Angus was wrong - again

Malcolm said:

Perhaps this will inform him better than we seemed able to:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895942007

Note, especially, the statement that: "judges rejected the argument and
said the law, set down almost 100 years ago, was that no precautions
needed to be taken when the dangers were obvious at natural features
such as cliffs and rivers."

What I find particularly heartening was at the end where even a RoSPA
spokesman suggests it's ridiculous. A few years ago ISTM that they were
all for wrapping everyone in cotton wool, but they now seem to be coming
around to realising that having people /think/ is actually better than
insulating them from all danger.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Malcolm said:

Some of you will recallmw stalking Angus and attempting to disrupt the newsgroups, last year, to extend my
personal vendetta against him?

Yes we remember it well. You're a bully and still are apparently!

Malcolm said:

Some of you will recall Angus attempting, last year, to extend his
anti-conservation organisation vendetta by claiming that the National
Trust for Scotland, and other bodies, should fence off dangerous areas
following deaths at Linn of Quoich and Arthur's Seat. Unsurprisingly, he
was so interested in trying to make these tragedies fit his agenda that
he forgot to express any sympathy for the families of those who died.

Perhaps this will inform him better than we seemed able to:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895942007

Note, especially, the statement that: "judges rejected the argument and
said the law, set down almost 100 years ago, was that no precautions
needed to be taken when the dangers were obvious at natural features
such as cliffs and rivers."

Something to remind Angus of when he next starts chasing his hares.

I think this judgement was entirely wrong. There should be a distinct
difference between where the general public are encouraged to access
by means of a pathway and seating etc., as distinct from a wild place
that is accessed without the owners' implied invitation or consent.

To quote 100 year old law as applicable to modern society is little
more than a get out.

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)

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

Some of you will recall Angus attempting, last year, to extend his
anti-conservation organisation vendetta by claiming that the National
Trust for Scotland, and other bodies, should fence off dangerous areas
following deaths at Linn of Quoich and Arthur's Seat. Unsurprisingly, he
was so interested in trying to make these tragedies fit his agenda that
he forgot to express any sympathy for the families of those who died.

Perhaps this will inform him better than we seemed able to:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895942007

Note, especially, the statement that: "judges rejected the argument and
said the law, set down almost 100 years ago, was that no precautions
needed to be taken when the dangers were obvious at natural features
such as cliffs and rivers."

Something to remind Angus of when he next starts chasing his hares.

I think this judgement was entirely wrong.

Yes, but then you have a track record of thinking that judgements are
wrong, especially when they go against you :-)

Quoted message said:

There should be a distinct
difference between where the general public are encouraged to access
by means of a pathway and seating etc., as distinct from a wild place
that is accessed without the owners' implied invitation or consent.

Which opinion is just another way of you pursuing your vendetta against
land-owning conservation organisations.

Quoted message said:

To quote 100 year old law as applicable to modern society is little
more than a get out.

I'm sure the judges will be delighted to receive your expert opinion on
the matter.

--
Malcolm

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Malcolm said:

Some of you will recall Angus attempting, last year, to extend his
anti-conservation organisation vendetta by claiming that the National
Trust for Scotland, and other bodies, should fence off dangerous areas
following deaths at Linn of Quoich and Arthur's Seat. Unsurprisingly, he
was so interested in trying to make these tragedies fit his agenda that
he forgot to express any sympathy for the families of those who died.

Perhaps this will inform him better than we seemed able to:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895942007

Note, especially, the statement that: "judges rejected the argument and
said the law, set down almost 100 years ago, was that no precautions
needed to be taken when the dangers were obvious at natural features
such as cliffs and rivers."

Something to remind Angus of when he next starts chasing his hares.

I think this judgement was entirely wrong.

Yes, but then you have a track record of thinking that judgements are
wrong, especially when they go against you :-)

You have the naive idea that judgments are always right. That
nonsense has been proved to be false many times.

Two of these judges were involved in a case against me, with one
showing open bias in court against deer by saying, "well they're pests
anyway" and whose pastime in the Who's Who is listed as "shooting",
and the other believing a prosecution witness in the infallability of
shooting where deer are never injured.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There should be a distinct
difference between where the general public are encouraged to access
by means of a pathway and seating etc., as distinct from a wild place
that is accessed without the owners' implied invitation or consent.

Which opinion is just another way of you pursuing your vendetta against
land-owning conservation organisations.

This action was against a County Council.

And are you saying there's no difference between the two?

If any landowners encourage the public to enter their ground by
providing walking and seating facilities they should be safe for
people of all abilities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To quote 100 year old law as applicable to modern society is little
more than a get out.

I'm sure the judges will be delighted to receive your expert opinion on
the matter.

I don't claim to be an "expert" in anything, Malcolm, as you well
know.

But isn't it surprising that no-one considered that the woman could
have tripped where the cut grass abutted the uncut grass which might
have explained her fall.

I think the practice of leaving clumped/uncut grass near the edge of a
cliff where people have an implied invitation to walk on adjacent cut
grass, is extremely dangerous.

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)