Photographers need to do more

scottishmonkey

scottishmonkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
821
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
No
In terms of their environmental footprint. Found this old baby plate discarded up the hills yesterday :ROFLMAO:
 

Attachments

  • 20220429_114419.jpg
    20220429_114419.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 134
Last edited:
It's not just photographers it's people. I read something a while back about the amount of rubbish and human waste up mountains and my own local hill is just awful these days with everything from the usual discarded rubbish to burnt out cars and then there's the damage done to the landscape by off road vehicles. They're just transformed our local hill and it'll take centuries for the damage to naturally fade, if it does at all. The traces of pre Roman occupation are still there and I wonder if in 2k years time people will marvel at the damage done recently by off road twits?

We can all do our bit, me and Mrs WW never discard anything when out and about, it's all bagged and taken home. Sadly many just don't care.
 
If you live in a society where lying, cheating and stealing are rewarded with praise and wealth, why would you expect any different behaviour?

In order to change the majority, you need to change the people who are supposed to be leaders and role models and you need to make everyone feel valued and important. When people are cherished, they will cherish other people and the environment in which they live.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you live in a society where lying, cheating and stealing are rewarded with praise and wealth, why would you expect any different behaviour?

In order to change the majority, you need to change the people who are supposed to be leaders and role models and you need to make everyone feel valued and important. When people are cherished, they will cherish other people and the environment in which they live.
Click to expand...
A rubbish state!ent about rubbish
 
munch said:
A rubbish state!ent about rubbish
Click to expand...
That's a view, certainly.

Not, you may be surprised to read, one I agree with.
 
woof woof said:
It's not just photographers it's people. I read something a while back about the amount of rubbish and human waste up mountains and my own local hill is just awful these days with everything from the usual discarded rubbish to burnt out cars and then there's the damage done to the landscape by off road vehicles. They're just transformed our local hill and it'll take centuries for the damage to naturally fade, if it does at all. The traces of pre Roman occupation are still there and I wonder if in 2k years time people will marvel at the damage done recently by off road twits?

We can all do our bit, me and Mrs WW never discard anything when out and about, it's all bagged and taken home. Sadly many just don't care.
Click to expand...
People won't be here in 2k years time.
 
I've no idea what a baby plate is. But generally speaking I would have thought photographers would be pretty good when it comes to the environment. After all, they do like to photograph it.
 
Ah, that's something else I've learned today.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If you live in a society where lying, cheating and stealing are rewarded with praise and wealth, why would you expect any different behaviour?

In order to change the majority, you need to change the people who are supposed to be leaders and role models and you need to make everyone feel valued and important. When people are cherished, they will cherish other people and the environment in which they live.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the leaders of Britain are very representative of those who elected them. Why would ordinary people want someone who was different?
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would suggest that the leaders of Britain are very representative of those who elected them.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are right.

My 70 years experience suggests that the majority of British people, and a large majority at that, value honesty, fairness and kindness. That majority tend to be self effacing, so the troublesome minority drown out the decency, which I think is still at the heart of our society.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I don't think you are right.

My 70 years experience suggests that the majority of British people, and a large majority at that, value honesty, fairness and kindness. That majority tend to be self effacing, so the troublesome minority drown out the decency, which I think is still at the heart of our society.
Click to expand...
Ehh, that makes no sense. How can he be wrong that the government represent the majority when that's how voting works. Some how the minority win the votes?
 
robj20 said:
Ehh, that makes no sense. How can he be wrong that the government represent the majority when that's how voting works. Some how the minority win the votes?
Click to expand...
It isn’t how voting works. Almost every time, in General elections, the government is not elected by a majority.
 
I would consider it to be a sufficiently large minority to swing things. The kind of people who vote for parties they expect to benefit them personally, rather than who would be best for the country as a whole.
 
robj20 said:
Some how the minority win the votes?
Click to expand...
A minority won the vote because of "first past the post".

To take the last election...
  1. Total eligible to vote 47,568,611
  2. Total who did vote 32,013,675 (67.3% of possible vote)
  3. Conservatives 13,966,454 (43.6% of actual vote, 29.36% of possible vote)
  4. Labour 10,269,051 (32.1% of actual vote, 21.59% of possible vote)
  5. SNP 1,242,380 (3.9% of actual vote, 2.61% of possible vote)
  6. Liberal Democrats 3,696,419 (11.6% of actual vote, 7.77% of possible vote)
Hence: far fewer than one third of the adult population elected the tories into a large majority of seats. That isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, true democracy.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
A minority won the vote because of "first past the post".

To take the last election...
  1. Total eligible to vote 47,568,611
  2. Total who did vote 32,013,675 (67.3% of possible vote)
  3. Conservatives 13,966,454 (43.6% of actual vote, 29.36% of possible vote)
  4. Labour 10,269,051 (32.1% of actual vote, 21.59% of possible vote)
  5. SNP 1,242,380 (3.9% of actual vote, 2.61% of possible vote)
  6. Liberal Democrats 3,696,419 (11.6% of actual vote, 7.77% of possible vote)
Hence: far fewer than one third of the adult population elected the tories into a large majority of seats. That isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, true democracy.
Click to expand...
So your suggesting the people that can't even be bothered to vote are the problem and if they did we'd somehow get a superior government in power.
The majority vote won.

Maybe read more into "First Part The Post" Ie this bit, "In Britain the House of Commons has 650 seats, and one party needs to win just over half - 326 - to secure a majority." Notice the word majority.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
The majority vote won.
Click to expand...
Clearly a minority won.

That just over two thirds turned out to vote at all tells us that we don't operate a true democracy. Therefor, we shouldn't be surprised when we find that a group, shown to be composed of liars, thieves and cheats, has taken control of our government. If we want a decent government, we have to do our bit - leaving it to others just doesn't cut it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
A minority won the vote because of "first past the post".

To take the last election...
  1. Total eligible to vote 47,568,611
  2. Total who did vote 32,013,675 (67.3% of possible vote)
  3. Conservatives 13,966,454 (43.6% of actual vote, 29.36% of possible vote)
  4. Labour 10,269,051 (32.1% of actual vote, 21.59% of possible vote)
  5. SNP 1,242,380 (3.9% of actual vote, 2.61% of possible vote)
  6. Liberal Democrats 3,696,419 (11.6% of actual vote, 7.77% of possible vote)
Hence: far fewer than one third of the adult population elected the tories into a large majority of seats. That isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, true democracy.
Click to expand...
First past the post.
Gives the result to the person with largest number of votes for any particular seat.
It does not take into account the preferences of the majority of the voters.. in almost every case, except where a candidate gets more than 50%, a majority of voters would prefer some other result.

The difficulty in all voting systems is honouring a Local majority result, with the overall preference in the country as a whole. and establishing a parliament that reflects the true proportion of voters nationally. All the systems on offer have their shortcomings. Though the continental systems seem to work rather better But almost always result in a coalition. The British psyche seems unable to cope with the cooperation and compromises needed to make coalitions function.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The British psyche seems unable to cope with the cooperation and compromises needed to make coalitions function.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

As to the cause, I think we're into chicken and egg territory. Do we have first past the post because we're not good at political compromise or are we not good at political compromise because we have first past the post? When you look at how British democracy developed from the 18th century, it seems to me a story of compromise overturned by political opportunism.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree with you.

As to the cause, I think we're into chicken and egg territory. Do we have first past the post because we're not good at political compromise or are we not good at political compromise because we have first past the post? When you look at how British democracy developed from the 18th century, it seems to me a story of compromise overturned by political opportunism.
Click to expand...
Interestingly the German system of both politic elections and unions. was establish for them by the British civil service after the war.
This included the state funding of elections and of the candidate publicity materials and expenses. ( these limit what they can spend equally)
However the system was never good enough for us here???
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Indeed.

A lot of democracy's problems are related to "the size of the brush". The more decisions taken at the most local area, the closer to something like real democracy you can get. It seems that Switzerland's system gives the least bad compromise in this regard: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system.html
Click to expand...

Assuming comments you have previously posted are what you truly believe, then I would say you do hold to a somewhat extreme view of democracy. That's not a personal criticism, but I think many would prefer a much broader brush. To an extent I agree with Douglas Adams, that anyone who wishes to weild power is inherently unfit to hold it. I like the stability that a FPTP system usually affords, and don't want PR, but it's likely there has never been such a broken political party in power in living memory, although historically I suspect this lot are a bunch of amateurs as far as corruption and incompetence goes.
 
ancient_mariner said:
To an extent I agree with Douglas Adams, that anyone who wishes to weild power is inherently unfit to hold it.
Click to expand...
That's an opinion I share.

However I disagree that first past the post has any special merit. Proportional representation, as generally implemented, is equally flawed. This is where the Swiss system appears to score so heavily. Most of the power is at the bottom, commune, level. That's where all power should reside.
 
How the heck did a humorous post turn to a bore fest political debate??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Sometimes we feel funny, sometimes we feel serious and sometimes we just don't give a fish...

Fishmonger.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top