03, Halla  wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:24:25 -0500, Jeremy Henty
> blethered:
>
>>but I'm scared  when laws are written by people  who really seem not
>>to know what more anyone might want.
> 
> ... they are compelled to  make laws instead of give advice, because
> people ask them to, then people complain about the laws.

Do people really  ask them to make laws?  I  don't recall any campaign
from the people to bring in ID cards, the Government came up with that
themselves.  And having talked to (ex-)teachers I am certain that they
did *not*  ask for the avalanche of  red tape that drove  many of them
out of the profession.

Even if they were asked to make laws that doesn't excuse them doing an
incompetent job.   And who  says they are  compelled anyway?   If they
really were compelled to make any  law we asked for we could save time
by  cutting out  the puppet  in  the middle  and making  all the  laws
ourselves.  Yeah, that'd work!

Oops I ranted again, here's something funny to lighten up:

   http://boasas.com/?c=960

BTW, I  am angry about *this*,  but not angry at  *you*.  I appreciate
people taking the time to reply.  Just in case that wasn't clear.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:59:39 -0500, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2008-06-03, Halla  wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:24:25 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>> blethered:
>>
>>>but I'm scared  when laws are written by people  who really seem not
>>>to know what more anyone might want.
>> 
>> ... they are compelled to  make laws instead of give advice, because
>> people ask them to, then people complain about the laws.
>
>Do people really  ask them to make laws?  

Perhaps this will jog your memory <clears throat> "Something ought to
be done! Think of the children!" etc.

I'm only half joking, mind you.

>I  don't recall any campaign
>from the people to bring in ID cards, the Government came up with that
>themselves.  And having talked to (ex-)teachers I am certain that they
>did *not*  ask for the avalanche of  red tape that drove  many of them
>out of the profession.

Oh I know, the details are perhaps not what we would have wanted, but
isn't it the usual response these days - the first example I remember
of this would be the widespread restrictions on gun ownership after
Thomas Hamilton killed all those children. There have been other laws
since that are referred to as 'knee-jerk'. 

>
>Even if they were asked to make laws that doesn't excuse them doing an
>incompetent job.   

I agree.

>And who  says they are  compelled anyway?   

I agree - in a lot of cases specific laws are being made or at least
proposed for things which are already against another law. 

>If they
>really were compelled to make any  law we asked for we could save time
>by  cutting out  the puppet  in  the middle  and making  all the  laws
>ourselves.  Yeah, that'd work!

Lawmaking is not supposed to be government's main concern, is it? Or
their only one. The Press do seem to spend a lot of time reporting on
that though. 

>
>Oops I ranted again, here's something funny to lighten up:
>
>   http://boasas.com/?c=960

Heh. I like that, it's a good basis for a religion really. Well, not
specifically that *snakes* are right, but you know what I mean. 

>
>BTW, I  am angry about *this*,  but not angry at  *you*.  I appreciate
>people taking the time to reply.  Just in case that wasn't clear.

Thank you for the clarification. It hadn't occurred that you would be
angry at me or others here. :-)


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

Jeremy Henty wrote:

> Oops I ranted again, here's something funny to lighten up:

Rants are useful, they get the crap outta your system (or at least let
it calm down a tad anyway).

>    http://boasas.com/?c=960

Heh, I like. And damn! That's gonna be a time sink if I'm not careful.

--
trin

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:59:39 -0500, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2008-06-03, Halla  wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:24:25 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>> blethered:
>>
>>>but I'm scared  when laws are written by people  who really seem not
>>>to know what more anyone might want.
>> 
>> ... they are compelled to  make laws instead of give advice, because
>> people ask them to, then people complain about the laws.
>
>Do people really  ask them to make laws?  I  don't recall any campaign
>from the people to bring in ID cards, the Government came up with that
>themselves.  [...]

Bad form, two replies, etc., but I read this:
"Abstinence messages never work. Everybody knows they don't work, and
I would go one further and say that social conservatives never intend
them to work - they intend, rather, with their stringency, to effect a
severance between the state and the individual. Don't come crying to
us if it all goes wrong. We have already warned you to be perfect."

in this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/29/health.medicineandhealth
and thought it was apt. :-) 

In an age where society in general seems keen not to take any
responsibility for itself, it's nice to see that the government are
promoting the idea that it's not their bloody fault either.


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

On 2008-06-06, Halla  wrote:

> Bad form, two  replies, etc., but I read  this: "Abstinence messages
> never  work. Everybody knows  they don't  work, and  I would  go one
> further and say that social  conservatives never intend them to work
> - they intend, rather, with  their stringency, to effect a severance
> between the state and the individual.  Don't come crying to us if it
> all goes wrong. We have already warned you to be perfect."
>
> in this:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/29/health.medicineandhealth
> and thought it was apt. :-) 

It's a  very good article, but  my response to the  excerpt you quoted
was (no disrespect) "Well,  duh!".  The purpose of social conservative
policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
high ground".

Cheers, 

Jeremy Henty

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:26:42 -0500, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2008-06-06, Halla  wrote:
>
>> Bad form, two  replies, etc., but I read  this: "Abstinence messages
>> never  work. Everybody knows  they don't  work, and  I would  go one
>> further and say that social  conservatives never intend them to work
>> - they intend, rather, with  their stringency, to effect a severance
>> between the state and the individual.  Don't come crying to us if it
>> all goes wrong. We have already warned you to be perfect."
>>
>> in this:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/29/health.medicineandhealth
>> and thought it was apt. :-) 
>
>It's a  very good article, but  my response to the  excerpt you quoted
>was (no disrespect) "Well,  duh!".  

Yes, but it was nice to see my own cynicism validated in the national
press. ;-)

>The purpose of social conservative
>policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
>on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
>them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
>key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
>it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
>high ground".

Why is this so? Or perhaps, why is this *still* so?


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:870o44douc8fr83d8hk4lvi70c0m77chg8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:26:42 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>  blethered:

[]

>>The purpose of social conservative
>>policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
>>on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
>>them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
>>key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
>>it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
>>high ground".
>
> Why is this so? Or perhaps, why is this *still* so?

Because they're not interested in policies which work, only ones which 
support their own preferences. And I reckon a lot of *that* comes down to "I 
wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the chance 
to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(

Jani

In message <g2h6g0$2kv9$1@energise.enta.net>, Jani 
 writes
>"I wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the 
>chance to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(

Jani, you make a very good point here. There are, equally, symptoms to 
be found in the current use of 'posh' as [almost] a term of abuse. I've 
noticed a recent spread of the notion : *I don't have it, therefore you 
should not have it either.* Or  "I can't do it, therefore you should not 
be allowed to do it."

I sense this is a symptom of a deeply stratified society where those at 
the bottom of the heap feel they have no chance of climbing higher.

It's a very sad malaise.

-- 
francis cameron

francis cameron wrote:
> Jani writes

> >The sour grapes model of social control :(
>
> I sense this is a symptom of a deeply stratified society where those at
> the bottom of the heap feel they have no chance of climbing higher.

And then there's those of us who have absolutely no desire at all to
climb any higher. :)

Though there are those that'd see that as a sad malaise too.

--
trin

trin wrote:
<snip>
> 
> And then there's those of us who have absolutely no desire at all to
> climb any higher. :)

I'm quite happy where I am, but firmly believe society would be 
healthier if the whole ladder were shrunk -- it would be better for all 
concerned if those significantly richer than me were less rich and those 
significantly poorer were less poor. ;-)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"francis cameron"  wrote in message
news:1jchYyC+HPTIFwWg@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
> In message <g2h6g0$2kv9$1@energise.enta.net>, Jani
>  writes
> >"I wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the
> >chance to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(
>
> Jani, you make a very good point here. There are, equally, symptoms to
> be found in the current use of 'posh' as [almost] a term of abuse. I've
> noticed a recent spread of the notion : *I don't have it, therefore you
> should not have it either.* Or  "I can't do it, therefore you should not
> be allowed to do it."

Not so current and not a recent phenomenon - I had the crap kicked out of me
and was horrendously bullied for being 'posh' when I was at school and for
the llife of me I couldn't understand the reasoning behind it.

Jo
>
> I sense this is a symptom of a deeply stratified society where those at
> the bottom of the heap feel they have no chance of climbing higher.
>
> It's a very sad malaise.
>
> -- 
> francis cameron

Gale wrote:
> trin wrote:

> > And then there's those of us who have absolutely no desire at all to
> > climb any higher. :)
>
> I'm quite happy where I am, but firmly believe society would be
> healthier if the whole ladder were shrunk -- it would be better for all
> concerned if those significantly richer than me were less rich and those
> significantly poorer were less poor. ;-)

Interesting - I wasn't seeing it as a rich/poor divide, so much as a
status divide. AFAIC, I could be a whole host richer without it (much)
changing the basic person of who I am (although I know not everyone'd
manage that).

--
trin

"Jo B..." <spirit_craft(antispam)@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9nx3k.105882$Ex2.29288@newsfe12.ams2...
>
> "francis cameron"  wrote in message
> news:1jchYyC+HPTIFwWg@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <g2h6g0$2kv9$1@energise.enta.net>, Jani
>>  writes
>> >"I wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the
>> >chance to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(
>>
>> Jani, you make a very good point here. There are, equally, symptoms to
>> be found in the current use of 'posh' as [almost] a term of abuse. I've
>> noticed a recent spread of the notion : *I don't have it, therefore you
>> should not have it either.* Or  "I can't do it, therefore you should not
>> be allowed to do it."
>
> Not so current and not a recent phenomenon - I had the crap kicked out of 
> me
> and was horrendously bullied for being 'posh' when I was at school and for
> the llife of me I couldn't understand the reasoning behind it.

I've had both, although not at school. The schools I attended kept bullying 
as a staff prerogative :(
People have had a right go at me for being too rich, too poor, too posh, too 
common ... where I'm living at the moment, I am thoroughly resented for not 
conforming to the local image of the 'deserving poor'. Yes, I do shop at 
Oxfam. That's where I got my beautiful and unique pure wool winter coat, 
which everyone envies, and which will last much longer than your 
tasteless-but-designer hoodie . Yes, it did cost me a tenner, and yes, it 
does have a Harrods label. No, I do not want your bag of old, torn, unwashed 
clothes that you're going to put in the recycle bin if I can't use them. 
Ungrateful? Why yes, yes, I am.

Jani, classless but not clueless.