Please support this campaign

Seakay

Ethics apply . If my ethics aren't yours, fair enough. This is a green and ethical forum - the campaign concerns green and ethical issues. You don't have to sign.
I don't want a debate, and I have no need to prove anything. I want to bring a particular issue to the attention of a community to whom it might be of interest or concern. How people choose to act after being informed is obviously up to them.

tr3mor

Seakay wrote:

Ethics apply . If my ethics aren't yours, fair enough. This is a green and ethical forum - the campaign concerns green and ethical issues. You don't have to sign.
I don't want a debate, and I have no need to prove anything. I want to bring a particular issue to the attention of a community to whom it might be of interest or concern. How people choose to act after being informed is obviously up to them.

I think a debate makes people think of both sides of the argument though. If there were no debates people would sign up for anything!

gromituk

I think it's more NOMP than NIMBY - Not On My Planet.

Cardew

Seakay wrote:

Ethics apply . If my ethics aren't yours, fair enough. This is a green and ethical forum - the campaign concerns green and ethical issues. You don't have to sign.
I don't want a debate, and I have no need to prove anything. I want to bring a particular issue to the attention of a community to whom it might be of interest or concern. How people choose to act after being informed is obviously up to them.

What ethics are those?

Wanting to stop/curtail the growth in air travel is all very well.

However why not be upfront on the issue? Eliciting support for the Stansted campaign stressing ‘Broadland woods and the destruction of a particular village’ and when it will just pass the problem onto another community, is simply disingenuous not ethical.

No wonder you don’t want a debate. The X hundred signatures you have obtained have served their purpose.

No doubt the ends justify the means.

You are quite right! We have different ethics!

Seakay

Cardew wrote:

What ethics are those?

Wanting to stop/curtail the growth in air travel is all very well.

However why not be upfront on the issue? Eliciting support for the Stansted campaign stressing ‘Broadland woods and the destruction of a particular village’ and when it will just pass the problem onto another community, is simply disingenuous not ethical.

No wonder you don’t want a debate. The X hundred signatures you have obtained have served their purpose.

No doubt the ends justify the means.

You are quite right! We have different ethics!

sorry if you wanted a reply, was waiting until post needed bumping.

gromituk

But that's not a reply - merely a bump and a whole load of unnecessary quoting.