Discussion in 'Media Links' started by Lempo, Dec 29, 2019.
I guess how far we want to concrete the jungle is a discussion that society as a whole needs to have, balancing freedoms between groups, a tarmac path is possibly not the 'pc' hill you should choose to die on though.
Read recently that republicans of now are more socially liberal than democrats of the 70s.
The rate of change effects people differently and the amplification of views from the extremes I think serves us badly.
Good riposte in The Spectator https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/please-leave-the-lake-district-out-of-identity-politics
Revisiting the equality of opportunity or outcome argument. The latter is now known as equity I believe.
Equality/equity/removal of barriers: or whatever names you want to use. Such as:
In order to relate this to the Lake District (or wherever), I guess the first picture is where we are now: the same hills and trails for everyone, but some find them easier than others. The second picture would be like tarmaccing certain paths, which it is suggested will make things easier and more appealing for the little kid on the right. And the third scene is only attainable once we have identified the systemic barriers discouraging some people; we might find the little kid has decided to stay at home and play Nintendo. I'm actually unsure how the whole concept applies in this case.
Oh look, here's another one! And for once it's got football rather than baseball. And it has four panels:
The fourth panel, for the purposes of this thread, is comparable to... <insert over-extended metaphor, probably involving sheep and goats, here>.
Oh, look, look, look: it's not the Lakes, it's Utah. Well, maybe Salt Lakes?
And from the same source, a critique, which might be the only relevant thing in this post:
Right, that's quite enough of that.
A thousand times no. When I was a kid I regarded high steps on stiles etc as all part of the game, not as an impediment or barrier. And I regarded stony muddy paths as an opportunity to pick up stuff to chuck in streams or try to splash my elders and betters with.
Dear Head of Lake District National Park, please stop trying to invent spurious reasons to sanitise our rugged wilderness. Thank you.
On second thoughts, politeness doesn't work. Back to my first reaction. Sack him. Pour encourager les autres.
"the rugged landscape excludes too many people and must change to attract a more diverse mix of visitors"
No, no no no no!!! The man is an imbecile IMO.
The Lakes is for people who want to be in a rugged landscape. Other landscapes are there for people who prefer that type of landscape.
What we need is diversity of landscapes so that people can freely choose the type of landscape that attracts them. Don't like the Lakes, you might like the Norfolk Broads. We absolutely should not try to change the thing that made these places be the ones selected to be national parks because someone started to look for patterns in incomplete statistics.
Even within the Lakes there is a massive difference between the type of people who are on the tops of the Fells and the people who are eating ice cream sauntering by the side of Windermere. There is choice and people are free to make that choice and it has, IMO, absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.
There's a Fifth Panel surely? I might like to climb K2 (from the comfort of my fireside armchair). I haven't got a hope in hell of being able to do it because of my utter inadequacy, physically and mentally (to say nothing of financially) for that activity. It's not fair. K2 is biased in favour of high-altitude mountaineers, thus discriminating against me, obvs. I demand equity. If I don't get it, I will don the mantle of Victimhood. I will be angry and stamp my feet, or perhaps even become a hashtag. I will react with incandescent fury to the @Rog Tallbloke s of this world if they enter my Safe Space and suggest that I'm too old, too unfit, too lazy, or worse still that I could have contributed to my predicament by not taking responsibility for my own development. Can't they see I Am Entitled?
No offense meant but you are too old, too unfit, too lazy, and worse still you could have contributed to your own predicament by not taking responsibility for your own development.
Can I join your club?
The only thing above that is an actual quote in the original article is "must change". The rest is hot air.
All of this outrage is caused by the head of a public body saying that said public body should engage with those members of the general public less inclined, on average, to partake.
So what must change? Having been brought up in the Peak District in the 60s and 70s I was lead to believe that the job of the board was to protect and preserve the national park for the nation. Not to run it as an f'ing theme park and promote it to the widest possible audience.
My spleen is vent in the direction of the person misinterpreting their role, not you @Balagan .
Plus I'm probably wrong again.
"The head of the Lake District National Park Authority in Cumbria says the rugged landscape excludes too many people and must change to attract a more diverse mix of visitors.
"His warning comes after attempts to make the UNESCO World Heritage site more inclusive have sparked a series of rows with conservationists."
No quotation marks:
"We need to be able to sell the national park to everybody in Britain, all society, and it's important that it doesn't just become exclusive to one single use group," he said. <--- QUOTATION MARKS
"The moment we get into that position I think national parks start to lose their relevance and therefore the very reason for calling it a national park and spending public money." <-- QUOTATION MARKS
Fine. Stop calling it a national park, sack him as he's no longer got a national park to be in charge of, and leave it to the local councils to prevent inappropriate development. It looks like they're already trying to do that in the face of this moron anyway.
The [National Park] authority is facing a High Court judicial review in the New Year over its refusal to ban 4x4 vehicles from some fell trails, while Keswick Town Council has passed a vote of no confidence in it over the creation of a tarmac path through woodland.
"The head of the Lake District National Park Authority in Cumbria says the rugged landscape excludes too many people and must change to attract a more diverse mix of visitors."
The words are those of Gerard Tubb, journalist, North of England Correspondent, Sky News, the writer of the article referrenced.
Now I'm a little biased, I've seen a lot of inaccurate reporting and even dishonest outright lies by journalists. Heck Boris Johnson got the sack a few years back when, as a journalist, he was caught making up quotes. So I take the article with rather more than a pinch of salt.
It's probably as @Balagan says, mainly hot air. I suspect the reality is that this chap wants to tick a few trendy boxes on his professional portfolio before moving on to annoy people somewhere else, also at public expense. He is hardly the only person doing this.
Watch the pea under the cup carefully. Language is important.
"it's important that it doesn't just become exclusive to one single use group,"
"Just become" - implies it used to be something else. The opposite is the case
"exclusive to one single use group" - It never was and judging by the increasing number of tourists from all over the world who I see in Keswick town square whenever I visit, it never will be. I used to do mountain guiding for Leeds University up there, and the groups I took out on the fell were the most culturally diverse you'd ever meet.
I'd like Richard Leafe to gather up his dodgy stats and diversity quota gibberish, and take a long walk off a short pier into Derwent water.
I'm sure there's a sixth as well and probably more. The metaphor works decently for things like health care and education, which are where it was originally used, but I'm not sure it really works for this.
What is starting to irritate me is that whilst I can find the original sky news article or other news sources running stories based on that article that seems to be it. Sky have not published a transcript. The article comes across as having an axe to grind, a political one even. We have a few quotes with very little actual context given. We don't even get the questions he was asked to give context to what he is saying when answering those.
Searching does however turn up that Richard Leafe has been ceo of the Lake District National Park for over 12 years. Also that the 4x4 issue and the tarmacing issue are being presented in a very slanted way with important details omitted giving a somewhat false impression.
Not much on YouTube but in the most recent video, an interview with Sheffield Uni Geography Dept, he seems a fairly level headed intelligent individual dedicated to the best interests of the Lake District doing his best to balance difficult and conflicting interests.
More and more I'm moving towards concluding it should be the journalist given the boot and his article discarded in its entirety.
These types of stories are often spread because they trigger what David goodhart called the somewheres.
I don't think many people have any desire to place or maintain barriers to access for groups other than their own, and if the piece was phrased/reported in a different way would garner either support or disinterest generally.
The problem is often the use of divisive language that implies majorities carry some kind of original sin for the actions, of both commission and omission of their culture and population. Given that ATM somewheres outnumber anywheres that's not going to go down well.
Kimberly Crenshaw is worth listening to for a well articulated view from the other side.
Personally I don't believe we live in a world characterised by a low level helter skelter, (of course as a hetro sis old white man manifesting white fragility i would say that, and I think that argument isn't without enough merit to be worth interigating) but I think if people (often with good intentions, often captured by a desire to put their group into power ( the idea of 'their group' being the problem in my eyes)) keep saying we are in a zero sum game re race/gender/faith/gender expression then it would be possible to make that a reality and everyone loses.
After the holocaust i think lots of research was done on this subject
The end result to my eyes being a finding that people given the right incentives can be made to '''other' those with the most ridiculous arbitrary differences, but that differences as clear as ethnicity can be made totally irrelevant given the right incentives.
I think lots of well intentioned people are inadvertently pursuing the former set of incentives.
I think it's a totally understandable reaction to having been othered as a group, so the answer is less tribalism from the majority.
I think the americans have done quite a good job about this, they have several tiers, from national parks, which are crowded and have wheelchair accessible trails and free shuttles, to quiet national monuments where you need a 4x4, to wilderness areas where not even bicycles are allowed.
I think thats ideal. Its diverse, its accessible, it keeps crowds contained and wilderness untouched.
Problem is as somebody pointed before, in the UK the parks are small and built up. But putting a few shuttles and wheelchair accessible trails surely is doable?
My gripe is with public transport though. They should start with making trains affordable first.
The thing is though, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Availability and accessibility isn't necessarily going to achieve that stated aim of change. I know this is anecdotal and very limited but here goes. I spent much of daylight yesterday at Hamsterley Forest in County Durham with some people doing the trail half marathon. https://www.forestryengland.uk/hamsterley-forest
I did a 3 mile trot out along one of the walking trails and then basically volunteered to be a marshal directing runners past a play area. I was stood there for about 2 hours. The facilities there are excellent and there, wheelchair accessible trails and it was a nice January day. All bar one of the hundreds of families there were white, there was not a single wheelchair to be seen and I didn't see a single visibly disabled person. The point is even with excellent facilities the people who visit a place is limited by free choice. People will only go there if they want to no matter how good the facilities. I think they could spend millions trying to fix a problem that isn't fixable.
And isn't actually a problem anyway.
Separate names with a comma.