Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Some time back we discussed personal freedoms, and I wrote that people's freedoms stop where they encroach other people's rights..
I get your point FD.
Prior to Tuesday's announcement there was quite an emotive discussion regarding whether we should fly or not. It was suggested a reason not to fly was to prevent others being encouraged to participate in their choice of activity. I hadn't considered that and have given it a lot of consideration since. Would that not be (at the time) asking pilots not to participate in what is their right to fly to pander to the hard of thinking and, on the basis the pilot is not responsible for the actions of all others, it was wrong to suggest we shouldn't fly?
In other words we were being told exercising our right to fly was unacceptable.
I think I know your response but interested in what it will be.
1. The current situation is very unusual and apart from the argument that we should not put extra stress on overstretched services it would also be my view that we all need to be seen to toe the party line - even where it (at the time) was not prohibited to fly for pleasure.
Where possible I think one should try to be on the right side of history.
2. That does not mean that I don't think one cannot do things that not everyone can do, either from an ability or affordability point of view; to say I came from nothing would do injustice to the hard work my parents did to give us what they thought we needed ( the 'cane' and a good education!) but had to work for everything I have achieved so no problem the few perks that gives; I do think that I have a responsibility that others by applying talent and hard work can achieve their full potential.
The latter is something that is very hard in today's UK.
If it became more of a meritocracy (again?) then that would be great.
PS: if that is what you anticipated then that is fine by me; I like to think that people understand that it is WYSIWYG here.