Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Corbyn remains an electoral liability for LAB – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,719
edited April 2023 in General
Corbyn remains an electoral liability for LAB – politicalbetting.com

Keir Starmer's motion to Labour's NEC to expel Jeremy Corbyn said that the former leader would "significantly diminish" Labour's chances of winning if he stoodMost Britons see Corbyn as an electoral liability (56%) for Labourhttps://t.co/FwJth3ryjn pic.twitter.com/Kj8NYNFjOA

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,216
    First, like Arsenal.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,549
    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,032
    edited April 2023
    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544
    FPT:
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,040
    FPT.
    On the subject of the laws of mathematics, I see the government's promised extra £1/2 billion over three years in funding to solve Social Care workforce shortages has been quietly halved.
    Seems to have been replaced by a poster campaign begging folk to work instead.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,040
    ...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,032
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438
    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187
    "The Tories know this very well which is why they always seek to attack Starmer by highlighting his role as part of Corbyn’s cabinet."

    Sitting in Corbyn's shadow cabinet for three years needs to highlighted. It was inexcusable part from one consideration - Starmer's overarching ambition that allowed him to turn a blind eye to the anti-semitism running riot in his Party under LotO COrbyn.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478
    edited April 2023
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,203

    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.

    Yes. I always thought Corbyn would be a total disaster for Labour but I was wrong before I was right. The antisemitism crisis was real and self inflicted but was also a spectacularly effective political hatchet job by his opponents inside and outside the party. Something like that was always going to happen to him, of course, a man with strong opinions, dubious bedfellows, political naivety and lots of enemies. Labour members were insane to make him leader.
    At the same time, I think there are a few positive lessons that Labour can take from his period as leader, especially the 2017 election campaign. If Starmer could communicate as effectively as Corbyn could and generate enthusiasm to the same degree (while not also turning others off) Labour will have a good election campaign.
    Labour are better off without him but at the same time kicking him out of the party just doesn't seem very nice. Maybe there's no room for niceness anymore.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544
    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Thanks - interesting!
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.

    He became party leader?
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,562
    Corbyn may have been a liability in 2019, but he wasn't obviously one in 2017, or not to anything like the same extent. I think the picture isn't nearly so simple as people often make it out.

    Starmer's heart is clearly with Corbynism, but his head knows that it is economically illiterate and, more importantly from his point of view, political poison. So he is stuck with a kind of lazy, bossy managerialism, under which the nanny state is the solution to the country's problems, and the private sector is just the cash cow that enables it. A recipe for an even more depressing stagnation and decline than we're currently suffering from.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,024
    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,921
    I don't think so. An election is a binary contest in this country. You don't have the luxury of being able to choose a designer party. For Corbyn to persuade a potential Labour or Tory voter to vote for the other you'd have to believe they had an influence. Starmer has ensured that isn't seen to be the case.

    Corbyn disciples like BJO can be measured in micro votes. Like the oddballs who voted Michael Howard because they didn't like Cherie
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    You say that but likely as not the rhinos will head out of the paddock, down the road, into the farm shop and gorge themselves on the artisanal bread for sale there.

    And then look what you'll have done.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    The thing you wilfully ignore is that we are already fucking around with our environment to its, and our, detriment by facilitating non native species to get established. In your utter ignorance you attack others for trying to prevent further destruction whilst you make fatuous and false claims about wanting to preserve the environment. You are deluded. Thankfully the vast majority of naturalists and experts realise how dumb your views are.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    You say that but likely as not the rhinos will head out of the paddock, down the road, into the farm shop and gorge themselves on the artisanal bread for sale there.

    And then look what you'll have done.
    Add it to the price of the rhino meat, when you sell it?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,254

    Sitting in Corbyn's shadow cabinet for three years needs to highlighted. It was inexcusable part from one consideration - Starmer's overarching ambition that allowed him to turn a blind eye to the anti-semitism running riot in his Party under LotO COrbyn.

    Unless he appoints Suella Braverman to be Home Secretary, he will never be as bad as Rishi in the cabinet member stakes
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    Surely it’s wolf-RE-introducer?

    After all they were native and it was humans who drove them to extinction
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,843

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    It is not a viable proposition for mainland UK (IMHO). One good suggestion was for introduction to some of the Scottish islands where the explosion of deer population has led to starvation and disease in the winter when bad weather has prevented culls. The studies have been done on this and show that a balance could be established with a pack of wolves reintroduced. But even there I think it is probably quite tenuous. On the mainland I think it is a non starter .
  • Options
    On topic.

    Corbyn fans please explain.
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    But you're (and I mean 'you' in the sense of humanity here; I'm not suggesting you personally have anything to do with it) fucking about with the environment by driving wolves to extinction in the first place. You're fucking about with the environment by reintroducing them. You're fucking about with the environment by allowing the arrival of grey squirrels (because presumably they wouldn't have got here without human help); you're fucking about with the environment by allowing them to remain, and you're fucking about with the environment by eradicating them. There's a touch of the trolley problem here. It's not the case that doing nothing is morally neutral and doing something is morally right or wrong.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    The thing you wilfully ignore is that we are already fucking around with our environment to its, and our, detriment by facilitating non native species to get established. In your utter ignorance you attack others for trying to prevent further destruction whilst you make fatuous and false claims about wanting to preserve the environment. You are deluded. Thankfully the vast majority of naturalists and experts realise how dumb your views are.
    So we should be fucking around with the environment according to your world view.

    Thankfully the vast majority of naturalists and experts have no fucking clue who you are or what you think about it all.
  • Options
    Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,791
    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Yellowstone is pretty big. Introducing wolves in mainland UK would be bonkers. People who claim that re-introducing species that have died out centuries before is "ecological" are scientifically illiterate. It is nothing more than a hobbyhorse, that invariably causes more problems than it solves. The only rational way to re-introduce species would be to also allow culling where populations explode. This would be opposed by those who believe that animal have "rights"
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048

    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.

    In my late teens I was involved with the Lynx programme at Riber Castle in Derbyshire. They helped with the very successful reintroduction scheme in the Vosges Mountains in France.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    The thing you wilfully ignore is that we are already fucking around with our environment to its, and our, detriment by facilitating non native species to get established. In your utter ignorance you attack others for trying to prevent further destruction whilst you make fatuous and false claims about wanting to preserve the environment. You are deluded. Thankfully the vast majority of naturalists and experts realise how dumb your views are.
    So we should be fucking around with the environment according to your world view.

    Thankfully the vast majority of naturalists and experts have no fucking clue who you are or what you think about it all.
    And you are back to your normal deranged ranting again. At least some things are consistent.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544
    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 596

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    But it may not deal with the wolf problem.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,032
    Just for Leon.

    term that will be socially important:

    botsexual — being primarily sexually attracted to AI

    have a pretty strong belief that a meaningful percentage of kids born today will end up being botsexual.

    the impact on birth rates in countries with GPUs are going to be pretty clear.

    https://twitter.com/alexandr_wang/status/1643082685315956736
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    Penddu2 said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
    I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    Surely it’s wolf-RE-introducer?

    After all they were native and it was humans who drove them to extinction
    Exactly. Apols and noted.
  • Options
    Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,791
    Driver said:

    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.

    He became party leader?
    He was only a comparative non-liability when no-one thought he could win, when most were predicting a TMay landslide. Corbyn was and is a joke. At his next attempt the electorate had to decide between two clowns for the most important position of power in the land, and they decided the slightly less stupid one was less of a threat.

    It was like having to chose malcolmg or Baldrick to lead your team on University Challenge.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,203
    Fishing said:

    Corbyn may have been a liability in 2019, but he wasn't obviously one in 2017, or not to anything like the same extent. I think the picture isn't nearly so simple as people often make it out.

    Starmer's heart is clearly with Corbynism, but his head knows that it is economically illiterate and, more importantly from his point of view, political poison. So he is stuck with a kind of lazy, bossy managerialism, under which the nanny state is the solution to the country's problems, and the private sector is just the cash cow that enables it. A recipe for an even more depressing stagnation and decline than we're currently suffering from.

    I think you are minimising the political distance between Corbyn and Starmer. Putting post-79 Labour leaders on a left to right axis I would have it Foot Corbyn Kinnock Miliband Starmer Brown Blair. I am sure that Starmer has noticed that the most right wing leader was the most electorally successful, too.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,014
    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,203

    Fishing said:

    Corbyn may have been a liability in 2019, but he wasn't obviously one in 2017, or not to anything like the same extent. I think the picture isn't nearly so simple as people often make it out.

    Starmer's heart is clearly with Corbynism, but his head knows that it is economically illiterate and, more importantly from his point of view, political poison. So he is stuck with a kind of lazy, bossy managerialism, under which the nanny state is the solution to the country's problems, and the private sector is just the cash cow that enables it. A recipe for an even more depressing stagnation and decline than we're currently suffering from.

    I think you are minimising the political distance between Corbyn and Starmer. Putting post-79 Labour leaders on a left to right axis I would have it Foot Corbyn Kinnock Miliband Starmer Brown Blair. I am sure that Starmer has noticed that the most right wing leader was the most electorally successful, too.
    I missed out Smith, sorry. I'd put him between Brown and Blair.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    But you're (and I mean 'you' in the sense of humanity here; I'm not suggesting you personally have anything to do with it) fucking about with the environment by driving wolves to extinction in the first place. You're fucking about with the environment by reintroducing them. You're fucking about with the environment by allowing the arrival of grey squirrels (because presumably they wouldn't have got here without human help); you're fucking about with the environment by allowing them to remain, and you're fucking about with the environment by eradicating them. There's a touch of the trolley problem here. It's not the case that doing nothing is morally neutral and doing something is morally right or wrong.
    Exactly. But then why single out grey squirrels vs red squirrels. Yes one is a carnivore one isn't (who knew) but that's just details.

    We have come to a place of eco-diversity and getting all het up about < 1/1,000,000,000th of it seems very strange no matter how cute and cuddly red squirrels may be.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.

    In my late teens I was involved with the Lynx programme at Riber Castle in Derbyshire. They helped with the very successful reintroduction scheme in the Vosges Mountains in France.
    You evidently got a taste for playing god.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Yellowstone is pretty big. Introducing wolves in mainland UK would be bonkers. People who claim that re-introducing species that have died out centuries before is "ecological" are scientifically illiterate. It is nothing more than a hobbyhorse, that invariably causes more problems than it solves. The only rational way to re-introduce species would be to also allow culling where populations explode. This would be opposed by those who believe that animal have "rights"
    We'd likely lose half as road-kill in the first year.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    But it may not deal with the wolf problem.
    Wolf problem deals with itself. Aside of the the odd runner (usually the slower fatter ones like me) they mostly don't eat people. Once they run out of deer their number drop...
  • Options

    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.

    I say why stop there?

    Africa has had it their own way with the lucrative safari market for too long, and our traditional "Big Five" (hedgehogs, robins, tabby cats, wombles, and chavs) just aren't pulling in the punters. We want to see a lion fighting a polar bear over the carcass of a yak, whilst majestic bald eagles circle overhead, all on Dudley high street. That's what people really meant when they voted for Brexit, and it's high time for politicians to deliver.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    Pretty awful grammar from me, I should know better. I apologise and will take myself outside and commit sepuku for offending the grammar police on an obscure political betting site.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    What "badger problem"? Not like they are insanely aggressive honey bagders. They do for hedgehogs, admittedly.

    If you are talking TB - it was the cattle that gave the badgers TB in the first place.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    What "badger problem"? Not like they are insanely aggressive honey bagders. They do for hedgehogs, admittedly.

    If you are talking TB - it was the cattle that gave the badgers TB in the first place.
    Bloody bad luck that so many badgers are killed just by the roadside.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    Pretty awful grammar from me, I should know better. I apologise and will take myself outside and commit sepuku for offending the grammar police on an obscure political betting site.

    As good a time and candidate as any to see how rhinos respond to human flesh.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187
    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    Shhhh! How very dare you. The Chatterati know it is Brexit - and Brexit alone.

    They are never wrong.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187
    edited April 2023

    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.

    I say why stop there?

    Africa has had it their own way with the lucrative safari market for too long, and our traditional "Big Five" (hedgehogs, robins, tabby cats, wombles, and chavs) just aren't pulling in the punters. We want to see a lion fighting a polar bear over the carcass of a yak, whilst majestic bald eagles circle overhead, all on Dudley high street. That's what people really meant when they voted for Brexit, and it's high time for politicians to deliver.
    As someone who voted for Brexit, I'd settle for a Remainer facing off with a sabre-toothed tiger.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    But it may not deal with the wolf problem.
    Wolf problem deals with itself. Aside of the the odd runner (usually the slower fatter ones like me) they mostly don't eat people. Once they run out of deer their number drop...
    What about Little Red Riding Hood's grandma?

    I have this strange feeling that the populist press will focus more on the few (slow, fat) ones they eat rather than the 68 million they don't.

    "They mostly don't eat people" is not a winning slogan for a new policy.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,014

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    Shhhh! How very dare you. The Chatterati know it is Brexit - and Brexit alone.

    They are never wrong.
    That’s what’s so annoying - the people who know what’s actually happening, but seem to take delight in blaming the British government for the pettiness of the EU and EU nations.

    As someone who could see both sides of the EU membership debate, and who decided quite late to vote Leave, the enthusiasm with which some in the commentariat seem to be enjoying every little problem really grates.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 596

    Penddu2 said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
    I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
    I refer you to my comment about efficiency - The US & Oz are still being checked albeit using the e-gates. Prior to Brexit they were also being checked but UK was not. I dont know why UK can not use e-gates - does anyone out there know (with facts not opinionated rhetoric?)
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    That's what my butcher writes when selling more than one rhino. Don't they all?

  • Options
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Thing is you are fucking around with our environment. You are making a decision to introduce something that was or wasn't here for one reason or another. Will no one think of the birch trees is of course an understandable rallying cry but it is quite a lot to ask you, wolf-introducer as you are, to manage the entire ecosystem as you and a couple of others, @Richard_Tyndall looking at you, seem to want to do.

    As though any one decision has no consequences on myriad different mini-ecosystems.

    Long live grey squirrels. And air rifles.
    But you're (and I mean 'you' in the sense of humanity here; I'm not suggesting you personally have anything to do with it) fucking about with the environment by driving wolves to extinction in the first place. You're fucking about with the environment by reintroducing them. You're fucking about with the environment by allowing the arrival of grey squirrels (because presumably they wouldn't have got here without human help); you're fucking about with the environment by allowing them to remain, and you're fucking about with the environment by eradicating them. There's a touch of the trolley problem here. It's not the case that doing nothing is morally neutral and doing something is morally right or wrong.
    "by allowing the arrival of grey squirrels" - this is the logical fallacy as grey squirrels haven't been allowed to arrive by anyone in the UK alive today. I know you caveated that you're talking about humanity not individuals but still, that's as bonkers as people talking about reparations for slavery.

    Grey squirrels may not have been native to the UK hundreds of years ago, but they've been in the UK for hundreds of years now. They're established in the UK now.

    Australia places strict restrictions on the introduction of foreign flora and fauna which makes sense because they have a unique ecosystem, and new arrivals there might have devastating effects like the arrival of rabbits did in the past.

    But as far as the grey squirrel is concerned in the UK, that barn door was left open hundreds of years ago now.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,478
    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    That's what my butcher writes when selling more than one rhino. Don't they all?

    I'm just trying to help improve the standards of grammar on PB.

    Your welcome.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369
    edited April 2023
    One man’s election liability is another man’s did better than his immediate predecessors.
    Isn’t it the case that even in his 2019 shellacking Corbyn received more votes than Blair in 2005, Brown in 2010 and Miliband in 2015?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    What "badger problem"? Not like they are insanely aggressive honey bagders. They do for hedgehogs, admittedly.

    If you are talking TB - it was the cattle that gave the badgers TB in the first place.
    Ask the hedgehogs. Although you can't as the badgers have eaten them all...
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048
    TOPPING said:

    Reintroducing wolves is unlikely because politicians will be wary of anyone getting injured/killed. It's a shame, because natural deer culling in this way would be a positive step.

    Another alternative I've head is introducing lynx.

    In my late teens I was involved with the Lynx programme at Riber Castle in Derbyshire. They helped with the very successful reintroduction scheme in the Vosges Mountains in France.
    You evidently got a taste for playing god.
    Nope. Just for actually doing something useful rather than sitting on the sidelines, scorning everything like you do.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438
    TOPPING said:

    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    That's what my butcher writes when selling more than one rhino. Don't they all?

    I'm just trying to help improve the standards of grammar on PB.

    Your welcome.
    You're.

    (Unless that was deliberate, in witch case it was to meta for me.)
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..

    There’s a suggestion on Twitter (I know) that the wet wipes ban is because they’re too visible a component in the sewagey sea in which we float.

    ‘Look, the water’s just a bit muddy, everything is fine.’
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Penddu2 said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
    Which seems to entirely ignore the first point. After all, we let EU citizens through our e-gates...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Ha, snap!
    SKS supporters please explain.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162
    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    I wasn’t spelling it out, but that would be one conclusion, yes
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,826

    Penddu2 said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
    I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
    Not many Americans and Australians crossing into France via Dover.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,048

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Perhaps anyone in the Labour party who actually wanted to win the election rather than just claim pointless bragging rights? How many votes Corbyn got was only one half of the equation. How many votes he drove into the arms of the Tory party was equally important. That is why he lost.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Some kind of double airlock perhaps?
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    Driver said:

    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.

    He became party leader?
    He was only a comparative non-liability when no-one thought he could win, when most were predicting a TMay landslide. Corbyn was and is a joke. At his next attempt the electorate had to decide between two clowns for the most important position of power in the land, and they decided the slightly less stupid one was less of a threat.

    It was like having to chose malcolmg or Baldrick to lead your team on University Challenge.
    Oh, indeed. How many stories from the doorsteps did we hear in 2017 of Labour canvassers saying "it's safe to vote for your local MP, you know he's a good guy and Corbyn isn't going to be PM"?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited April 2023
    Penddu2 said:


    I refer you to my comment about efficiency - The US & Oz are still being checked albeit using the e-gates. Prior to Brexit they were also being checked but UK was not. I dont know why UK can not use e-gates - does anyone out there know (with facts not opinionated rhetoric?)

    It's not quite as simple as 'US and Australian visitors can use EU eGates and UK citizens can't'. It actually varies. For example, in Germany, US and Australian visitors first have to enrol in the EasyPASS-RTP scheme:

    "You will then be asked to sign a form to confirm your voluntary participation in EasyPASS-RTP and consent to the storage of your personal data. Afterwards the Federal Police will check whether you meet the participation requirements by means of a questionnaire....
    ...
    [Using the E-gate:]
    After successful face recognition, registered travellers (RTs) from outside the EU - in contrast to the usual EasyPASS procedure - will see a special symbol and have to wait until a border guard opens the exit door.

    RTs have to move forward to the monitoring booth, which is located directly behind the EasyPASS gate.

    An officer will then check the additional entry requirements and stamp the passport."


    https://www.bundespolizei.de/EasyPass/EN/EasyPASS-RTP/rtp_node.html;jsessionid=36333294EA8D832A852F64F8FCBB4A35.2_cid334

    OTOH, UK visitors can use some French e-Gates (but still have to get the passport stamped).

    None of this is very relevant to the current problem at ports, of course.

    As to why the UK hasn't negotiated a deal with the EU, the question should be addressed to Boris Johnson primarily. It should of course have been negotiated as part of the Withdrawal Agreement, but since he wanted that agreed in three days without anyone reading it, he didn't.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Corbyn wasn't always an electoral liability. His remaining supporters on the left could do with a think about how he failed and became one.

    He became party leader?
    He was only a comparative non-liability when no-one thought he could win, when most were predicting a TMay landslide. Corbyn was and is a joke. At his next attempt the electorate had to decide between two clowns for the most important position of power in the land, and they decided the slightly less stupid one was less of a threat.

    It was like having to chose malcolmg or Baldrick to lead your team on University Challenge.
    Oh, indeed. How many stories from the doorsteps did we hear in 2017 of Labour canvassers saying "it's safe to vote for your local MP, you know he's a good guy and Corbyn isn't going to be PM"?
    None for me, but maybe I don’t hang out with Labour canvassers like wot you do.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    Pretty positive in Yellowstone.
    https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
    Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
    What "badger problem"? Not like they are insanely aggressive honey bagders. They do for hedgehogs, admittedly.

    If you are talking TB - it was the cattle that gave the badgers TB in the first place.
    Bloody bad luck that so many badgers are killed just by the roadside.
    Attenborough in Wild Isles said we have 25% of all the badgers in Europe. I found that quite a surprising statistic.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162
    Penddu2 said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
    Not true. You may not have been paying attention but the checks were happening

    Every time you enter Schengen your passport was scanned.

    Now it is done by an officer rather than on an automated gate (which aren’t really automated as an officer still verifies the photo) but do speed up the processing.

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..

    There’s a suggestion on Twitter (I know) that the wet wipes ban is because they’re too visible a component in the sewagey sea in which we float.

    ‘Look, the water’s just a bit muddy, everything is fine.’
    The reason for the delay in the ban is quite obvious to anyone who has had children - many, many people live with a pack of such wet wipes in The Bag, along with the muslin cloths and the bottles and....
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Ha, snap!
    SKS supporters please explain.
    Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump, for all the good it did her.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Perhaps anyone in the Labour party who actually wanted to win the election rather than just claim pointless bragging rights? How many votes Corbyn got was only one half of the equation. How many votes he drove into the arms of the Tory party was equally important. That is why he lost.
    Yes - my view of the last 40 years is that the size of the Tory vote is inversely proportional to the cuddliness of Labour. The actual Tory offer seems to have relatively little to do with it.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650
    TOPPING said:

    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    That's what my butcher writes when selling more than one rhino. Don't they all?

    I'm just trying to help improve the standards of grammar on PB.

    Your welcome.
    There is a tradition based case for simplification. The rule should be (I suggest) apostrophes may (not must) be used to indicate where letters have been omitted. (Haven't; fo'c'sle).

    Otherwise omit. So that the (sometimes cited as a nice test) "Haberdashers' Aske's Old Girls' Club"

    would read

    "Haberdashers Askes Old Girls Club"

    And we could, like the Latin speakers of old, work out singulars, plurals and genitives by experience and intuition.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,021
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.

    Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.

    The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.

    The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)

    Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
    Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 596
    My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit.
    It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.

    Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
  • Options

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.

    Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.

    The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.

    The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)

    Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
    Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
    How is it the Tories fault, it is what the public voted for. That's called democracy, why do you hate democracy?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,014
    Cookie said:

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Perhaps anyone in the Labour party who actually wanted to win the election rather than just claim pointless bragging rights? How many votes Corbyn got was only one half of the equation. How many votes he drove into the arms of the Tory party was equally important. That is why he lost.
    Yes - my view of the last 40 years is that the size of the Tory vote is inversely proportional to the cuddliness of Labour. The actual Tory offer seems to have relatively little to do with it.
    Blair only got 2m more voters than Kinnock before him - the big difference, and why there was a landslide, was the 4.5m 1992 Tories who stayed at home in 1997.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,021

    On Topic 12.9m voted for him.

    Tony Blair got less in his last GE.

    Gordon Brown got less

    EICIPM got less

    SKS will not get 12.9m IMO

    Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza

    Er, if Labour is to win a general election it needs a lot of non-Labour voters to vote for them.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,404
    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    Those rhino's go where they want. I want to see more!
    What the fuck's happening with that apostrophe.
    That's what my butcher writes when selling more than one rhino. Don't they all?

    apostrophes can be used to denote missing letters as well, e.g. fo'c's'le
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..

    There’s a suggestion on Twitter (I know) that the wet wipes ban is because they’re too visible a component in the sewagey sea in which we float.

    ‘Look, the water’s just a bit muddy, everything is fine.’
    The reason for the delay in the ban is quite obvious to anyone who has had children - many, many people live with a pack of such wet wipes in The Bag, along with the muslin cloths and the bottles and....
    Are we therefore entering a Children of Men age of childlessness?

    Incidentally the film was on the telly on Sunday night, I’d forgotten how good it is, probably only behind The Road and Threads in terms of bleakness.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..

    There’s a suggestion on Twitter (I know) that the wet wipes ban is because they’re too visible a component in the sewagey sea in which we float.

    ‘Look, the water’s just a bit muddy, everything is fine.’
    The reason for the delay in the ban is quite obvious to anyone who has had children - many, many people live with a pack of such wet wipes in The Bag, along with the muslin cloths and the bottles and....
    Can we possibly hear a shout for parents who use wet wipes all the time and don't stick them down the loo. (Oh, and grandparents, like me).

    This would be typical of legislation that makes life a little harder for the great innocent majority, some of them quite hard pressed, while making do-gooders feel better about themselves.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.

    Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.

    The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.

    The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)

    Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
    Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
    LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,544

    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, one wonders why the Conservative Home Secretaries over the last decade didn't act on this advice?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/04/child-abuse-keir-starmer-prosecute-professionals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    It might have also helped prosecute abusers like this gang.

    BBC News - Inquiry hears of abuse at Boris Johnson's school
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

    Or this cult like gang:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/18/winchester-college-christian-forum-society-report-child-abuse
    Have you opened a squirrel farm?
    I hope not, nasty little buggers.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65092730

    Can’t think why they’re protected. They’re an invasive species and there are far too bloody many of them.
    Red squirrels are protected
    So are greys. You can’t trap them or kill them except when they are actually inside the property. Which is demented.

    I’ve no objection to protecting red squirrels but arguably the best way to do that is to start killing off the grey interlopers.
    Grey's are (rightly) not very protected. The outlook for reds is not great.


    https://basc.org.uk/advice/basc-grey-squirrel-control/#:~:text=Grey squirrels have limited legal,methods including shooting and trapping.
    They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
    I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
    Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
    Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.

    The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.

    You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
    So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.

    Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
    I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.

    Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.

    Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
    So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
    Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."

    Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
    I'm in favour of wolf introduction.

    I want to farm rhino. If nothing else, this will solve the problem of the tiny minority of walkers who refuse to close gates and act sensibly in the countryside. The remaining 99.999% will then live in harmony with the farmers.
    That's an interesting debate. At present certain types of gate are up for removal in more accessible countryside because they block wheelchairs and similar.

    The preferred alternative is cattle grids, which are unlikely to block rhinos.

    So we design a gate that is rhino proof and wheel chair accessible.
    What about rhinos in wheelchairs? Never underestimate the craftiness of the rhino.
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    edited April 2023
    Penddu2 said:

    My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit.
    It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.

    Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.

    Nah. Brexit allowed it but didn't require it.

    As for your last point, Sunak's been doing a decent job of that lately.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,021
    edited April 2023

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.

    Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.

    The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.

    The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)

    Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
    Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
    How is it the Tories fault, it is what the public voted for. That's called democracy, why do you hate democracy?

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Driver said:

    @Sandpit FPT

    I travel extensively in Schengen.

    There are two problems:

    - firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers
    - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport
    - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer

    In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.

    So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…

    As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).

    So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
    It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
    Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!

    Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
    The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.

    Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.

    The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.

    The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)

    Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
    Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
    How is it the Tories fault, it is what the public voted for. That's called democracy, why do you hate democracy?
    Of course, they voted for it. They were pissed off, particularly with the arrogant and reckless posho who thought it’d be a good idea to put it to a vote.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)
    Sums up Tory administration (or perhaps just UK government).

    2018
    Wet wipes could face wipe-out in plastic clean-up
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44034025

    2021
    Call for evidence on commonly littered and problematic plastic items
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/call-for-evidence-on-commonly-littered-and-problem/

    2023
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65166859
    ...Wet wipes containing plastic will be banned in England under plans to tackle water pollution, environment minister Therese Coffey has told BBC News.
    The ban on plastic-based wipes should come into force in the next year following a consultation, Ms Coffey said..

    There’s a suggestion on Twitter (I know) that the wet wipes ban is because they’re too visible a component in the sewagey sea in which we float.

    ‘Look, the water’s just a bit muddy, everything is fine.’
    The reason for the delay in the ban is quite obvious to anyone who has had children - many, many people live with a pack of such wet wipes in The Bag, along with the muslin cloths and the bottles and....
    Are we therefore entering a Children of Men age of childlessness?

    Incidentally the film was on the telly on Sunday night, I’d forgotten how good it is, probably only behind The Road and Threads in terms of bleakness.
    It's a tradeoff between harassed mums tying to get along and environmental issues.

    Hmmm we should have a system for trading off one issue against another. Perhaps have a bunch of people, selected by the population.....
This discussion has been closed.