Minty

This is what I like to see - some common sense from those who know what they are talking about. http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/LettertoPrimeMinisterFeb14.pdf

And there is plenty of referenced evidence for it changing significantly: http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm It's actually a very interesting site in it's entirety, with solid scientific basis for all of the information.

Nice one.

My mate runs Transform Landscape Services: http://www.transformyourlandscape.co.uk/ Tell him Minty sent you.

I may, possibly, have been pulling your leg.

Tsk, bloody cyclists.

If it is a s106 payment then it is not PFC's to spend, it goes to the local authority. I'm not 100% certain that it would be a s106 payment yet though... we only have Catlin's words to interpret and I don't think there is any recommendation from the planning process yet.

What Catlin means is that PCC would ring-fence the cash from Robinson, to be used for improvements to Fratton Park. Whether that proves to be the case or not, only PCC could confirm. Section 106 agreements are basically ways that planning can go ahead where it might not otherwise do so, through a number of mechanisms, one of which being money being paid to the local authority. What they then do with it does not need to be specified as far as I am aware so presumably PCC have told PFC that they will ringfence it, but I wonder what guarantees there are. More info about s106's here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE

Am still using Unotelly with Beinsports with no problems at all, but then my IP address remains the same, and doesn't change, so it probably doesn't get highlighted like others who change often as part of their service?

Maybe we should get back on topic? I realise we'll still have the pathetic insults and childish behaviour, but at least it'll be back on topic... lol. P.S. GM - it can't be healthy to be so angry at people on an internet forum.

This thread is utterly pointless now, except for GM to copy and paste stuff without any intention of backing it up or debating it properly. I even tried to PM him to ask why he doesn't do so, and why he completely direspects everyone else, but apart from telling me that he'd respect me when I respected him (and a look back at the whole thread clearly shows that I've always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to join a debate), he pretty much ignored me again. So I'm left with only one conclusion, that he is on some kind of wind-up. Anyone with a genuine interest in wanting to change others views on a subject would take more care and interest in debating points to try and sway opinion. Anyone with half a brain (yes, I've finally lowered myself to his level) would realise that to take his approach and just fire off childish insults to anyone who tries to engage with you, has pretty much lost the argument already... you can't have a discussion like this on a child/adult level, it needs to be adult/adult, but while he behaves this way it's pointless. It also devalues some of the other posters who try to engage in debate but find the conversation diluted by it. SO I think we've moved way beyond debating whether climate change might be human-influenced or not, and now the issue is more about what exactly is GM's agenda, or even just his reason for posting so incessantly?

Why do you do this? I misread something, and apologised. Are you so perfect that you've never misread or misunderstood anything in your life?

I see they've has fallen for the same misguided information about dredging that I referred to earlier. And he gets mainstream time on telly to spread it. Marvellous.

I misread your post, so I will apologise for that. But, once again, why the need to be such an offensive, arrogant, antagonistic arse?

Irrespective of anyones opinion, it's not exactly uncommon for a political party to want it's cabinet members to agree with the party's core policy, whether red, blue, yellow, green or anyone else. The fact their core policy on this also happens to correspond with the scientific consensus is actually not a bad thing, given that most policies aren't based on scientific consensus. I realise you'll now comment on the fact that it's NOT scientific consensus in your opinion, but there's little point in going there seeing as we know we disagree on that, but on the party's actions, I don't see anything that far removed from what most other parties would think about their cabinet members agreeing with their own core policies.

Blame doesn't help anything or anyone, I agree. Usually it is the result of people who can't resolve their feelings of anger and frustration, and needing to channel it somewhere, but it is always unhelpful and unproductive. But that's not to say we could and should be better prepared and must learn the lessons from what has happened and put plans in place to deal with such extremes in the future. There is a strong economic case for it too in the medium- to long-term. Any perceived saving from cutting back at the EA (and other places) is soon wiped out by the cost of recovery and relief efforts when events such as this happen.

I don't think now is the right time for political arguments, but the one thing I do know is that the most significant cuts in staffing and budget at the EA have come since around 2007/8. My wife's contract was not extended and since she left, she has remained in contact with many people she knew at the EA. The team she was a part of has been MORE than HALVED in numbers since then. Projects have been shelved, priorities have massively changed so that short-termism prevails, those she knows who still work there have all, to a man, expressed their dismay at the way things have gone. That may well have happened no matter who was in government, and I'm not going to sit here and start blaming the Tories specifically because I'm not confident Labour would've been that different. IMO, ALL the main parties MASSIVELY undervalue the EA and other Government agencies (not to mention the NHS) who need long-term thinking and support - the Govts seem only able to think in 4/5 year chunks, and flood defences and environmental policy as a whole needs to be much longer term than that. It's just another consequence of the short-termism that will, IMO, ruin us in many ways.

Ironically then, Chambers and Clyne's recent switching (admittedly due primarily to injuries) could actually be what holds them back. Had one or the other had a clear run in the side, they might have been better placed.

What would almost be more interesting is if anyone corrected denmeadblue after that post...? If not, then I would be worried* how many more think that way. * - I actually wouldn't, I'd laugh my tits off.

Apologies, I didn't realise my words were going to be analysed quite so closely... I didn't mean that it would play no part at all, but I was countering the widely held belief by many (e.g. Facebook groups like this: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Floods-Dredge-the-Somerset-Levels/412818108804401) that dredging was 'the answer'. I should've said 'It's been well documented now that dredging ALONE doesn't really help in the long term'. Sorry for the confusion. Looking beyond the mainstream media, articles like this are common: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25030-dredging-would-not-have-stopped-massive-uk-floods.html And what is needed is more education, like this simple slideshow that explains about the effectiveness of dredging in simple terms: http://www.bidfordonavon-pc.gov.uk/pdfs/notices/dredgingpres.pdf - putting some of that in the newspapers would help educate the masses. You clearly know more about all this than the average person - my concern is with those who either don't want to read for themselves, or who are easily led by those who shout loudest even if they're wrong.

Is that the crux of it? That you think my concern for the future sustainability of my own children, is entertaining? If you'd read more closely over my posts, rather than dumping anyone who disagrees with you into the 'alarmist' box, I am all for evidence-based decision making, and would be absolutely ecstatic if many of the things you purport to be true, were proven to be true. But as has also been referenced many times, without clear evidence to the contrary, I believe that a precautionary principle is a sensible approach until we know more (if we will ever know enough). I have always tried to debate this in a reasonable manner, as have many others to differing degrees, whilst you have only ever maintained a derogatory, condescending, arrogant manner. I know I'll get the same response as always to this, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. But I'll try... and perhaps we could start by going back to my question, even if we change it a little to accommodate your post. What do you think we should be doing to better prepare ourselves for whatever climate changes we might face in the future? How do we help ensure the sustainability of the human race? Should we at all?

So GM, why do you think they came up with the idea? For a laugh? To see how much public money they could spunk away as part of some kind of dare? And just because we have flooding now, do you think we'll never have potential droughts in the future? Whether man-made or not, the increasingly changing climate is likely to lead to more of these weather extremes IMO, so how do we prepare for that? Or do we do nothing? What's your proposal?

Lets not turn yet another genuine issue into a political exercise in 'black or white'. The rain we have had is clearly extraordinary and a lot of people have suffered and will suffer as a result. Yes, some areas are clearly at higher risk than others, but no one predicted this much rain in this short a time period and so we have a fairly unprecedented scenario. For me, the response should simply start with trying to help as many people with genuine needs as possible to protect their homes and properties in the short term. Then, and only then, look at the longer term implications for our policies and planning to mitigate for this more in the future. It's been well documented now that dredging doesn't really help in the long term (or even short and medium when we get this much rainfall), and what is needed (and what the EA have been trying to do for years, but no one really notices until something like this happens) is to put plans in place that provide longer-term, sustainable solutions that are cost-effective.

Steve Bruce after the game: ""Southampton are an excellent side. We had to be at our best and we weren't. We went too long and direct to our strikers too often. We have to be honest - the better team won."

Fleetwood equalised, so just the one place dropped, as Bristol Rovers climb above them. Bury 1 point behind with 2 games in hand, Torquay 4 points behind with 1 game in hand. Getting interesting.