Blah Blah

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.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that there is an investigation (in fact 3 now) to try and uncover who initially stumped up the money for the flat refurbishment when he could just tell us is unbelievable. What an absolute waste of time, money and effort. What is he playing at? It makes me think there must be something really shady about it for him to be burning political capital on it and amplifying the story through his silence. > This is mail on the head. Playing for time and costing the taxpayers more money for investigations that inevitably will leave him nowhere to hide. The only question is what happens then? When the game is over and the truth is out, is he going to still claim he never broke the rules? Personally, I am fed up of tw@ts like Boris Johnson and his cronies.

Yes, the meltdown was quite something. Apparently the Commission made their announcement an hour before PMQs. He clearly doesn't want them involved, hence the announcement of window dressing reviews that he will have the option to reject the findings of anyway. The whole thing stinks of another attempt to game the system and take the public for fools. That is all Johnson knows. Behind the messy hair is a ruthless, nasty, dishonest, entitled man. He is vile.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question of who might replace him (Boris) should really be ?who put him in charge?? > > We might get some where once we face up to that?! Indeed. All populists have enablers. The very idea that Boris is the best the country has is ridiculous. But that is the problem with populism. It does not seek to appeal to the rational. Instead it waffles, deflects and obfuscates, deliberately riling deep seated emotions in the course. The result is always a toxic and corrupt swing to the political extremes. When people care more about a flag than they do about inequality, then you know the country is screwed.

Droid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's safe for now (just about) and will continue (with a few more scars ) for a good while yet and > certainly as long as all he has to face is Starmer. Wrong. The electoral Commission are now investigating. It seems very apparent that the rules on party donations were broken and that is a criminal offense. If wrongdoing is found, he could find himself suspended from the House of Commons, and having to face a Police interview under caution. Being PM does not put him above the law, law that is there to ensure government and MPs can not be bought. It really doesn't matter what the common man thinks. This matters a lot. And how stupid of him to do it while PM. It was never going to end well for Boris. It never does for liars who have got away with it for far too long.

Tough one this. Car owner technically within his or her rights, but how is anyone ever going to get any emergency work done if people can't on occasion sort parking space for specialist vehicles? Have you considered hiring a few of these barriers Sue? https://www.hss.com/hire/p/pedestrian-barrier Cheap enough to hire and far harder for a driver to move in order to park. Look more official too ;) You shouldn't have to go to that length of course, but it might be a solution.

Stroke patients have always been treated. Other emergency care did not stop because of the pandemic.

The alarm around a tiny number of adverse reactions is disproportionate, but at the same time, scientists will want to understand why the vaccines impact that small number of people and that will shape guidance for the future. All vaccines are problematic for a small number of people. We don't stop using them for all the other things we vaccinate for as a result. In normal times, the covid vaccines would have gone through all seven stages of trial before being approved, and problems around small numbers of adverse reactions would have been identified, especially in the later stages, where those in vulnerable groups and with underlying conditions are trialed, with children being the final stage. The other thing to say about those trials, is that people undergoing them are constantly monitored, whereas that is not the case in a vaccine rollout, where an individual has to identify for themselves that something is wrong in most cases.

I think there has to be some common sense though. Efficacy of the four vaccines being used is looking very promising against the strains they were designed for. Tweaking those vaccines for new variants should not be a difficult task. So the issue is always going to be one of how fast people can be vaccinated against new variants. As we can see from the fist vaccine rollout though, there is a big difference between countries who can afford to pay for it, and those who can't. Also true is that this is a virus that mutates easily, and that is going to be impossible to stop in a world where it is spreading easily. So those returning from India are going to have to be sensible and quarantine themselves properly. Unless we want a world where all borders remain fully closed, that is going to have to be the way. Track and trace systems that work. Testing that works. And people doing the right thing. I think it is safe to say that we are not going back to the way things were before this pandemic. Businesses that rely on mass gatherings are going to have to change. Health resources are also going to have to change. Vaccines, testing, tracking and constant monitoring for new variants all cost money, lots of it. The impacts are going to be felt for some time to come.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > The real challenge is one expanding the career > > option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half > of > > whom are told they are born to it! > > > This is opening up a whole new can of worms....but > here goes.... > > Totally agree. But while being an MP does indeed > pay more than most people will earn. How many > 'ordinary' people would choose/be able to take > time off from their existing jobs to campaign, > then (if they get elected), quit their job and > totally change careers for one (while paying more > than they might make today) which highly likely to > have them tossed out of their job in 5 years (or > less).... > > Sure, maybe the answer is not as simple as 'more > money', but adding incentive to run as an MP > surely is key to attracting a broader range of > people to do so.....?? Being an MP is a job. If people want to pursue that as a career, then yes, just as people do for all sorts of other careers, they will do what they need to do to get there whilst doing another job. Once getting there however, that should be the only job. And if the salary isn't going to be enough for someone, then don't choose it as a job! Simple really.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but > what about paying politicians more? ........................................... > Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that > suggestion as well.....just thinking out > loud/outside the box.... No, you are looking at this all wrong. The problem is that power and obscene wealth go hand in hand. It is breaking that connection (driver) that is key. So that really is the question. How do we remove financial incentive from political power? Paying people more does not remove that. There are plenty of suitably intelligent people for whom ?79k a year would be a fortune. Why? Because 90 percent of people never earn even half of that! The real challenge is one expanding the career option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half of whom are told they are born to it! To be clear....90 percent of people in work do not earn enough to take them into the higher tax bracket. The job of MP isn't offered as a career option to the 93 percent of children who do not enter the public school education system in fact. So this idea that you have to pay already entitled and privileged people more is just bonkers. You are arguing to prop up an existing elitist system.