doug748
Well-known member
If everyone who is eventually going to be affected by the Studland farrago wrote to their MP there is a slight chance that the course of events could be altered to the good.
However most people won't bother because writing a good letter takes hours of work, it needs substantiated details but not too much. You have to qualify, amplify and avoid striking the wrong tone. You have to lightly cite the main points but a flurry of attributions will not be followed and likely not be read.
Any road. I have done mine and been mulling it over, it seems to me the central point of all of this is:
Natural England and MMO, between themselves, have bungled the issue badly. They have created an us and them situation where none needed to exist. Had they gone down the path of defending the right to safely anchor and then moved forward with a scheme based on community, inclusion and education they would have a huge majority of mariners on their side. Their requirements would have been met in a spirit of cooperation and trust.
They have introduced conflict and law into a situation where it need not exist. Sooner of later there will be acrimony on the water and ashore. It would have been simple to introduce a scheme which recruited water users rather than alienating them Properly community led, voluntary schemes work elsewhere, in the UK and overseas, why was conflict chosen for Studland?
So if you don't have time to confect a long letter, just jotting down the points above in your own words and firing it off would only take a few minutes and might hit the spot.
However most people won't bother because writing a good letter takes hours of work, it needs substantiated details but not too much. You have to qualify, amplify and avoid striking the wrong tone. You have to lightly cite the main points but a flurry of attributions will not be followed and likely not be read.
Any road. I have done mine and been mulling it over, it seems to me the central point of all of this is:
Natural England and MMO, between themselves, have bungled the issue badly. They have created an us and them situation where none needed to exist. Had they gone down the path of defending the right to safely anchor and then moved forward with a scheme based on community, inclusion and education they would have a huge majority of mariners on their side. Their requirements would have been met in a spirit of cooperation and trust.
They have introduced conflict and law into a situation where it need not exist. Sooner of later there will be acrimony on the water and ashore. It would have been simple to introduce a scheme which recruited water users rather than alienating them Properly community led, voluntary schemes work elsewhere, in the UK and overseas, why was conflict chosen for Studland?
So if you don't have time to confect a long letter, just jotting down the points above in your own words and firing it off would only take a few minutes and might hit the spot.
