Definition of Scam

It's your forum Graham, so you can say what you want. But frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.

My partner is a Grade 7 in the Dept of Communities etc etc with personal responsibility for implementing a key piece of anti global warming legislation (The Code for Sustainable Buildings, an adjunct to the Building regulations) whose purpose is eventually to ensure that all new buildings constructed in this country are carbon neutral.

As you might imagine this is not only a difficult technical challenge given the non-existent skill levels of the modern british building trade but is also an area rife with powerful stakeholders (Barrett Homes etc etc).

I know what she has to do to bring all the disparate (and generally hostile) stakeholders together to deliver the end result. And to have the highly skilled and delicate work she does described as a money making scam by someone ignorant of any facts who is speaking nothing more than "Outraged of Tonbridge Wells" bar room nonsense out of their rear end is bluntly nothing less than insulting.

Graham Slee wrote: Definition of Scam: A ploy by a shyster to raise money. Every bit of so called "earth friendly" legislation I know of includes Stakeholders. These are money men. There is no cover-up. This is being done blatantly. Some may think that I, being a manufacturer of products affected by such legislation, am a stakeholder by implication. I am not. That is proved by the fact that my voice (as well as many other small to medium sized manufacturers) is never heard by those implementing the legislation. Therefore all legislation that involves stakeholders should be considered a scam. There is no other way of looking at it. If it were not a scam then there would be no stakeholders. Therefore the legislation of WEEE, RoHS, Eco-design, etc, etc, must be a case of a ploy (disguised with good intentions*) by a shyster (or a number of shysters) to raise money! What can we do about this? Well, I just did. ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and that's the road these shysters have put me on)

I suspect Graham's frustration stems from the fact that as a small manufacturer he has no say in the development of the regulations - which might from a certain perspective - look like a stitch up between governments and major players.

Understandable, I suppose. But that does not mean it is actually a stitch up. 

We live in a democracy even if you don't think much of it. The Government cannot successfully implement major changes that they know are unpopular but necessary without the co-operation of the big players "the stakeholders".  And this does not just mean commercial companies, it includes trade associations, research think tanks, training organisations, local authorities, unions and many other interests.

Reconciling all these competing factions, all of whom bring their own politics (internal and external) and getting them to agree in total to a set of proposals is a nightmare. The people who pull this sort of thing off are not the idiots they are made out to be but miracle workers.

A typical example of the sort of shannanigans that go on: after two weeks of careful negotiation between the major players a form of words is agreed for an announcement in Parliament as to the Government's policy on XYZ for the next year. 2 minutes before the Minister steps up to deliver the agreed statement, a representative for organisation X who had up until that point fully supported the agreement, calls a press conference to denounce Government policy.  The planned ministerial statement is instantly scuppered, the dozens of people who had worked so hard to broker the deal are left with egg on face, everyone is upset etc etc . Then it turns out that the person who had broken rank was acting against his own company's policy...

This is the sort of stuff that goes on all the time. People are an absolute nightmare to try and get to agree a united front on almost any issue because there is always some chancer who sniffs and opportunity.

In my opinion, if Graham wants to try and put his view across about what should be happening he needs to be heard in the right place not mouthing off in a web forum. So join the appropriate trade body, influence their policy and get your opinions into the sphere of the decision makers. In other words become a stakeholder.  Or stop bitching pointlessly.

  

ABPest wrote: If I was to interpret Dave's reply, it would  read something like " Graham you have a point of view which I respect. However, your point of view differs from mine and I hope you respect my view"   BUT, the question is - who is right?   Adrian.

Matthew 25:31-46 (Darby Translation)

A guide for legislators everywhere

31] But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory,

32] and all the nations shall be gathered before him; and he shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;

33] and he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on [his] left.

34] Then shall the King say to those on his right hand, Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from [the] world's foundation:

35] for I hungered, and ye gave me to eat; I thirsted, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;

36] naked, and ye clothed me; I was ill, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came to me.

37] Then shall the righteous answer him saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungering, and nourished thee; or thirsting, and gave thee to drink?

38] and when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in; or naked, and clothed thee?

39] and when saw we thee ill, or in prison, and came to thee?

40] And the King answering shall say to them, Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.

41] Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42] for I hungered, and ye gave me not to eat; I thirsted, and ye gave me not to drink;

43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye did not clothe me; ill, and in prison, and ye did not visit me.

44] Then shall *they* also answer saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or ill, or in prison, and have not ministered to thee?

45] Then shall he answer them saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have not done it to one of these least, neither have ye done it to me.

46] And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal.

Please don't be a goat!

But to those who are legislators, what was wrong with the law sent to you through Moses by God?

Don't tell me: You are mightier than God aren't you?


Edited by Graham Slee - 22 Jun 2008 at 9:50am