Ban Fox Hunting, This Madness Must Stop Now!
- Thread starter LazySod
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Ok, ya got me
Yup, me too
But in mitigation, the bolt is still open and the scope height is all wrong, he'll never be able to get a good cheek weld
Ogri the trog
For a moment the thread title made me think of this article...
http://www.huntingmagazine.co.uk/pf_fulford.htm
(bit of seriousness into an otherwise light hearted thread)
If we're not careful - you won't be able to make photos like that at all.
http://www.huntingmagazine.co.uk/pf_fulford.htm
(bit of seriousness into an otherwise light hearted thread)
If we're not careful - you won't be able to make photos like that at all.
The Disability Rights Act is "ridiculous"... what a charming way to recruit people to the countryside cause.
I think the main point it makes there is that the act was brought in under "facts" that are so seriously nonsensical it's a wonder the work experience boy at The Sun didn't choke on his mid morning cup of tea with 4 sugars when he saw it.
That said - assuming the act is the one I think it is, (there's not an act of that name, and there are a few it could be) it is kinda nonsensical.
It sets out to achieve things that just can't be achieved, in ways that won't achieve them.
It causes huge expense to companies who have to make their premises "accessible" when it's utterly unnecessary to do so.
Just one example I've dealt with personally. A company came to me to draw plans for a new layout in their office (converted from a terraced house).
By law they had to make all the changes comply to disabled access, they had a full wheelchair accessible toilet, wide door casings and so on.
One small problem - there's no way to get a wheelchair user into the building as the front door is too narrow and structural reasons make it IMPOSSIBLE to get a wheelchair to the door of the toilet.
Yet they still had to spend the extra money on the plans, on the equipment, and all to get a sub-par layout (it could have been a lot better were it not for having to provide for a person using a wheelchair who could get out of it, fold the chair, carry it to the toilet, fold it out and get back into the chair only to transfer, and then again in reverse to return to the office) all to provide for a situation that simply can not happen.
Another one I worked on - disabled people have the right to be left behind in a burning building thanks to the relevant legislation. I assure you, I'm being entirely serious on that one.
Ok - so I agree the article probably left it a bit ambiguous, but as someone who has to consider and work with disabled access legislation on a semi-regular basis - I can assure you that there's a lot of validity in some of the claims that the legislation is nonsensical.
That said - assuming the act is the one I think it is, (there's not an act of that name, and there are a few it could be) it is kinda nonsensical.
It sets out to achieve things that just can't be achieved, in ways that won't achieve them.
It causes huge expense to companies who have to make their premises "accessible" when it's utterly unnecessary to do so.
Just one example I've dealt with personally. A company came to me to draw plans for a new layout in their office (converted from a terraced house).
By law they had to make all the changes comply to disabled access, they had a full wheelchair accessible toilet, wide door casings and so on.
One small problem - there's no way to get a wheelchair user into the building as the front door is too narrow and structural reasons make it IMPOSSIBLE to get a wheelchair to the door of the toilet.
Yet they still had to spend the extra money on the plans, on the equipment, and all to get a sub-par layout (it could have been a lot better were it not for having to provide for a person using a wheelchair who could get out of it, fold the chair, carry it to the toilet, fold it out and get back into the chair only to transfer, and then again in reverse to return to the office) all to provide for a situation that simply can not happen.
Another one I worked on - disabled people have the right to be left behind in a burning building thanks to the relevant legislation. I assure you, I'm being entirely serious on that one.
Ok - so I agree the article probably left it a bit ambiguous, but as someone who has to consider and work with disabled access legislation on a semi-regular basis - I can assure you that there's a lot of validity in some of the claims that the legislation is nonsensical.
Similar threads
