< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Outright Lies #11


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Outright Lies #11

The Greens are claiming the EB brochures are filled with outright lies. I'm having a look at the claims, one by one, to see how the EB may have formed their opinion.

Outright Lie #11: Permit the right-to-roam over private property

The Greens clearly support the concept of public access across private property to get to a "conservation estate". They have a policy built around that principle, and the policy does not seem unreasonable.

However, the overall debate about access to private land without permission has long been referred to as the "right-to-roam". Whilst this is a badly worded phrase, it is one in common practice to those in on the debate. There is genuine concern that allowing people the "right-to-roam" across private property, without permission, makes it easier for people to scope rural farms before robbing them, steal livestock or inadvertently destroy vital plants and seedlings. Then there's the generic property rights debate on top of all of that!

The Greens would well be aware of the common usage of the phrase "right-to-roam". It means "granted access without permission from the owner of private property". Many people are also likely to be unaware a distinction is made between rural property and town residential. But that's not the point. The Greens do actually support the "right-to-roam" side of the debate (with restrictions) rather than the "access is a privilege, not a right, and requires permission" side of the debate.

And only slightly off topic was this interesting post I found by Muriel Newman during my exhaustive, unpaid research (play violins): Political Correctness Gone Mad, where you will see a genuine use of the phrase "right-to-roam"

Verdict: Guilty

Minor Update Sat 10 12:30pm to correct point order and numbering. Sorry!
ยท Linked Article

Posted by ZenTiger | 9/09/2005 02:14:00 pm


Blogger coge said...

I never thought I'd agree with the EB, but they are raising some very valid concerns here.

Maybe that's why the left are having a such paddy over it.

I'm just waiting to get my copy. Are they still delivering?

9/09/2005 06:03:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

I'll post a link to the EB Source Brochure with my summary.

9/09/2005 06:42:00 pm  
Blogger Insolent Prick said...

Exactly, Zen. I made a post at Rodney's blog earlier about the outrageous spin that the Greens put on everything.

What the Greens call "lies" by the EB are in fact honestly held opinions about what the Greens intend to do. They are rationally-held opinions. The Greens' rebuttal of the EB's statements is mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy nonsense.

The Green's have not been challenged on their rebuttal of what the EBs actually said about them; that has been lost in the hysteria around the fact that the EBs used their own money to put up a misguided campaign against the Greens.

What you've shown, Zen, is just how truth-bending and contemptuous of truth that the Greens are.

9/09/2005 07:08:00 pm  
Blogger Murray said...

No its a "smear campaign".

The TV said so!

9/10/2005 01:43:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home