On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:41 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:00 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:35:17 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0100, Robert Seago
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> Any views?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Why only those with the income of more than a million.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think there should be a threshold so as not to affect the viability
>>>>>>>>>> of very small charities that don't consume so much public money.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>>>>>>The charities big and small are obliged to publish their 
>>>>>>>>>accounts anyway.
>>>>>>>>>As for their practices which you usually object to, big and probably
>>>>>>>>>small, they are already open about their activities. As I have
>>>>>>>>>demonstrated to you several times when you have said otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No they aren't.  As I have demonstrated to you several times when you
>>>>>>>>have said otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the public are supporting charities, either directly or indirectly,
>>>>>>>>they should have the right to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They already have that right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No they don't.  Awkward questions are ignores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>>
>>>>None. I'm not a member of either organisation but as a member of the
>>>>public who contributes indirectly to their coffers I should be allowed
>>>>to ask questions and receive answers.
>>>>
>>>You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done
>>>on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you
>>>don't like the answers is largely your own fault.
>>
>>On a number of occasions I have not received answers.
>>
>Yes, and that's your own fault. You're a bit like that man from People 
>Too. You ask the kind of questions which make it obvious that you are 
>opposed to what the organisation does and are not so much asking a 
>question as criticising them based on a heavily biassed agenda. This is 
>hardly conducive to obtaining answers. A classic example of your 
>technique is contained in the documents accompanying your petition.

So they only want to answer questions that are not awkward or by
people that support their overall ethos.

That's why Freedom of Information legislation is needed.. 

>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>>>>day a year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>>>>opportunity
>>>>>
>>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>See above
>>>>
>>>This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain
>>>and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything
>>>positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or
>>>like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put
>>>yourself forward for their Councils.
>>
>>Not at all.  Joining and undemocratic organisation doesn't make it
>>democratic.
>>
>Hmm, if you believe sufficiently strongly in what you campaign about, 
>you will surely do your utmost to achieve it, including exploring every 
>avenue, such as joining and doing your best to change it and make it 
>more democratic. You clearly don't believe sufficiently strongly to 
>explore every avenue and so just sit on the sidelines and whinge about 
>it.
>

By saying "making it more democratic" you clearly agree with me that
it's not.

At a time when our troops are fighting for the fundamental freedom of
democracy in various parts of the world, one would think that such
freedoms would be paramount in our own country.  Not so, in the case
in Scotland's National Parks.

In the year 2000, three years after devolution in Scotland, the
Scottish Parliament introduced the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000
which discriminated against those residing in the Loch Lomond,
Trossachs and Cairngorm areas by removing a substantial amount of
power from the elected local authorities and placing it in the hands
of National Park Authorities (NPAs) which are non-departmental public
bodies (NDPBs) responsible to central government.  

 It appears that the Scottish Executive's reasoning at the time was
that Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms are "national assets" but probably
much less so than the vibrant cities of Glasgow or Edinburgh, where if
local government powers were handed down to appointees from interest
groups and/or quangos dominating local politics from a single issue
perspective there would be an outcry - and rightly so.

The Act brought about the anomaly that those residing within national
park boundaries do not have the same level of local democracy as
elsewhere in the country, as the 25 NPA board members dominated by
central government appointees and board member electees, "must work
together with the purpose, as set out in the Act [section 9 (1)], of
ensuring that the National Park aims are collectively achieved in
relation to the National Park in a coordinated way".

The political structure of NPA Boards is:

(a)	10 central government appointees.
 
(b)	10 further central government appointees nominated by local
councils that have a ward or part of a ward within the park
boundaries.  These are generally, but not necessarily, local
councilors who have been elected on mainstream issues but who are
required to represent their electorate differently, depending whether
or not their voters reside within national park boundaries. They are
also entitled to make decisions that affect constituencies they do not
represent.

(c)	5 board member electees who are solely concerned with national
park issues.  This is passed off as "democracy" but there is a world
of a difference between electing local councilors on the wide
political front and board member "electees" of NDPBs with a
single-issue remit.

The best way to illustrate the lack of local democracy within national
parks is to give an example of a hypothetical planning application in
the Argyll and Bute area of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National
Park. The following planning committee members would decide the
outcome this "planning application":

·	2 unelected central government appointees.
·	1 West Dunbartonshire Councillor appointee
·	2 Stirling Councillors appointees
·	4 NPA board member electees from outwith Argyll and Bute
·	1 NPA board member electee from within Argyll and Bute

No politically elected local government representatives from Argyle &
Bute Council would be involved and nine out of the ten board members
would not be from the Argyle & Bute area.  (Source of information:
LL&NPA website).
 
This is only one example of how NPA Board Members from all over the
country are making decisions on a wide range of issues that affect
ordinary people who reside within national parks.  One only needs to
examine the NPA publications to see that the interference in
residents' daily lives is substantially more than at first sight.

Even if NPA board members were elected solely by residents within the
national parks it would still not restore the same level of local
democracy as elsewhere in the country. The impositions placed on
elected members would still require them to make decisions within the
narrow confines and restrictions dictated and enforced by central
government. Only by removing all local authority powers from NPAs and
freeing local councils of the obligations within the Act can those who
reside within the national parks have the same level of local
democracy as elsewhere in the country. 

The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 in its present form is an act
of discrimination against a minority of the population based on where
they reside and is an erosion of local democracy that creates a
dangerous precedent for the future.  




>>>
>>>You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)
>>>
>>
>>See above.
>
>Confirmed :-)
>

Only in your mind.


>>
>>>>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>>>>if they receive public money?
>>>>
>>>>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>>>>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>>>>to cover this.
>>>>
>>>So that would include your own company then?
>>
>>
>>No.  It would have to have £1m income from public or donated money
>>annually.
>>
>>Suffice to say that your opposition to FoI for charities makes it
>>something that should be considered.
>>
>Where did I say I was opposed to it?
>

Well, do you agree with me?


>>No more time for milking you, Malcolm :-)
>>
>Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You're obviously getting less 
>committed as you grow older. It just gets easier and easier to demolish 
>your arguments :-)
>
>I see from The Scotsman that you were once again putting forward your 
>wholly flawed points about introduced animals and getting short shrift 
>from people who commented on your letter. One of them summed you up very 
>well, I thought:
>
>"Countering this unfounded argument is pointless. Angus's arguments are 
>invariably circular.... adapting themselves endlessly simply to prolong 
>the discussion. The process includes taking what has been said to him 
>out of context, reversing the meaning - (use of double negatives , 
>removing key definining adverbs etc ) , so that he will then argue round 
>again. He will claim that his reworded version is what was said to 
>him...not by him... , so as to draw attention away from a point he 
>cannot accept the prospect of losing.."


This is from "upbeat" whom I frequently demolish and have done so
again.

Thanks for letting me know about the letter. I hadn't realised it had
been published.  I send letters all over the country and mostly I am
not aware of where and when they've been published.  

That's why I don't have the time to milk you as much as I did for
years.





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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:18:59 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:41 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:00 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:04 +0100, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are perfectly at liberty to ask them questions, indeed you have done
>>>>>on several occasions. And you do receive answers. The fact that you
>>>>>don't like the answers is largely your own fault.
>>>>
>>>>On a number of occasions I have not received answers.
>>>>
>>>Yes, and that's your own fault. You're a bit like that man from People
>>>Too. You ask the kind of questions which make it obvious that you are
>>>opposed to what the organisation does and are not so much asking a
>>>question as criticising them based on a heavily biassed agenda. This is
>>>hardly conducive to obtaining answers. A classic example of your
>>>technique is contained in the documents accompanying your petition.
>>
>>So they only want to answer questions that are not awkward or by
>>people that support their overall ethos.
>>
>You are either deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote or you 
>actually don't realise how you come over to other people with your 
>repeated questions which are nothing more than criticisms based on a 
>heavily biassed agenda. It's far too late now, you're too well known 
>(?notorious!), but perhaps before you started your endless letter 
>writing you should have taken a look at (or even taken some lessons on!) 
>how to write letters and ask questions in a manner which would have 
>produced answers instead of putting people's backs up.
>
>>That's why Freedom of Information legislation is needed..
>>
>No, just some skill in letter writing and asking questions.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Every charity has to hold an AGM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not everybody has the opportunity to attend an AGM and It's only one
>>>>>>>>day a year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Surely anyone who feels strongly enough about something will make the
>>>>>>>opportunity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how many AGMs of, e.g., the WT or RSPB have you been to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See above
>>>>>>
>>>>>This is like your attitude to the National Park, isn't it? You complain
>>>>>and whinge on the sidelines and refuse point blank to do anything
>>>>>positive, like putting yourself forward for the National Park Board, or
>>>>>like becoming a member of either organisation when you could put
>>>>>yourself forward for their Councils.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.  Joining and undemocratic organisation doesn't make it
>>>>democratic.
>>>>
>>>Hmm, if you believe sufficiently strongly in what you campaign about,
>>>you will surely do your utmost to achieve it, including exploring every
>>>avenue, such as joining and doing your best to change it and make it
>>>more democratic. You clearly don't believe sufficiently strongly to
>>>explore every avenue and so just sit on the sidelines and whinge about
>>>it.
>>>
>>
>>By saying "making it more democratic" you clearly agree with me that
>>it's not.
>>
>Not at all. I'm merely suggesting the obvious way in which you, who 
>constantly say it isn't democratic, have it in your power, as a resident 
>of the NP, to do something about your criticism. You refuse to do so, 
>which makes your criticism meaningless.
>
>>At a time when our troops are fighting for the fundamental freedom of
>>democracy in various parts of the world, one would think that such
>>freedoms would be paramount in our own country.  Not so, in the case
>>in Scotland's National Parks.
>>
>LOL!!!  What a splendid inappropriate comparison :-)))
>
>snip.
>
>Just as in the documents accompanying your petition, you clearly don't 
>realise how your endless repetition does you far more harm than good.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're a very half-hearted campaigner :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>See above.
>>>
>>>Confirmed :-)
>>>
>>
>>Only in your mind.
>>
>That's my line :-))
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>If they've nothing to hide charities should be supportive of being
>>>>>>>>included in the FoI legislation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you supportive of businesses being included in the FoI legislation
>>>>>>>if they receive public money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That should be up to the government agency providers of such money to
>>>>>>determine in detail where it is spent and the FoI should be extended
>>>>>>to cover this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So that would include your own company then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.  It would have to have £1m income from public or donated money
>>>>annually.
>>>>
>>>>Suffice to say that your opposition to FoI for charities makes it
>>>>something that should be considered.
>>>>
>>>Where did I say I was opposed to it?
>>>
>>
>>Well, do you agree with me?
>>
>I'm not convinced by your arguments, because you are a poor advocate, 
>being somewhat less than open-minded on the matter.
>
>>
>>>>No more time for milking you, Malcolm :-)
>>>>
>>>Thank you for your surrender, Angus. You're obviously getting less
>>>committed as you grow older. It just gets easier and easier to demolish
>>>your arguments :-)
>>>
>>>I see from The Scotsman that you were once again putting forward your
>>>wholly flawed points about introduced animals and getting short shrift
>>>from people who commented on your letter. One of them summed you up very
>>>well, I thought:
>>>
>>>"Countering this unfounded argument is pointless. Angus's arguments are
>>>invariably circular.... adapting themselves endlessly simply to prolong
>>>the discussion. The process includes taking what has been said to him
>>>out of context, reversing the meaning - (use of double negatives ,
>>>removing key definining adverbs etc ) , so that he will then argue round
>>>again. He will claim that his reworded version is what was said to
>>>him...not by him... , so as to draw attention away from a point he
>>>cannot accept the prospect of losing.."
>>
>>
>>This is from "upbeat" whom I frequently demolish and have done so
>>again.
>>
>Only in your mind :-)
>
>>Thanks for letting me know about the letter. I hadn't realised it had
>>been published.  I send letters all over the country and mostly I am
>>not aware of where and when they've been published.
>>
>Which demonstrates, yet again, what a poor campaigner you are!
>
>>That's why I don't have the time to milk you as much as I did for
>>years.
>>
>Thank you for that further surrender :-)


When I want some more milk, I'll be back:-))


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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)