Jenny1

Fingers crossed - appears to be OK now

Hi Anyone else with water supply problems in Melbourne Grove area?

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep eyes and ears open for the arrival of the > swifts... must be any day now, I hope. Here's my > list of the first recorded swifts in ED since 2011 > (from the forum and my own observations): > 2011 ? May 9 > 2012 ? May 1 > 2013 ? May 17 > 2014 ? May 8 > 2015 ? May 9 > 2016 ? May 4 > 2017 ? May 6 > 2018 ? May 7 > 2019 ? May 8 > 2020 ? May 6 > 2021 ? May 9 May 9th - 08:15 swifts ahoy!

Another recommendation for Maurice. I always call on him to fix plumbing problems. He's very competent, well-priced and incredibly good-humoured.

The swifts are back! It was very welcome to hear them this morning.

Thanks for that. So to raise issues on national food distribution email [email protected]

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I emailed Mike Coupe yesterday as it is impossible > to get through on the phone. No response, of > course! I think it might be better to be emailing the minister in charge of food, Theresa Villiers. This is a problem that requires central government co-ordination. Email below. [email protected]

.

I guess it's not unusual for people posting on internet forums to misunderstand each other. But I am still struggling a little with your meaning. I don't think anyone would claim that, as yet, we have a fully functioning crystal ball that allows us to see the future. To establish 'facts' about the future if you will. But of course that doesn't mean there's no value in forecasting and planning accordingly. If you believe the Yellowhammer warnings to be significant (while being clear that they are forecasts rather than facts), then that surely means you take them seriously. I also wouldn't claim they are 'facts', but I would say they are professionally produced forecasts that should be heeded. This presumably means we agree about that? Would I also be right in thinking that we agree that the 'Singapore Model' is not a particularly useful or desirable one for the UK to aspire to?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >You've got some balls. Thank you. We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though. I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as being part of a complete debate. So I read the article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of his belief that we should not take the Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the future of the UK - that's what I believe in - rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on the other hand, did not see it that way. You wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as significant, while being careful not to express approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This isn't really a cause for outrage, is it?

OK. I see you did reference Keano77's dismissive comments about Yellow Hammer. But Keano77 had just above reinforced his argument with a link to the Singapore Model article. Does this mean that you put little store by the Yellow Hammer warnings, and agree with Keano77 on that, but disagree with his approval of the Singapore Model of Brexit? If so, fair enough, but you didn't make that clear. If you disapprove of the Singapore Model, what are your reasons for doing so, and what would your alternative model be?

I don't need to look back very far TheCat. You referred approvingly above to what you regarded as the positive 'facts' referenced by Keano77 in the article he posted about the benefits of a 'Singapore Model'.

I agree that most of the current 'debate' (if you can even call it that) has no basis in reality, it's more like a concocted fever dream. But actually I think it's important that we don't lump supporters of the Singapore Model, such as Keano77 and TheCat, into the same category as those, like Dulwich Fox, who favour the 'Swiss Model' of Soft Brexit. One of the problems with our current situation is the myth that all these radically contradictory models are, in some way, the same thing. That someone who favours shaking off the shackles of regulation is in some way 'on the same side' as someone who wants to live in a country that is tightly aligned with the EU, like Switzerland. That's one reason why none of the alternative scenarios is ever scrutinised adequately. Anyway, at least we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we are living through the most exciting period for constitutional law since the 1640s.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you think of this country goes down that road > it will be good for the ordinary joe do you? I don't think the welfare of the general population is of particular interest to Keano77 and TheCat, Sephiroth. It seems they favour a low wage, low tax, low regulation, minimal welfare model of Brexit. In that case one should have the courage of one's convictions and argue openly for a more unfettered form of capitalism, not neglecting to admit what the consequences for the vast majority of the population will be. Incidentally I don't think Dulwich Fox would agree with them. He favours the 'Swiss model' of soft Brexit.

The BMJ have published a paper calling for a comprehensive health impact assessment of 'No Deal' to more fully inform both public and politicians. https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5300