Peter Clinch said:Mike Clark said:Yes but that petition would lead to a slippery slope. Once you become
dependent on government funding you eventually will come under pressure
to do and behave as government decides. Is that what the teams want?Another aspect of slippery slope is the point that central funding will
get people who don't have a Clue looking hard at compulsory insurance
for those who might be rescued, very much an avenue I am firmly against
as it risks effectively excluding people from access to wilderness (or
what we have that passes for it).Slightly different perspective up here: I think it is widely appreciated
inScotland(unless you're Bloody Angus, of course) that the mountains
bring in rather more cash to the national economy than the Scottish Exec
are giving to the MRTs, but for your London taxpayer (who outnumber
Scots residents by quite a wide margin!) it'll be harder to see why
/they/ should be paying for MRTs.Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SYScotlandUK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
The other problem is with central funding is that study groups
invariably get set up and funds end up going astray into things that
have little or no relevance to biking. The emergency services have
done a fabulous job at glentress repeatedly - also do we want to
continue a "cotton wool" society mentality?