This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/national-wildlife-unit-to-cl...
Just when you think the government couldn't make you despise them any more, they manage to raise the bar.
jcm
Just when you think the government couldn't make you despise them any more, they manage to raise the bar.
jcm
17
3
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Don't know if you saw my post re osprey trapping earlier in the week, but this is very much a symptom of a wider attitude toward environmental protection
Don't know if you saw my post re osprey trapping earlier in the week, but this is very much a symptom of a wider attitude toward environmental protection
3
So just in the last couple of weeks, the country landowners have extracted from the government, permission to 'drain' their land however they see fit without need to think about the consequences for others, and the abandonment of the Police wildlife crime unit so their gamekeepers can shoot or poison Hen Harriers without risking prosecution.
Yep, we're all in this together.
Yep, we're all in this together.
8
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
This government's view of wildlife is utterly f*cking depressing. Little wonder when our country elects grouse shooting, fox hunting, badger culling tossers.
This government's view of wildlife is utterly f*cking depressing. Little wonder when our country elects grouse shooting, fox hunting, badger culling tossers.
8
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: the amount of money involved in this is so small, and the ability to secure a conviction so remote, that it probably won't make a big difference to the success rate in wildlife crime prosecution, however what it does do is send a very clear message to the large estate owners that this government has " got your back". Together with the progressive de-fanging of the statutory conservation bodies, the biggest impact will probably be the diversion of resources by voluntary organisations to investigation and prosecution that should be spent on proactive habitat improvements.
6
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
C*nts. I tried to add something more constructive than that but of late all I get when I think of the assholes destroying this country is a little bit of sick in my throat.
jk
> Just when you think the government couldn't make you despise them any more, they manage to raise the bar.
C*nts. I tried to add something more constructive than that but of late all I get when I think of the assholes destroying this country is a little bit of sick in my throat.
jk
10
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
As I understand it that unit has always had to stagger from review to review.
Perhaps if they promised to only go after poachers they might get the cash
As I understand it that unit has always had to stagger from review to review.
Perhaps if they promised to only go after poachers they might get the cash
1
1
In reply to jkarran:
Also tried hard to say something, but all my sentences kept having the c-word in them.
> C*nts. I tried to add something more constructive than that but of late all I get when I think of the assholes destroying this country is a little bit of sick in my throat.
> jk
Also tried hard to say something, but all my sentences kept having the c-word in them.
3
1
In reply to Jim Lancs:
Don't believe all the shite that you read in the press or bow too far to your own prejudices!
A huge part of the drive behind the campaigning to allow more freedom on "drainage" or flood control was due to frustration about the insane amount of red tape that surrounded the simplest of works to alleviate flooding that affected others.
> So just in the last couple of weeks, the country landowners have extracted from the government, permission to 'drain' their land however they see fit without need to think about the consequences for others,
Don't believe all the shite that you read in the press or bow too far to your own prejudices!
A huge part of the drive behind the campaigning to allow more freedom on "drainage" or flood control was due to frustration about the insane amount of red tape that surrounded the simplest of works to alleviate flooding that affected others.
2
8
8
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
WTF is rightwingspeak?
Life and politics would be a lot better without such lazy political sterotyping!
> Ah yes, 'red tape'. Rightwingspeak for 'protecting the rights of others'.
> jcm
WTF is rightwingspeak?
Life and politics would be a lot better without such lazy political sterotyping!
5
9
In reply to timjones:
Much of that "insane" red tape is in place to prevent isolated land owners, or groups of land owners acting in their own short term self interest at the expense of both the wider catchments and downstream communities. It is unreasonable to expect these people to fully understand these wider implications, but the government was keen to be seen to do something in the face of the unprecedented flooding of the last few years. By giving individual landowners free reign it has silenced a vociferous group who are usually supportive of their policies, but at the expense of endangering long term flood resilience.
In a nutshell, the government are hoping that extreme events are relatively rare and that the chances of a recurrence relatively (I stress relatively) unlikely, so these landowners can make short term improvements to agricultural productivity at the expense of wider environmental benefits, and hopefully, the repercussions of these local, isolated decisions won't be felt until the key players are no longer involved. unfortunately the climatic changes we are seeing probably mean that most of the old once in a fifty/ hundred/ thousand year flood models and predictions used are woefully over optimistic
But this thread is about environmental crime, not environmental stupidity
Much of that "insane" red tape is in place to prevent isolated land owners, or groups of land owners acting in their own short term self interest at the expense of both the wider catchments and downstream communities. It is unreasonable to expect these people to fully understand these wider implications, but the government was keen to be seen to do something in the face of the unprecedented flooding of the last few years. By giving individual landowners free reign it has silenced a vociferous group who are usually supportive of their policies, but at the expense of endangering long term flood resilience.
In a nutshell, the government are hoping that extreme events are relatively rare and that the chances of a recurrence relatively (I stress relatively) unlikely, so these landowners can make short term improvements to agricultural productivity at the expense of wider environmental benefits, and hopefully, the repercussions of these local, isolated decisions won't be felt until the key players are no longer involved. unfortunately the climatic changes we are seeing probably mean that most of the old once in a fifty/ hundred/ thousand year flood models and predictions used are woefully over optimistic
But this thread is about environmental crime, not environmental stupidity
15
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
And before we know it DC will have pissed so many people off they will stupidly take it out on him in the referendum and thereby hand him even more power to take the piss.
And before we know it DC will have pissed so many people off they will stupidly take it out on him in the referendum and thereby hand him even more power to take the piss.
1
In reply to toad:
Unfortunately it also makes it hard work for landowners to do simple but obvious things like raise flood banks that have subsided back up to their correct levels.
Sadly there are far too many out there that are keen to throw stones based on their own political leanings and prejudices rather than the realities of the situation. The title of this thread is probably a good example, the comments section of the Guardian article is sadly even worse.
> Much of that "insane" red tape is in place to prevent isolated land owners, or groups of land owners acting in their own short term self interest at the expense of both the wider catchments and downstream communities. It is unreasonable to expect these people to fully understand these wider implications, but the government was keen to be seen to do something in the face of the unprecedented flooding of the last few years. By giving individual landowners free reign it has silenced a vociferous group who are usually supportive of their policies, but at the expense of endangering long term flood resilience.
> In a nutshell, the government are hoping that extreme events are relatively rare and that the chances of a recurrence relatively (I stress relatively) unlikely, so these landowners can make short term improvements to agricultural productivity at the expense of wider environmental benefits, and hopefully, the repercussions of these local, isolated decisions won't be felt until the key players are no longer involved. unfortunately the climatic changes we are seeing probably mean that most of the old once in a fifty/ hundred/ thousand year flood models and predictions used are woefully over optimistic
> But this thread is about environmental crime, not environmental stupidity
Unfortunately it also makes it hard work for landowners to do simple but obvious things like raise flood banks that have subsided back up to their correct levels.
Sadly there are far too many out there that are keen to throw stones based on their own political leanings and prejudices rather than the realities of the situation. The title of this thread is probably a good example, the comments section of the Guardian article is sadly even worse.
2
6
In reply to john arran:
That's just one of the joys of democracy. Everyone gets a vote regardless of whether they are sensible enough to make wise use of it or not ;(
> And before we know it DC will have pissed so many people off they will stupidly take it out on him in the referendum and thereby hand him even more power to take the piss.
That's just one of the joys of democracy. Everyone gets a vote regardless of whether they are sensible enough to make wise use of it or not ;(
2
In reply to timjones:
And equally sadly there are people out there who will try to defend the indefensible disgusting actions of this government on the basis of their own political leanings.
> Sadly there are far too many out there that are keen to throw stones based on their own political leanings and prejudices rather than the realities of the situation. The title of this thread is probably a good example, the comments section of the Guardian article is sadly even worse.
And equally sadly there are people out there who will try to defend the indefensible disgusting actions of this government on the basis of their own political leanings.
6
3
In reply to john arran:
Can you explain this post please?
> And before we know it DC will have pissed so many people off they will stupidly take it out on him in the referendum and thereby hand him even more power to take the piss.
Can you explain this post please?
1
In reply to timjones:
Doesn't make it impossible, though, and it helps to ensure that the job is done properly. It may also so be that the old subsided flood bank is better as it is - flood policy is subject to review, and though it's hard on the individual landowner, it may be better to flood a recently drilled winter wheat field than to reinstate the floodbank levels and perhaps increase the chances of flooding downstream. Hydrological processes are generally too complex to be left to small scale local fixes. I've seen some of the modelling software running and making tiny seemingly innocuous changes upstream can have a big impact lower down.
Having said that nothing would have mitigated the recent extreme events, not dredging, not building flood banks, not planting trees on grouse moors.
> Unfortunately it also makes it hard work for landowners to do simple but obvious things like raise flood banks that have subsided back up to their correct levels.
Doesn't make it impossible, though, and it helps to ensure that the job is done properly. It may also so be that the old subsided flood bank is better as it is - flood policy is subject to review, and though it's hard on the individual landowner, it may be better to flood a recently drilled winter wheat field than to reinstate the floodbank levels and perhaps increase the chances of flooding downstream. Hydrological processes are generally too complex to be left to small scale local fixes. I've seen some of the modelling software running and making tiny seemingly innocuous changes upstream can have a big impact lower down.
Having said that nothing would have mitigated the recent extreme events, not dredging, not building flood banks, not planting trees on grouse moors.
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
That's one of the pitfalls of party politics, some people appear to view it as the equivalent of supporting a football or rugby team. You pick one and sling insults at the other ;(
> And equally sadly there are people out there who will try to defend the indefensible disgusting actions of this government on the basis of their own political leanings.
That's one of the pitfalls of party politics, some people appear to view it as the equivalent of supporting a football or rugby team. You pick one and sling insults at the other ;(
5
In reply to timjones:
Surely this this is the point? By raising banks flooding becomes someone elses problem downstream (probably an urban area) the landowner has more productive fields but screws the rest of the catchment. previously a more integrated flood policy would consider this and it may be that its better to let a few fields flood then a town downstream. I'd class this as sensible joined up thinking rather then red tape
Surely this this is the point? By raising banks flooding becomes someone elses problem downstream (probably an urban area) the landowner has more productive fields but screws the rest of the catchment. previously a more integrated flood policy would consider this and it may be that its better to let a few fields flood then a town downstream. I'd class this as sensible joined up thinking rather then red tape
5
In reply to toad:
I'm talking about farmers that are remarkably upbeat about having their own crops flooded who want to repair floodbanks that defend towns and villages. It's rather sad that so many see landowners in such a poor light. Why should they do anything to help such a bitter and cynical public?
As for flood policy been subject to review, I'd suggest that one of the problems we are currently facing it that it wasn't adequately reviewed for far too long and we're left trying to solve a huge backlog of problems.,
> Doesn't make it impossible, though, and it helps to ensure that the job is done properly. It may also so be that the old subsided flood bank is better as it is - flood policy is subject to review, and though it's hard on the individual landowner, it may be better to flood a recently drilled winter wheat field than to reinstate the floodbank levels and perhaps increase the chances of flooding downstream. Hydrological processes are generally too complex to be left to small scale local fixes. I've seen some of the modelling software running and making tiny seemingly innocuous changes upstream can have a big impact lower down.
> Having said that nothing would have mitigated the recent extreme events, not dredging, not building flood banks, not planting trees on grouse moors.
I'm talking about farmers that are remarkably upbeat about having their own crops flooded who want to repair floodbanks that defend towns and villages. It's rather sad that so many see landowners in such a poor light. Why should they do anything to help such a bitter and cynical public?
As for flood policy been subject to review, I'd suggest that one of the problems we are currently facing it that it wasn't adequately reviewed for far too long and we're left trying to solve a huge backlog of problems.,
1
In reply to ebdon:
I'm getting the impression that you may not have met and talked to many farmers who regularly accept floodwater onto their land in order to protect urban areas. All that many of them ask in return is the ability to keep floodwater out when it isn't necessary to flood their crops.
> Surely this this is the point? By raising banks flooding becomes someone elses problem downstream (probably an urban area) the landowner has more productive fields but screws the rest of the catchment. previously a more integrated flood policy would consider this and it may be that its better to let a few fields flood then a town downstream. I'd class this as sensible joined up thinking rather then red tape
I'm getting the impression that you may not have met and talked to many farmers who regularly accept floodwater onto their land in order to protect urban areas. All that many of them ask in return is the ability to keep floodwater out when it isn't necessary to flood their crops.
2
1
In reply to aln:
I don't think it needs much explanation. People have a habit of using any electoral event not for the purpose intended but to register their disapproval with the current leader or unrelated policy decisions. DC apparently supports staying in the EU but it's not unlikely that some people could vote Out simply because DC says he wants to stay in, not because they really want out.
Once out of the EU the UK would (in some cases at least) no longer need to comply with many EU agreements and would be free to adopt more extreme legislation unpalatable to the majority of EU countries' governments.
> Can you explain this post please?
I don't think it needs much explanation. People have a habit of using any electoral event not for the purpose intended but to register their disapproval with the current leader or unrelated policy decisions. DC apparently supports staying in the EU but it's not unlikely that some people could vote Out simply because DC says he wants to stay in, not because they really want out.
Once out of the EU the UK would (in some cases at least) no longer need to comply with many EU agreements and would be free to adopt more extreme legislation unpalatable to the majority of EU countries' governments.
5
In reply to timjones:
Indeed I haven't, I do know lot's of leople in urban areas who have been flooded this winter.
Not that either is really relevant all I'm saying is some form of integrated catchment management is a good thing (plus the associated regulations) rather then a free for all.
Basically im trying to say but was being to polite that cutting red tape normally = screwing the envronment to the benefit of developers/landowners weather that be flooding or wildlife
Indeed I haven't, I do know lot's of leople in urban areas who have been flooded this winter.
Not that either is really relevant all I'm saying is some form of integrated catchment management is a good thing (plus the associated regulations) rather then a free for all.
Basically im trying to say but was being to polite that cutting red tape normally = screwing the envronment to the benefit of developers/landowners weather that be flooding or wildlife
Post edited at 16:11
2
In reply to timjones:
Did you not read what you quoted? It specifically addresses that and says "yes, maybe a few farmers will need to have their fields flood in order to prevent much greater damage downstream".
Secondly if farmers want to be cowboys - how about they stop receiving government subsidies for land use too. Then we'll see how much fun it is not to work co-operatively...
> I'm getting the impression that you may not have met and talked to many farmers who regularly accept floodwater onto their land in order to protect urban areas. All that many of them ask in return is the ability to keep floodwater out when it isn't necessary to flood their crops.
Did you not read what you quoted? It specifically addresses that and says "yes, maybe a few farmers will need to have their fields flood in order to prevent much greater damage downstream".
Secondly if farmers want to be cowboys - how about they stop receiving government subsidies for land use too. Then we'll see how much fun it is not to work co-operatively...
1
1
In reply to john arran:
It helps.
People have a habit of using any electoral event not for the purpose intended but to register their disapproval with the current leader
I know
DC apparently supports staying in the EU
That's surprised me. Is it some kinda double double bluff??
> I don't think it needs much explanation.
It helps.
People have a habit of using any electoral event not for the purpose intended but to register their disapproval with the current leader
I know
DC apparently supports staying in the EU
That's surprised me. Is it some kinda double double bluff??
1
In reply to aln:
I think he is just aware of the risk it poses to the economy.
> That's surprised me. Is it some kinda double double bluff??
I think he is just aware of the risk it poses to the economy.
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
So there's a bit of a shortage of lolly and HMG decides to close a department.
This makes them wildlife killers?
There's some idiocy being spouted on this thread, same as the rabid anti-Zionist ranting thread a couple of days ago.
So there's a bit of a shortage of lolly and HMG decides to close a department.
This makes them wildlife killers?
There's some idiocy being spouted on this thread, same as the rabid anti-Zionist ranting thread a couple of days ago.
1
9
In reply to toad:
I suspect that if the UK does leave the EU, the protection for species & habitats will be watered down to almost nothing quite quickly. At least the Tories will try although its possible that the membership of bodies such as the NT & RSPB may make them think twice
I suspect that if the UK does leave the EU, the protection for species & habitats will be watered down to almost nothing quite quickly. At least the Tories will try although its possible that the membership of bodies such as the NT & RSPB may make them think twice
3
In reply to Rigid Raider:
I'm sure you're just trolling or haven't thought about this much...
Not supporting proper investigation or prosecution of wildlife crimes makes it easier for wildlife killers. And the funding is negligible, but it being cut is symptomatic of the attitude that the tories display to wildlife protection in the UK.
> So there's a bit of a shortage of lolly and HMG decides to close a department.
> This makes them wildlife killers?
I'm sure you're just trolling or haven't thought about this much...
Not supporting proper investigation or prosecution of wildlife crimes makes it easier for wildlife killers. And the funding is negligible, but it being cut is symptomatic of the attitude that the tories display to wildlife protection in the UK.
Post edited at 16:30
1
In reply to aln:
Sounds contradictory doesn't it? Certainly he would have a much easier time pushing through unpopular legislation if he didn't have to be concerned with being broadly in line with other European government policies. I can only think he must be very concerned of being remembered for evermore as having presided over the most disastrous political move in UK modern history!
> DC apparently supports staying in the EU
> That's surprised me. Is it some kinda double double bluff??
Sounds contradictory doesn't it? Certainly he would have a much easier time pushing through unpopular legislation if he didn't have to be concerned with being broadly in line with other European government policies. I can only think he must be very concerned of being remembered for evermore as having presided over the most disastrous political move in UK modern history!
2
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Environmentalist/scientists/nature lovers are not much better.
A story from St Helena (taken from wiki so may be incorrect)
The giant earwig was the largest in the world. Truly a terrifying beast for those who fear earwigs, it was between two and three inches long. The species was made extinct by researchers who literally collected them all!
Environmentalist/scientists/nature lovers are not much better.
A story from St Helena (taken from wiki so may be incorrect)
The giant earwig was the largest in the world. Truly a terrifying beast for those who fear earwigs, it was between two and three inches long. The species was made extinct by researchers who literally collected them all!
3
In reply to Eeyore:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_earwig
You mean this wikipedia page which says nothing like the above?
jcm
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_earwig
You mean this wikipedia page which says nothing like the above?
jcm
3
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Extinct s*&t makes me so sad
Here's a happy insect extinction story (so you don't have to go to bed too sad): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis
Extinct s*&t makes me so sad
Here's a happy insect extinction story (so you don't have to go to bed too sad): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis
In reply to Eeyore:
Link please
> Environmentalist/scientists/nature lovers are not much better.
> A story from St Helena (taken from wiki so may be incorrect)
> The giant earwig was the largest in the world. Truly a terrifying beast for those who fear earwigs, it was between two and three inches long. The species was made extinct by researchers who literally collected them all!
Link please
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
I don't think you read what I quoted! It clearly suggested that farmers were trying to prevent their crops from flooding at the expense of urban areas. My point is that most farmers accept floodwater when it is a necessity BUT in return they don't expect to be flooded when it isn't necessary due to neglect of flood defences.
> Did you not read what you quoted? It specifically addresses that and says "yes, maybe a few farmers will need to have their fields flood in order to prevent much greater damage downstream".
> Secondly if farmers want to be cowboys - how about they stop receiving government subsidies for land use too. Then we'll see how much fun it is not to work co-operatively...
I don't think you read what I quoted! It clearly suggested that farmers were trying to prevent their crops from flooding at the expense of urban areas. My point is that most farmers accept floodwater when it is a necessity BUT in return they don't expect to be flooded when it isn't necessary due to neglect of flood defences.
1
5
In reply to aln:
Remember he never wanted to have the referendum. He was forced into it and is now on his back foot doing negotiations he knows will be a nightmare.
> DC apparently supports staying in the EU
> That's surprised me. Is it some kinda double double bluff??
Remember he never wanted to have the referendum. He was forced into it and is now on his back foot doing negotiations he knows will be a nightmare.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Flood plains *are* flood defences.
If you build houses on flood plains, then don't be surprised when they get flooded...
Flood plains *are* flood defences.
If you build houses on flood plains, then don't be surprised when they get flooded...
1
In reply to Doug:
That's a good point. I've heard that a well coordinated campaign mobilising membership to write individual letters to MPs has way more impact than any number of petition/ 38 degrees type campaigns and mass mailings.
> I suspect that if the UK does leave the EU, the protection for species & habitats will be watered down to almost nothing quite quickly. At least the Tories will try although its possible that the membership of bodies such as the NT & RSPB may make them think twice
That's a good point. I've heard that a well coordinated campaign mobilising membership to write individual letters to MPs has way more impact than any number of petition/ 38 degrees type campaigns and mass mailings.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
But they should only be subjected to flooding when necessary. Why flood farmland when it is unecessary?
There is also an argument there about the wisdom of building houses on floodplains.
> Flood plains *are* flood defences.
But they should only be subjected to flooding when necessary. Why flood farmland when it is unecessary?
There is also an argument there about the wisdom of building houses on floodplains.
1
In reply to timjones:
The question is who decides if it unnecessary.
Which I believe was Toad's point about the flaw in getting rid of that awkward red tape.
> But they should only be subjected to flooding when necessary. Why flood farmland when it is unecessary?
The question is who decides if it unnecessary.
Which I believe was Toad's point about the flaw in getting rid of that awkward red tape.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: to get slightly more on topic, this popped up on my Facebook feed thingy
http://markavery.info/2016/02/03/hhs-in-bb/?platform=hootsuite
More on hen harrier persecution, inevitably
http://markavery.info/2016/02/03/hhs-in-bb/?platform=hootsuite
More on hen harrier persecution, inevitably
In reply to KevinD:
In the example that I cited of farmers being unable to maintain the level of existing flood defences this isn't an issue. Maintaining defences at existing levels merely maintains the status quo that has worked for many years. Without that ability farmland gets flooded without delivering extra benefits elsewhere.
I'll have to go back and check when time permits but I have a feeling that the change in regulation was nowhere near as far reaching as has been suggested by those who are using it to have a pop at the government.
> The question is who decides if it unnecessary.
In the example that I cited of farmers being unable to maintain the level of existing flood defences this isn't an issue. Maintaining defences at existing levels merely maintains the status quo that has worked for many years. Without that ability farmland gets flooded without delivering extra benefits elsewhere.
> Which I believe was Toad's point about the flaw in getting rid of that awkward red tape.
I'll have to go back and check when time permits but I have a feeling that the change in regulation was nowhere near as far reaching as has been suggested by those who are using it to have a pop at the government.
1
In reply to timjones:
You what? There's been no flooding in urban areas downhill of farmland in the last 'many years'?
> the status quo that has worked for many years.
You what? There's been no flooding in urban areas downhill of farmland in the last 'many years'?
1
In reply to timjones:
Worked for whom?
Just because flood defences were in place in the past doesnt mean they were the best choice just that it was a decision made originally. Potentially by a group who didnt fully realise the implications elsewhere.
> In the example that I cited of farmers being unable to maintain the level of existing flood defences this isn't an issue. Maintaining defences at existing levels merely maintains the status quo that has worked for many years.
Worked for whom?
Just because flood defences were in place in the past doesnt mean they were the best choice just that it was a decision made originally. Potentially by a group who didnt fully realise the implications elsewhere.
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Why not read what I wrote rather than what you want to believe that I wrote?
In the example that I am talking about the farmland behind the bank flooded before the towns downstream, therefore reinstating the bank would have no effect on those towns.
Of course there are urban areas downstream of farmland that flood and sadly they continue to do so until we either build some hefty flood defences around them or learn how to push water uphill onto farmland.
> You what? There's been no flooding in urban areas downhill of farmland in the last 'many years'?
Why not read what I wrote rather than what you want to believe that I wrote?
In the example that I am talking about the farmland behind the bank flooded before the towns downstream, therefore reinstating the bank would have no effect on those towns.
Of course there are urban areas downstream of farmland that flood and sadly they continue to do so until we either build some hefty flood defences around them or learn how to push water uphill onto farmland.
1
In reply to KevinD:
If there is a good reason to change the levels of flood defences fair enough, but that is a very different scenario to allowing existing defences to deteriorate through neglect. There would be uproar if the same approach was adopted to defences around urban areas.
> Worked for whom?
> Just because flood defences were in place in the past doesnt mean they were the best choice just that it was a decision made originally. Potentially by a group who didnt fully realise the implications elsewhere.
If there is a good reason to change the levels of flood defences fair enough, but that is a very different scenario to allowing existing defences to deteriorate through neglect. There would be uproar if the same approach was adopted to defences around urban areas.
1
1
In reply to toad:
just call it what it is- Establishment corruption: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/national-wildlife-unit-to-cl...
> the amount of money involved in this is so small, and the ability to secure a conviction so remote, that it probably won't make a big difference to the success rate in wildlife crime prosecution, however what it does do is send a very clear message to the large estate owners that this government has " got your back". Together with the progressive de-fanging of the statutory conservation bodies, the biggest impact will probably be the diversion of resources by voluntary organisations to investigation and prosecution that should be spent on proactive habitat improvements.
just call it what it is- Establishment corruption: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/national-wildlife-unit-to-cl...
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
There's a petition here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118005
There's a petition here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118005
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...