Yournamehere

He's always had to concentrate on the stairs... it's where Melania encouraged Barron to leave his toys. If you follow my meaning.

A grown man being cheered on while he bullies a child. I think it would be difficult to come up with anything that better illustrates Trump's America today.

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.

Why? Why would anyone bother explaining? You refuse to engage, you're dismissive then abusive when people do. You are also boring and pointless. When people reply you say it's waffle; when people give you sources and references, you say it's bullshit. There's no point. Your reply to Anno, yesterday, as an example had no relevance to the quoted post!

One of the comments from the BBC coverage: "Musk makes Gerald Ratner look like a PR genius." (Ask yer mum)

Discredit. Distract. Well done.

You do insects , I'll do the birds. Decline in UK bird pops I'll leave that open, pick whatever source you like. But re insects and motorbikes: used to have to stop and wipe down jacket and visor after a long trip: not any more. Used to say you knew when a motorcyclist had had an enjoyable trip by the number of insects on his teeth! Not any more. As to birdlife decline - for many species numbers have plummeted by up to 90%: we used to see flocks of yellow hammers and linnets, they would lift and fly ahead of us as we walked down a path or ride; now we may see one or two. They have become a rarity, a highlight of a day out. We used to stop working and listen to the nightingales in the middle of the morning; when I used to go fishing until 11pm or midnight I could hear five or six different nightingales from different parts of the surrounding woodland: not any more, I haven't now heard a nightingale for years and years. Even where I live in a small town (but surrounded by countryside) I used to be woken up by a deafening dawn chorus: it would rise and fall, wave after wave louder and quieter as the songs all mixed in together; sometimes I would get up and sit by the open window for five minutes before having to close it if I was going to get that extra hour's sleep. Over the last few years it has declined and lessened until this year - just last week in fact - I woke up - window wide open - nothing! Silence. A single blackbird giving it that twin burst of four notes (there used to be a dozen from all points and distances mixed in with all the other bird song) and a blackcap in the hawthorn outside the window was all that was singing to me. Yes we see more birds of prey now: buzzards ravens and kites are nearly commonplace but that is because of the cessation of human persecution: does not mean that UK bird populations are not declining. It is ridiculous - tantamount to flat-earthism to claim otherwise. There's any number of credible sources on that link have a look before you comment further. And just to make it easy: the first line off the first source: (RSPB) "Are UK birds in decline? Yes. There has been a serious decline in the numbers of many birds," Your ball.

No. I mentioned being at Aldershot, which might be what you are getting at. It was only ever in a civilian capacity. My apologies, I didn't mean to mislead.

That's not 'dropping the niceties', that's thowin them off a cliff!

Coal mining is hard dirty dangerous work. It used to be said that when you retired, at 65, you came home and sat on the step and waited to die: there was not enough left of you to do anything else. ^Bloke in pic above is done for at 45. No working man should EVER want to see the coal mines opened up again.

Ebers by yere (hold on to yer 'at afore clickin that one!) Previous post by yere