For those that do not read the Argus - The CPRE...

[Lord Bracknell]

I bet there is no mention that one of the biggest destroyers of natural habitat on the Downs are agribusinesses, particularly the number of ancient monuments they've destroyed through ploughing up and turning what was once extensive sheep down into arable land. Consequently, it's the town councils, amongst others, who have had to purchase areas in order to allow it to return to the pre 1945 state that had endured for thousands of years previously.

Pre-1940, more like.

It was WW2 that did for the downs. Domestic food production had to be pushed to the limits, because international shipping routes were under attack by submarines. All that ploughing could have been avoided if people had been prepared to starve.

 

[Woodchip]

Also, a very intersting fact is that horses cause more damage to trails than any other unpowered mode of transport. Why don't they ban horses from the SDW?? Because horse owners have money?!?! Hypocritical wankers!!

 

[mona]

Also, a very intersting fact is that horses cause more damage to trails than any other unpowered mode of transport. Why don't they ban horses from the SDW?? Because horse owners have money?!?! Hypocritical wankers!!

Everyone who uses long distance paths erodes them.
Why have things always got to be banned? It's the nimby mentality.
I walk, and used to run along, the SDW and accept that there are also cyclists and horses. Live and let live. Leave the banning mentality to tin-pot councils.

 

[Storer68]

and then lets examine the consistancy of their arguments:

"CPRE believes that the new stadium and interchange in this location would....shatter the tranquillity of the land above Brighton
The development would generate substantial traffic flows which would increase congestion and CO2 emissions.

At least 32 million visits are made each year to the South Downs."

So a maximum of 506,000 people would ruin the experience of 32,000,000 visitors.

 

[Nemesis]

They seem to ignore the possibility that many of the visitors to SDW are Albion/football fans too.

If it fits in with their perception of how life in the 21st century then it must be good/right. If it doesn't suit them-it must be stopped at all costs using as many lies as their propaganda machine can spew out.

They're history-we are going to win this war.

At least there is a working model of why the royal family bought Diana in as breeding stock-the CPRE. Their membership is proof of what happens when in-breeding is left unchecked.

 

[mona]

[B
At least there is a working model of why the royal family bought Diana in as breeding stock-the CPRE. Their membership is proof of what happens when in-breeding is left unchecked. [/B]

magnificent

 

[Barrel of Fun]

and then lets examine the consistancy of their arguments:

"CPRE believes that the new stadium and interchange in this location would....shatter the tranquillity of the land above Brighton
The development would generate substantial traffic flows which would increase congestion and CO2 emissions.

At least 32 million visits are made each year to the South Downs."

So a maximum of 506,000 people would ruin the experience of 32,000,000 visitors.

How many of those 32,000,000 visitors travel to the Downs by car? I would say a heck of a lot!

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Pre-1940, more like.

It was WW2 that did for the downs. Domestic food production had to be pushed to the limits, because international shipping routes were under attack by submarines. All that ploughing could have been avoided if people had been prepared to starve.

But the Downs were ploughed during the Napoleonic Wars under the same circumstances but returned to sheep down post 1815. Post 1945 the Downs did not return to this and what was ploughed was made worse by the big agribusinesses converting even more downland to arable.