www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

TEXT EXTRACTED FROM http://www.38degrees.org.uk

It was revealed that the government might scrap vital laws which protect wildlife and the countryside and help stop climate change. Hardliners have branded the rules ‘red tape’ and say they could be scrapped within months.

We need to work together to make sure our wildlife, our countryside and our planet are protected.
In the past, David Cameron has made headlines promising to run "the greenest government ever".
We need to convince him that scrapping these laws would be a disaster for his reputation. A huge petition will prove to Cameron that he can't afford to break his green promises.

Please take 30 seconds to speak up for legal protection for wildlife and the environment:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

Sign the petition to send a powerful message to David Cameron and the government:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

The laws under threat in the government's "red tape challenge" include the Climate Change Act, National Parks Act, Clean Air Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Do these sound like "red tape" to you? Please add your name and tell the government that protecting our countryside and our planet should be a priority: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

Crispin wrote:In short, it seems Government is considering getting rid of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Climate Change Act, and 278 environment laws

Here we go again, what utter tosh!

I think that you'll find that legislation enshrined in Acts of Parliament such as this are to come under review, not "scrapped".

This is emotive fiction designed to stir up public opinion based upon inaccurate reporting worthy of our finest tabloid newspapers.

Dare I say let's have some facts first, not this scaremongering propaganda designed to promote another knee-jerk reaction by a host of people who are not in possession of the information required to make an informed decision.

Felix.

Felix wrote:Here we go again, what utter tosh!

Felix wrote:I think that you'll find that legislation enshrined in Acts of Parliament such as this are to come under review, not "scrapped".

Felix wrote:Dare I say let's have some facts first, not this scaremongering propaganda designed to promote another knee-jerk reaction by a host of people who are not in possession of the information required to make an informed decision.

See http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffi ... vironment/

I think that covers all of your comments. And yes, the government is using the term "scrapped".

Cheers,

- Pete

Fair do's

That was all I asked for. But in fairness the Government are asking the public to comment on should they be scrapped as one of a range of possible options (including keep everything as it is) upon which the public are invited to comment.

I stand by my comments regarding 38 Degrees. If someone posts a link to a politically motivated pressure group's website they can expect comments...!

Ta.

No worries. Now sign the form

Cheers,

- Pete

Yeah, right.

This worries me greatly.

There could be a valuable opportunity here to review our incredibly complex and convoluted (not to mention arguably ineffective as has been proven on so many occasions) environmental and conservation legislation, however, there is a high chance that this opportunity shall be lost through the actions of groups such as 38 Degrees.

38 Degrees represents the politics of the baying mob, where a Government may be forced to rethink or prioritise policy based upon a very vocal and disruptive minority whose opinions appear to be formed on the basis of a single emotive headline or celebrity tweet designed to stir up anger, rather than any in depth analysis of the proposals and what the real ramifications may actually be.

The 'forest sell-off' is an excellent example of this. Whether or not you agreed or disagreed with the actual policy became irrelevant, because the Government's climbdown was based upon the actions of a group of people who peddled a series of sound-bites based upon hugely inaccurate but emotionally charged scare mongering proclamations which had little or no basis in fact; leading people to believe (for example) that the majority of Britain's woodland heritage was about to be sold off for development, which quite simply was not the case. Worse still, the opportunity for any real debate about the future of woodland and woodland conservation was effectively stymied by the hysteria that was whipped up around the issue.

It is very bad for our democratic process when political decisions of a weak coalition government are made based upon the ill-informed opinions of a mob of activists with painted faces trashing various parts of the capital city, stirred up by sound bites communicated via a social media which is limited to just a handful of words in order to communicate complex policy issues. Forcing political change by this method is also decidedly undemocratic for the citizens who do not agree with groups such as 38 Degrees because they (let's call them the majority) have no equivalent mouth-piece.

I for one would welcome a wholesale review of our conservation legislation, however, I fear that through whipping up public hysteria by using deliberately misleading banner headlines without context (such as "The Government is considering getting rid of the Wildlife & Countryside Act") 38 degrees shall loose us the opportunity for reasoned debate and the long awaited opportunity for a review of our legislation.

Felix.

This e-mail was sent out by Butterfly Conservation - Hooray, they are on the ball for once -

Dear Branch colleagues

A very worrying consultation has recently been announced by Government which is considering the scrapping of various environmental laws. I am emailing Branch committee members to ask you to express your opposition to this proposal which could do immeasurable damage to wildlife, including butterflies and moths. Please circulate this email to anyone else who might feel the same.

If you have 30 seconds

Sign the online petition set up by 38 degrees

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/dont-scrap-environment-laws

If you have 2 minutes

Register your views on the Government website

http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffi ... vironment/

Further information

The Government has recently launched a consultation on the proposed scrapping of a whole range of regulations, known as the “Red Tape Challenge”. This was launched by Vince Cable on 7 April 2011 in a bid to boost short-term economic growth. Amazingly this includes most of the wildlife legislation that we and our partners have worked so hard to get on the statute books in recent years.

In short, it seems Government is considering getting rid of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Climate Change Act, and 278 environment laws (among thousands of laws and regulations). These Acts are essential for protecting key wildlife sites and species from development and have been developed after long campaigns by wildlife NGOs. Scrapping them would results in immeasurable damage to species and habitats, including butterflies and moths.

Environmental regulations fall under “general regulations” on which the Government are inviting comments throughout the process. The Cabinet Office is ‘crowdsourcing’ proposals for which laws should be scrapped, with Ministers facing a basic presumption that laws and regulations listed in the Red Tape Challenge should be scrapped. Once the nation has had its say, Ministers will have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why.

The Government’s website invites comments either as an individual or as an organisation, about the need to protect our environment. The website lists the 278 environmental regulations under scrutiny and you comments can be left under 7 broad headings.

My own contribution reads

“The Government has only just signed the new UN target set at Nagoya to halt biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems by 2020. It simply cannot honour this commitment if it scraps its own wildlife laws. Biodiversity is essential to life on earth and needs protection.”

Thank you very much for your support



Martin

I have to say that I was both surprised and disappointed to learn that BC have decided to align themselves to that particular political pressure group, and have voted with my feet as a result. "For that reason, Martin, I'm out".

Open question to Felix.

When it comes to a political matter, do you deliberately set out to be as controversial / confrontational as possible? I am not saying that the points of view that you express are necessarily wrong but you do seem to take an almost perverse delight in going against the flow.

Jack

...said the kettle to the pot...

Jack Harrison wrote:Open question to Felix.
When it comes to a political matter, do you deliberately set out to be as controversial / confrontational as possible? I am not saying that the points of view that you express are necessarily wrong but you do seem to take an almost perverse delight in going against the flow.

When I made my post there was no flow to go against, nor was I aware that Martin Warren had signed up to 38 Degrees.

Disagreeing with Pete and Crispin is not what I would call "confrontational".

I form my own opinions based upon the information that is to hand, rather than basing them upon what someone else has posted upon Facebook or Twitter (not that I am saying you do Jack, but many people do so these days).

It bothers me little that I may be in the minority on this web site (although my life would probably be easier if that were not the case), nor do I actively seek confrontation. I will post an alternative point of view on occasions however, where I usually add to my post the caveat "these are not necessarily my views but..." just to stimulate healthy debate on what ever topic is being discussed.

In this instance however Jack, I was merely responding to Crispin's post and subsequently airing my opinion regarding how unhealthy I consider groups such as 38 Degrees are for our democratic process.

Dare I also say that (again, in my most humble opinion) our conservation legislation, much of it impotent as demonstrated time and time again, is long over due some sort of review.

Felix.

...said the kettle to the pot...

Point taken but I usually do so very much tongue in cheek and would never expect to be taken seriously nor do I want to be. Warped sense of humour perhaps?

Jack

Felix wrote:There could be a valuable opportunity here to review our incredibly complex and convoluted (not to mention arguably ineffective as has been proven on so many occasions) environmental and conservation legislation ...

I completely agree - as evidenced by the lack of any prosecution of collectors, eBay sellers etc. etc. Many of the "laws" simply aren't working.

However, as with the forest sell off, it is the way the government is going about change that irks me and I lay the blame, fairly and squarely, at their door for "spooking" the general public and turning people to a petition that is, essentially, telling them to stop! How ridiculous to put out a poll asking Joe Public if certain legislation should be "scrapped" without any clear message of what would happen next. You only need to read the comments to the form to see the concern expressed; most of them don't really answer the questions posed by the government, they're simply asking them to keep things as they are!

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete Eeles wrote:I completely agree - as evidenced by the lack of any prosecution of collectors, eBay sellers etc. etc. Many of the "laws" simply aren't working.

I was actually thinking more of things that actually impact butterfly populations (as well as other wildlife), such as the wholesale destruction of habitat, flouting of green-belt legislation, proliferation of wind turbines, the Severn Barage etc. etc. not some guy flogging specimens on Ebay.

Pete Eeles wrote:it is the way the government is going about change that irks me and I lay the blame, fairly and squarely, at their door for "spooking" the general public and turning people to a petition that is, essentially, telling them to stop! How ridiculous to put out a poll asking Joe Public if certain legislation should be "scrapped" without any clear message of what would happen next. You only need to read the comments to the form to see the concern expressed; most of them don't really answer the questions posed by the government, they're simply asking them to keep things as they are!

I don't disagree with your general sentiment Pete, but I can not reconcile BC's alignment with the group '38 Degrees' and what they stand for. This is not the way I would expect an organisation such as BC to oppose the Government's actions.

Felix.

I agree on all counts. Thx for the clarifications!

Cheers,

- Pete

Following receiving the email from Martin and reading about it, from both links, I chose to copy and paste his email as the first item in this thread.
I then removed it as I decided not to just copy and past his email addressed to BC committee members. I instead chose replace it by text which I thought explained about the topic of government considering the scrapping of various environmental laws.
So may be I was wrong in using the text from 38 Degrees.

I personally don't care if it is from 38 Degrees or not. It is the topic which is more important here!

Felix wrote: Here we go again, what utter tosh!

Before I think that, I would choose to look into it, then decide weather or not it is tosh – regardless of which organisation or group it is from.

Felix wrote: I stand by my comments regarding 38 Degrees. If someone posts a link to a politically motivated pressure group's website they can expect comments...!

I have to admit I have on many occasions in the past (and probably unconsciously still do on occasions) dismiss some things said by particular organisations or certain people. Then after investigations I sometimes find I am in total agreement on a topic even if it is with a person or organisation I despise!
Basically what I am saying is I try not to dismiss all they say before looking look into it myself, then deciding!
Weather or not I or you agree with all the things 38 Degrees says is not the point.

Any way I found this on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Degrees
“38 Degrees is a UK non-profit, progressive, political activism organisation that campaigns on a diverse range of issues, such as protecting the environment and tackling climate change, democratic media ownership, child poverty and political reform, to make changes its supporters regard as positive. The organisation states it aims to "campaign for fairness, defend rights, promote peace, preserve the planet and deepen democracy in the UK." 38 Degrees does not have any political affiliations and emphasises independence from all political parties.”
Whether or not anyone here thinks that is true is not the point and I apologise for using the text which I thought accurately explained the topic.

What I think is most important is that Martin has raised our awareness of the potential scrapping of various environmental laws.

Crispin

How ridiculous to put out a poll asking Joe Public if certain legislation should be "scrapped" without any clear message of what would happen next.

I agree totally....

If they'd set it up as a consultation document and with some well meaning aims/ideas of what to do next other than just polling on whether to to get rid of Acts of Parliament protecting wildlife which they see as red tape/bureaucracy, then I would have been more sympathetic. But the UK gov gave us nothing and that was scaremongering. I recall getting a letter back from my MP about the forest sell-off (I'd signed the 38 degrees petition)and he wasted no time pointing out that such campaigns were politically motivated by activists. He was all for the sell off until the environment minister did a U-turn. I think I understood where he was coming from but my point was that the petition (moreover what was at stake) was more important than who was organising it, so I didn't really mind whether it was from activists, union activists, or any other group. Sometimes, one has to be active. I agree that the current wildlife laws could be strengthened as Felix and I'm sure many others will suggest. From bitter experience, I know of a SSSI which is privately owned. It is "one of the best remnants of a formerly extensive tract of heathland which lay to the east of Ipswich, and formed the southern limit of the 'sandlings' heaths of East Suffolk" (Natural England, 1988).
I then was handed this from NE...
"What will happen if my SSSI is in 'unfavourable condition' and not managed properly?

If your SSSI is suffering as a result of a lack of positive management or neglect, and we cannot reach a voluntary agreement with you, we may pursue more formal legal methods, such as serving management schemes and management notices.In the most extreme cases, powers of compulsory purchase may be used as a last resort when all other options to maintain the special interest of the SSSI are impractical."

Operative word, 'may'. Where are the teeth in that...? Clearly owners of SSSI's have obligations to maintain them in good condition, but clearly some don't. Quangos like NE have too few resources to chase up irresponsible owners. The particular heathland in question has been neglected by the owner for years. The law needed to chase such individuals needs strengthening. Let's have a debate or at least maintain the laws we have, however weak.

The government has to realise that we live TOGETHER with wildlife, its no something we can simply get rid of if it costs too much or is annoying them, especially in this day and age we need to preserve habitats and wildlife more than ever. If you took a vote of the general public vs the government on issues like this, you can see where they'd stand, in big houses, towns and cities and the country paved in concrete where farmland and waterways are not, train tracks and houses etc... I am not usually political, unless things like this come up.

I have signed and passed on e-mails for others to sign.

This government won't be doing anything to harm the interests of big business and will help them make money at every opportunity. Just something to think about.