Yournamehere

I've no idea if it would work on a bay; but for twenty years I've been treating willow stumps with what was Verdone and is now Weedol for Lawns. You spray over the cut stump (to soak the bark) and you get no regrowth whatsoever; which for a willow is saying something: instead of a hedgehog-like mass of shoots: nothing. nada. zilch. I don't know if it kills the cambium of somehow stops the bark from forming new shoot buds; but it works. Like I say, I've never tried it on a bay; but, one, try it; two if you do get regrowth, wait for it to come into leaf and then spray the leaf growth when it is still young and tender. And as bay has a tendency to 'glossy' add a drop of Fairy Liquid (small squirt in 1L, big squirt in a 5L sprayer) to act as a surfactant*: it breaks down the surface tension so that the water can't 'hunch up' in droplets and roll/run off the leaf but 'smears' out across the surface. (Just like adding a wetting agent to the final rinse when developing a film). Oh and mix it double strength. Best of luck Yourn *on the leaves; not necessary on the freshly cut stump

What do I win?

Yes I know it was mistaken, that is why I asked for clarification; that was the whole point of my posting. But yes, grass to cut, must get on.

I don't know what the answer is, there are many answers; it's a complicated dynamic whereby an action in one area will affect many other areas to varying degrees: that is why a single local solution aimed at one single aspect will have very little broadscale effect overall. It's complicated, it can't be reduced to a soundbite. When you say 'studies from elsewhere'... do you mean Cornwall (say) or Tibet (again for the sake of argument)? How local an area do you concern yourself with? I was thinking purely in terms of the UK when I spoke of the UK bird pop decline.

Er that was the point of the discussion: I read your post; I made an assumption; I asked you to clarify. I agree with you that it seems to be a bad idea to remove this protection; but then I'm not a player on the world economic stage.

I didn't

I know why they were put in place, I was there, same as you, same as pretty much everyone else; I know the cost to the economy of the collapse. That wasn't what I was talking about, that can be taken as read. I was curious as to why you don't welcome the removal of government regulation in this case as you give the impression you are usually against such government interference. Again, after putting this up for discussion, you turn straight away to heaping personal abuse upon anyone who comes back to discuss it with you. There are no outstanding questions regarding biodiversity collapse: every study has verified every earlier study yet you dismiss the evidence as bs without presenting any evidence to the contrary.

Which is what? And why do you think the removal of these regs is a bad idea. You know, tell us more, it is a forum after all.

Gareth! Shame on you! The very idea! I cannot believe that you are quoting that lefty bastion of bias & bs, The Guardian, as an authority. Truly the world has turned

Odd. From your usual posting style, I would have thought that you would have been in favour of this; you usually seem to be in favour of less government regulation and 'interference' in daily life. And more so because this was a set of regulations introduced by a Labour government, I see two reasons why I would have thought you would be celebrating. What's changed?

Daisy if you do!

Unfair on the farmer: Trump told him, and everybody else, that (in this case) Canada would pay the tariff. Trump is the arsehole here.

I'm always amazed by close up tricks like these. But these two are definitely in the 'that's just not possible' category.

Your first line (and your posts yesterday) suggest that, despite creditable sources regarding the decline in UK bird pops (which you refuse to accept), you still do not believe that we are living through an environmental catastrophe, re: your second line: common sense is an unreliable witness; long, term countrywide surveys are much more reliable than personal, local observation. (Numbers can, and do, increase locally - or for an individual species in the midst of an overall decline.) Your third line seems to contradict your first: you now seem to agree that that things are not looking good. So whichever environmental suggestions were implemented 'from the fifties', they haven't worked (agree with you there; but that timescale includes the removal of DDT, Paraquat and organo-phosphate sheep dips - to name but three (pick three others if you find these examples unsuitable, there are many to choose from, I only chose these three as they are well known: their use here is as a mere illustration, nothing more) - which,i f still in use would see us in a much, much worse situation than ever we are now) a new approach is needed to offset their failure. But when this was suggested you cry bullshit and waffle.

Well done. You illustrate my point better than ever I could myself.