What happens to towns when the main employer goes under?

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm not related to anyone who tarmacs drives or sells heather.

a little bit of your own internalized romany racism vivatifosi?

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

a little bit of your own internalized romany racism vivatifosi?

On the contrary ninky, just saying what I'm fed up with being called. Surely you can relate to that? I have no problem with people tarmacing drives or selling heather. I have a problem with people assuming that's all Romany families do. Ronnie Wood is a Romany, Bob Hoskins part Romany (as I understand it). We don't just have two jobs...

ninky_2

given that i'm even more surprised you oppose the right to roam. surely that erodes the choice to live a romany lifestyle?

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

given that i'm even more surprised you oppose the right to roam. surely that erodes the choice to live a romany lifestyle?

I never said I oppose the right to roam, I said that it ought to be enforceable within the existing laws without imposing new ones. I'm strongly in favour of the right to roam, I'm not in favour of people bending the laws to get around people's right to roam (eg Madonna).

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I never said I oppose the right to roam, I said that it ought to be enforceable within the existing laws

but it isn't. only being allowed to keep to footpaths (which can be rerouted or removed with existing legislation) and no right to camp overnight.

some farmers are more generous but they are not obliged to be.

it's different in scotland where everyone has the right to be on most of the land and waterways and responsibilities to the land are held equally between landowners and users.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

but it isn't. only being allowed to keep to footpaths (which can be rerouted or removed with existing legislation) and no right to camp overnight.

some farmers are more generous but they are not obliged to be.

it's different in scotland where everyone has the right to be on most of the land and waterways and responsibilities to the land are held equally between landowners and users.

Its funny, but whilst my arguments for increasing access through RoW as opposed to universal right to roam stand, waterways restriction does seem bizzare to me Probably hypocritically, but it just ''feels'' wrong to me.

Generali

It's a touchy subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzv6JSm-No&feature=related

tomterm8

The problem with right to roam is that if there are rabit holes, barbed wire, bits of bramble in the grass or bits of farming equipment around, and the person doing the roaming trips up, falls, or gets bit by an adder, or butted by a ram then the farmer can end up being dragged through the courts for £200,000.

Any right to roam should be accompanied by a waiver of liability.

Mary_Hartnell

completely agree with you.
(I don't think the viper/adder example applies as God was the negligent party back in the garden of Eden - and he does not pay no win no fee lawyers)

Seriously, they still have to prove negligence don't they?
(Kids can be dodgy as we all owe the little darlings an extra duty of care 'cos they are too stupid to look after themselves).

It is just a scam for extracting money from insurnce companies or self evidently rich individuals.

dopester

mardatha wrote: »

I can remember when the pits closed, miners who were big strong hard-working men used to having money, coming home raging about some "silly wee lassie in the dole" snootily telling them to go on courses for TYPING.
it would be funny if it wasnt so heart-breaking. That's why I hate Thatcher & her cronies so much and always will.

Sadly that is because you have linear expectations, and like many others, believe where prosperity exists, it should be expected for that prosperity to continue.

The Conservatives and Thatcher could not ignore the megapolitical forces making for change.

You think those were bad times? Just wait for the full unravelling of the excessive consumption, debt levels, serious malinvestment in to making property values so high and feeding on ever younger generations. Own a pile of mega expensive bricks in some dead-end town of no opportunities... no thanks.