I recently noticed the weird tendency for the local government to replace the ancient and universally understood term "footpath" with a new word - "footway" - on its signage.
Decades of experience have taught me that there is always some covert agenda behind such apparently arbitrary changes to language - and I am now more than ever convinced of this*.
Today I saw a sign stating "Footway closed" - but the word "path" had been crudely covered with tape, and "way" had been written over it with a marker pen.
This demonstrates to my satisfaction that the change in name comes top down and has been imposed.
And this tells me that the re-naming is part of some strategy for re-classifying the legal status of (what used to be) footpaths.
I don't know what this strategy might be, but (given the UK local government zealous-obsession with the totalitarian "climate"-rationalized destruction of quality of life, and life itself); the strategy might be something to do with legally-allowing/ encouraging forms of transportation other than feet, and groups of movers other than pedestrians, to use those tracks that used to be foot-paths.
Given the local government obsession with providing Rolls Royce (but nigh unused) facilities for cyclists (justified by climate-totalitarianism); and the recent de facto redefinition of cyclists to include electric motorbikes and scooters; I am suspicious that there may be a move towards including once-footpaths into the (already vast, all-but empty) network of "cycle tracks".
Then pedestrians and women with baby buggies can be mangled and slaughtered en masse by buzzing hordes of 25-plus mph two-wheelers. Or, simply driven to stay at home cowering behind locked-doors...
Result!
I await developments to see if I am correct.
*NOTE: I have done a bit of "research" about this; however seems to be so much brain-washing, ignorance and dishonesty in what people say - that I found it pretty worthless. The only perhaps useful point was that apparently: "footway is regarded as a component of a road as a whole rather than a separate entity". Maybe this provides a helpful definitional "loophole" for whatever is intended?
No comments:
Post a Comment