badgerx16

The applicable definition depends on whether you are controlling a captive bred herd or a wild population.

Because it's relevant ? If the population of the 3rd world become as consumer obsessed as the 'civilsed' countries, all sorts of resources will be in short supply, China has already distorted minerals and metals markets. Demand for better diet, ( or in some cases a simple demand for food of any sort ), will drive the human population increasingly to encroach into 'wild' areas - after all isn't that what's driving jungle deforestation ? So on one level Packham is correct.

Many a true word......

I take it you include the current Government in that ? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ipcc-report-key-points-and-questions/ipcc-report-key-points-and-questions#are-humans-responsible "It is extremely likely that human activity is the dominant influence on climate change over the last 50 years and is responsible for more than half of the observed global temperature rise."

Roberto Martinez, Arsene Wenger, David Moyes, Jose Mourinho, and Brendan Rogers are sitting in a bar. Roberto Martinez buys the first round, Mourinho the second, and Wenger the third. When Rogers goes up for his turn he places a drink down in front of Jose, Roberto, and Arsene, but not David. "Where's mine ?" asks the Man Utd manager. "Sorry mate, this is the fourth round" comes the reply.

Depends on how much more of the rainforests is chopped down, and how much more pollution we stick in the oceans. True - ironically methane is quite 'important'.

Was a public holiday until 1859.

How do you reckon that to be the case ? Natural gas combustion produces less, ( about 25% less than petroleum; http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 ), but it's still well over 100 pounds of CO2 per million Btu.

Ultimately fracking is just another short term option - hydrocarbon fuels are getting harder and harder to extract, and whichever you choose they all contribute to carbon emissions. Fracking releases only a percentage of the theoretical 'reservoir' of gas, ( some estimates reckon as little as 10% of the theoretical volume ), and the more it is studied in the States, the more damaging it appears to be - to the extent that, for instance, Dallas has banned it ( http://rt.com/usa/dallas-passes-fracking-restrictions-178/ , http://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/ ). In Europe, the process is banned in France and effectively so in Germany ( in terms of shale gas extraction ), but then again Denmark, Holland, and Poland use it.

Nuclear power generation does not cause the direct environmental damage that fracking does. It is, unfortunately, a necessary stop gap as successive Governments have failed to drive the renewable agenda.

Quite right too. Unlike the Tory, middle-englander NIMBYs who oppose wind farms and other renewable energy schemes because they spoil the view.

Mid way between Blackpool & Lancaster in God's own county.

Clappers rejoice as Cortese's plans for Europe are back on track as Saints rewrite the form guide to defeat the Baggies 1-0, leading MoPo to say "As I predicted, there's one in the eye for all those 'realists' claiming that we need to buy at least 5 quality players to avoid relegation".

You've got more chance with lads of steering them into sensible 'hobbies' - football, Iron Maiden, etc, and this gives you the ideal excuse to indulge in what you want to do. The problem with daughters is that for some reason, probably genetic, they can override all of your natural resistance.

I'd expect to be bl00dy sure of the fact. In the de Menezes case a Police officer admitted deleting a computer log wherein Cressida D!ck, ( Gold Control ), told the teams tailing Jean Charles to back off as he was no longer 'of interest'.

That's OK if the target is visibly carrying a gun, but not when it's just a random bloke sitting on a tube train. What would your first impression be if somebody stood in front of you, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and with no identifying details, and pointed a gun at somebody ?

Still doesn't excuse their actions. Perhaps they should have shouted "SAS - stop !!!", that would have grabbed everybody's attention.

The Police spotted a man allegedly wearing a padded coat. They reckoned the weather was too warm for him to be wearing it and for some reason they thought it might be a bomb vest, - one of them claimed to see wires sticking out of it. They then claimed he jumped over the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube Station - which the CCTV proved to be false, and they followed him onto the carriage where one of them pulled out his gun, pointed it at the suspect, and fired. None of the witnesses in the carriage supported the officers' claim that a shouted warning had been ignored, it also seems that none of them supported the assertion that the gunmen, in an assortment of plain clothes, had identified themselves as armed Police officers.

There were massive errors of Police intelligence ( omymoron ? ) and in the top level decision making by the team led by Cressida D!ck - the Police action was fuelled by natural concern in the wake of the preceding events, but nontheless they overreacted. Their training is supposed to ensure mistakes aren't made. There was case in Chorley a couple of years ago where an officer tasered an "armed" suspect after a warning was ignored - the offender was a partially deaf man who's weapon was the white stick he used due to being almost blind.

Does Thunderbird not display connection messages ? Have you looked here - http://kb.mozillazine.org/Cannot_send_mail

Armed officer shoots an unarmed man in a packed train carriage without issuing a warning - the officer was responsible. However, armed officer shoots armed man after issuing a warning and seemingly being ignored - the officer was justified.

Despite the eye-witness evidence of every other passenger on the Underground carriage who said that the Police fired without challenging de Menezes http://www.standard.co.uk/news/graphic-eyewitness-accounts-emerged-at-menezes-inquest-6845941.html "None recalled hearing the officers identify themselves as police, and several spoke of their panic that the gunmen who entered their carriage might have been terrorists." " While the train was waiting, Mr de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician on his way to a job in north London, got on and sat down directly opposite Ms Wilson. A minute or so later shouts came from outside the carriage and a group of stocky gun-wielding men rushed on board. They were wearing jeans and T-shirts, and the couple at first assumed they were playing a game - albeit one that was in very bad taste considering the previous day's events. It also occurred to Ms Wilson that they could be terrorists. Mr Livock recalled that one of the gunmen silently pointed a pistol at the man in a denim jacket sitting opposite his girlfriend, who would later turn out to be Mr de Menezes. The Brazilian did not appear frightened but seemed to be waiting for someone to tell him what was happening, he said. Then all of a sudden the gunman started firing at Mr de Menezes and Mr Livock ran for one of the doors of the carriage."

My wife is wondering how much of it is staged by the production company.

A Grauniad counter piece : http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism Some response to comments by Lindzen ; http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

The fact that the trigger for the whole thing happened in Sarejevo shows exactly what was brewing ; the Austro-Hungarians were itching to take down Serbia - they assumed that their own alliance with Germany would deter Russia from supporting Serbia WHEN ( not IF ) such a conflict commenced. There were many other supporting factors, including imperialist control of Africa, and France's desire to reverse the loss of territory during the Franco-Prussian war. As it turned out a Serbian extremist killed a member of the Austrian monarchy, giving Austria the excuse they had been looking for - unfortunately for them Russia stood by her alliance, and consequently Germany did the same. France supported Russia, and the UK followed it's own defensive accord with the French. Appeasing Kaiser Bill would have had very little impact on the inevitable chain of events.