Blah Blah

It's a difficult one. Shopping areas need good transport links. Rye Lane however is a narrow road, with narrow pavements, with all these different users competing for space. I wonder if making the lane one way is an option? Pavement on one side could widened, with laybys for delivery vehicles and drop off points for taxis and station etc. I am a keen cyclist, but there are other routes I can take to bypass Rye Lane altogether, and I frequently use them now. It strikes me that any transport plan, prioritises the business that live in Rye lane. So that means anything that helps get shoppers to and around the lane. Pedestrianising everything is lovely in an ideal world, but there are business realities here, and to be honest, the lane has turned into a bit of a free for all. I find myself having to watch out far more, for electric scooters, mopeds and pedestrians, than I would as part of a normal traffic flow.

Quite Sephiroth. The disenfranchised have been failed by both parties in recent decades. It seems to go like this at the moment. Starmer has a pint in a working class pub, and he is patronising the working classes. Boris or Farage do that, and they are standing with the common people. That is the narrative the BBC for example, have been pumping out for some time now. Labour, talking to themselves, too metropolitan, middle class etc. Boris meanwhile, an old Etonian, nothing in common with ordinary people, and not a peep about that. So while impression matters and sticks, you have to blame the media for creating those impressions and making them stick too. The fact is that the media is owned by people with vested interests in maintaining a Conservative status Quo. Labour, no matter what they do, are always on the back foot as a result.

Countrlass22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry no they absolutely are not wildlife there > vermin they carry discease hence we have such > thing as immediate council response teams rather > control. > > > U need learn whats actually wildlife and whats a > pest carrying discease lol Any wild animal is wildlife. That includes rats and other rodents. Bats carry more diseases than any other living animal by the way. Are you going to argue they are not wildlife too? And what about humans? They carry and transmit disease all over the place, and it could be argued are the biggest pest on the planet. Bacteria on the other hand, doesn't even need a living host to spread. But back to rats. I grew up on a farm, so know very well at what point wildlife becomes a pest. Why do you think rodents exist? Birds of prey, weasels, snakes, all feed on rodents. Rats in turn, are scavengers. They also spread seeds in woodland, stores they hoard and forget about. This helps new forest undergrowth to sprout. So you see, they do actually serve a purpose in the ecosystem. Wildlife becomes a pest when it over populates and disrupts that ecosystem. That is as true for insects that destroy crops, as it is for rodents that sometimes spread disease. All that any pest control can do, is regulate the numbers. The most effective way to keep the rodent population in check, is for people to not leave easily accessible food and garbage for them to eat. Towns and cities are very attractive spaces for rodents for that reason. But any idea that all rats should be exterminated as pests, is ignorant. And woodland is in fact, the one place you want to see them, for the reason I cite above.

I am pretty much with j.a. here. Labour has to find a way to reconnect to the red wall, because it has no way to power without it. Failure to understand why Corbyn was so hated is a real issue. There are many party members who still blame the media, the right wing of the PLP and just about anyone but Corbyn himself. These are people who want a socialist revolution irregardless of what the electorate want. Under Corbyn's leadership, the party was more focused on internal reform than winning elections. That damage will take time to repair but here is the upside. The Tories also were struggling with slim majorities, until they found that leader who could break through. Sadly politics really is that fickle. Personality is everything. If Labour are going to defeat the character that is Boris, they need their own character that plays the game better. Then everything can change very quickly. Blair is the obvious example of that. And to add that the SNP are consolidating, so coalition at the cost of a referendum may well also be their only way back to power (just as an EU referendum was for the Tories to see off the UKIP threat). That in itself has electioneering problems for Labour of course, so will never be talked about until the scenario to form a coalition actually arises.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hartlepool is proper Brexity though, isn't it. > Surely this is a big part of it. Boris Johnson's > neo-nationalism and promises to "level up" the > North are sure vote winners in places like that > (not sure how many of you have been to Hartlepool, > but Hartlepool is in desperate need of a bit of > levelling... one way or the other) That and it has also been selected for one of the Freeport licences. Boris is still in ascendancy because he is only two years in. When the pandemic is over, and the party tries to claw back the debt, and when many of those red walls areas see nothing changes for them, the pendulum will swing back as it always does. Having said that, I don't see Starmer as the person to pull them back. He is just too lacking in personality and dynamism. I can see Labour lose the next GE and then, depending on who takes over, rebuilding from there.

What you call an attack is actually holding government to account. Robert Kenrick would do exactly the same if his party were not in government.

Countrlass22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rats are not > wildlife Sorry, but rats and rodents most definitely are wildlife, and provide food for certain predators like hawks. The problem is that they can become a pest if they overpopulate, and food supply is the main driver of that.

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Alan said, we knew ahead of time what the rules > on shellfish are. Certain sections of the media > chose to present this as the EU being difficult. > That was a lie by the media. > > The situation in Jersey is different; here it > would seem this is one of those post-Brexit things > that needs to be worked out. > > I?m sure the sending of ?gunboats? and the timing > of the elections is entirely coincidental. Exactly that. Government has essentially said it is for Jersey to decide their rules, so a bit of negotiation is perhaps all that is needed. Fishing was always a stupid thing to push to the fore. Fish swim where they want and all sides need free movement of catch and exports.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regarding (a), they are not NEW EU regulations. > They applied to third countries prior to Brexit. > The way it has been reported here by most of the > media suggests the EU just made them up to spite > the UK. > > https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/02/e > u-rules-on-some-types-of-shellfish-leave-uk-fisher > men-devastated More than that, Farage was on the EU fisheries committee that put those new rules in place back in 2004. The only problem is that he never turned up to most of those committee meetings. Still happy to retire on his EU pension though, while fishermen literally go to the wall. He never cared then, and he doesn't care now.

j.a nails it. Rahrahrah is spot on too. Labour need to accept that it is going to take time to come back, just as the Tories were out in the wilderness for over a decade with Blair. There are no magic bullets to fast shifts in electorate thinking and the left is especially poor in that it talks to itself too much. The other problem for Labour is that the party structure opens the door to activists, and particularly those on the fringes. At some point, those at the top have to get control of that, which is what fuels a lot of the internal infighting.

Crossed post with you there Sue but totally agree.

Don't use glue traps. There is no excuse for slowly killing an animal in that way. In fact, using any kind of trap if you do not find the mice run, so that you can address it, is probably pointless. But if you must kill any mouse, snap traps are the quickest and therefore most humane way to do so. Some useful information from the RSPCA here. https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-pest-rats-and-mice/

Rats can pose several problems on farms and around nesting sites. They can contaminate feed and water supplies and so if there are too many of them, the problems will follow. That is why there are rat control measures around the lake and nesting sites in parks. Farms go to good lengths to keep rats out of feed storage areas similarly. Bear in mind that rats can can spread any number of diseases and even through urine in water. Leptospirosis is a particularly nasty one. So like many things, it is a case of risk assessment, and taking sensible pest control measures, while not totally destroying the ecology. Rats and mice are part of that ecology lie everything else.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Natural rat habitat I would?ve thought. Indeed. But they can be a problem on farms that keep livestock, because they can spread disease through animal feed. So farmers will manage any rat and mice population while keeping feed away from rat infestation. In natural habitat though, like woodland, there would be a natural ecology in play. In towns and cities, food is plentiful, so greater numbers of rat and mice population is to be expected. You just don't want them in your home.

Agreed Nigello. Rats and mice are part of the environment. A problem if they are nesting in the walls and running around your kitchen for sure, but in the wild, they don't need to invade your home. Landowners will usually manage the ecology with natural predators.

Never going to be rid of rats there. There are rats all over London in fact, but woodland is perfect cover for them.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're certainly a gambler Cat, and a reckless one > at that. > I'm afraid you're going to have to dismiss the > first 5 years of that 5-10 year plan of yours, > given that the 'muppets' that delivered Brexit > are, surprise, surprise, still in charge, and > might well be for the full 10 years. Then what? > > I note no mention of the social impact Brexit is > having, in particular as Seph alludes to, Northern > Ireland and the peace process, all foreseen. Is > that a price worth paying for your concept, > acceptable collateral damage (no pun intended)? > Which reminds me, you wouldn't have been living > here during the Troubles, it wasn't nice, even on > the Mainland. Will it need a couple of terrorist > bombs to go off in London to make you sit up and > notice? > > I thought that you could've at least pointed me in > some direction beyond a simplistic 'concept', say > a Norway style deal that would've at least > addressed the issue of NI. A half-way house > reflecting the closeness of the vote, gave both > sides the opportunity to either later form closer > ties with the EU or pull further away, depending > how things went. Surely that's more in keeping > with a 5-10 year plan than living in hope that one > day a more competent Gov might or might not rock > up... And to be clear, THIS is the post Cat has avoided responding properly to for an entire page while he plays his usual silly games of deflection and troll psychology. So Cat, will it really need a couple of terrorist bombs to go off for you to understand how precarious this all is for the GFA? Or do you genuinely not give a hoot.

And there you prove my point perfectly. I rest my case.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have acknowledged job losses and downsides yes cat. But as I?ve said repeatedly if Brexit was sold as your version it wouldn?t have passed. > In the wider world, your version of Brexit simply is not what was sold This is exactly it. Brexit is a con trick that is going to impact most on those who voted for it (as the fishing sector is finding out).

And yet Cat, still you persist with the passive aggressive attitude. You continue to accuse everyone of never listening to you, or reading your posts properly. People do read your posts properly and when they counter argue with a response you can't argue with, you resort to this passive aggressive victim complex crap. The number of times you derail threads with this egotistic nonsense is exhausting. The last word belongs to no-one, and especially not you.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't believe you guys can be so flippant when > people are losing their livelihood. > > Unforgivable. > > But of course none of you are fishermen. > > Jesus wept > > You should be prosecuted Cat, jut stop it. You are bordering on whataboutery trolling. Engage with the points ffs. For the record, some of us DID care when miners were losing their jobs, because you see, as much as you want to deflect from answering the here and now questions about the impacts of something you are so wedded to, with some assumed search for hypocrisy, there is a principle here. A principle that you don't trash the economy for some ideological jingoistic jolly. Moving away from fossil fuels for example has credibility. Sure, there is a debate to be had around the best way to do that, but that debate always includes how to transfer jobs. With Brexit, there wasn't even any acknowledgement of job losses, let alone how to overcome the impacts on livelihoods. So it is no surprise that a die hard like you refuses now, even with the evidence hitting you in the face, to discuss it. Now debate like an adult or give it up.

Blaming the EU for the mess NI is in, is quite frankly, ignorant.

Sadly, the Mayor has no power over welfare policy. Central government decides that. Carers allowance is woefully inadequate for lots of reasons, not least because it saves local authorities the cost of full care packages that cost considerably more to provide. Conservative governments tend to cut welfare spending.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, my real name is Kenny Rogers..... Almost as flippant an answer as Rees Mogg in Parliament when asked about damage to the fishing sector. You were asked about the mess now evolving in NI Cat. Have the decency to answer that at least.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s not about ?being better people?. It?s just > that the choice of remaining meant not messing > with peoples lives and economies on made up > promises. And this is it exactly. You do realise CAT that some people are losing their entire livelihoods for your experimental Brexit project. They can't afford to wait 10 years to see if it was worth it. There are NO good economic outcomes yet as a result of Brexit, not a single one, and that is before we get into the ramifications of the pandemic on top. Even banking, which was 20 percent of our economy, has now moved trillions out of the UK to the EU. All of this was predicted and warned about and dismissed as project fear. Major trade deals take years to negotiate, not in 'an afternoon over a cup of tea', as the charlatans now running government claimed. Again, remainers tried to get that across and were dismissed.