Nutters who shoot grey squirrels

Bring back wolves!

Reintroduced pine martins have been a big help in some areas as the greys are easier for them to catch than the reds who live higher in the trees.

I think where you are wrong on Baby Charlie is that he is suffering.  I think the parent's rights were in fact removed because he is suffering, so this case actually meets your abuse test.  Nobody wants to call it abuse, but everyone but the parents recognise that it would be abuse to take him to the US for treatment.  It's not about costs.  Like you, I would be troubled if several courts hadn't decided it was in the child's best interests.

He's suffering due to his disease, not because of the actions of the parents. To remove parental rights would require a court hearing where the state would have to prove they are unfit parents. If the state were successful on that, they'd be barred from seeing the child now as he's dying. None of that occurred, and can you imagine the insult to injury?

Unless and until they are deemed, by a court of law on the basis of actual evidence of current abuse, to be unfit parents and had their parental rights terminated, then they alone decide what is in the child's best interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd eat squirrel stew and would never argue that people shouldn't hunt for food. 

I'm not convinced that we are ever going to kill all the grey squirrels and somehow the reds are going to make a comeback. 

I like grey squirrels just fine and I am unbothered by the fact that they out compete the reds. 

But I'm no biologist and have just read one article.  What I'm more interested in is the thinly disguised xenophobia and glee in shooting the "foreigner squirrel "

That xenophobia seems more a hyped up line furthering a particular narrative through whatever vehicle they can find. In this case culling gray squirrels.

The particular issue with squirrels is the grays have no/fewer natural predators cause they're bigger and more vicious. Hence they out compete the reds but also eat lots more individually and enormously more as a population growing out of control. That's what gets the reds, but also cuts down the food supply for lots of other animals and completely upsets the ecosystem. It's easy to say trade this squirrel for that, but they're not equivalents. It creates a cascading failure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you'll have some time to post those specific Tweets by Mayor Khan that justified Trump's classless attack on all Londoners while we were counting our dead.  I haven't forgotten, and neither has anyone else here,

This is just a case of you, a US citizen living in ther UK, not liking your President.

I'm a Londoner and none of my massive London family would agree with what you have tried to claim us Londoners think. If you had looked at the Brit fourms at this time about this, many if these wouldn't agree with you have just claimed either.
 
Most of us Brits don't give a to$$ one way or the otrher about US citizens views on their President , as it is not for us Brtis to poke our nose into. You saw what happened in the UK and the protests in Germany, when your last President tried to poke his nose into the business of European countries.

If you had looked at the Brit fourns at this time they wouldn't agree with your idea eitther.

There were a great variety of opinions on the "Brit" forums I read. But I tend to stay away from Tory echo chambers.

Trump's comments were ill-timed, unsolicited, unhelpful, and bigoted as hell.

That xenophobia seems more a hyped up line furthering a particular narrative through whatever vehicle they can find. In this case culling gray squirrels.

The particular issue with squirrels is the grays have no/fewer natural predators cause they're bigger and more vicious. Hence they out compete the reds but also eat lots more individually and enormously more as a population growing out of control. That's what gets the reds, but also cuts down the food supply for lots of other animals and completely upsets the ecosystem. It's easy to say trade this squirrel for that, but they're not equivalents. It creates a cascading failure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not just the Grey squirrel but other imports too, such as Parrots that now live in the wild London and in the home counties and make life harder for the native birds  These Parrots are increasing in numbers when there isn't a hard winter.

The UK has culls on native species too when these numbers get too great.


Australia too have massive problems with imports (some of which their government imported) that have upset their ecosystem. Some of their native spices are now extinct/on the verge of extinction.

It wasn't that long ago that Australia decided to change the rules for cat owners too, meaning that these owners are now liable for damage their cats do when they let them roam and that includes any damage done by their pet to their neighbour’s garden/cars. These owners can now be ordered by the rangers to keep their cat on their own land (indoors only or build a pen). It's nothing to do with the Italians (I assume the cat originated from Rome?) and is all about stopping those that are a nuisance.

Imports or natives, it doesn't matter where these come from when numbers need to be culled/controlled.

He's suffering due to his disease, not because of the actions of the parents. To remove parental rights would require a court hearing where the state would have to prove they are unfit parents. If the state were successful on that, they'd be barred from seeing the child now as he's dying. None of that occurred, and can you imagine the insult to injury?

Unless and until they are deemed, by a court of law on the basis of actual evidence of current abuse, to be unfit parents and had their parental rights terminated, then they alone decide what is in the child's best interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude, you are the (almost) lawyer so I hesitate to argue law with you, but are we talking about the same case? 

The parents have definitely had some rights removed because they no longer can take their child out of the hospital and no longer can decide on his treatment.  Soon, the doctors will stop treatment and the parents have no right to stop it.  If that's not removal of parental rights , I don't know what is.  Why does your post read like "Unless and Until.."?  It's done and then done again on appeal to the European courts. 

That's why Trump's tweet was so spectacularly ill timed and cruel.  Just when the case was calming down, everyone wanted to give the parents privacy to come to terms with the inevitable and let this sad affair end in a way that is best for the kid, Trump and the Pope put thier big feet in to further torture the parents. 

The parents can't take the kid anywhere, even if the Pope starts channeling Jesus himself. 

This is just a case of you, a US citizen living in ther UK, not liking your President.

I'm a Londoner and none of my massive London family would agree with what you have tried to claim us Londoners think. If you had looked at the Brit fourms at this time about this, many if these wouldn't agree with you have just claimed either.
 
Most of us Brits don't give a to$$ one way or the otrher about US citizens views on their President , as it is not for us Brtis to poke our nose into. You saw what happened in the UK and the protests in Germany, when your last President tried to poke his nose into the business of European countries.

Sirius, are you arguing that people in London were not mad when Trump attacked Mayor Khan by Tweet?  Granted, most people were too busy dealing with the flood of events to properly get angry , but I don't remember any voices at the time approving of it.  I know there's a tradition of lapdoggery, but I think supporting Trump in that attack would  be a step too far . 

However, I've got an open mind.  Can you post some links to some posts on the Brit forums where people are expressing pleasure at Trump's tweets?  Those sound like the kind of people who I'd like to have further discussions with .  Perhaps they will be able to provide the mystery Tweets where Mayor Khan suggests we should give the terrorists council flats.

Also, if you think Brits don't care or don't wish to protest Trunp's actions, then why isn't he here today?  Do you really think he would rather be in Poland?  The May government let it be known that Trump wasn't coming here as they desperately want to put some distance between the rapidly imploding Trump administration.  That's not indifference, Trump is not coming because the protests would be too ugly.  I thought this widely accepted common knowledge.  Do you really think otherwise?

There were a great variety of opinions on the "Brit" forums I read. But I tend to stay away from Tory echo chambers.

Trump's comments were ill-timed, unsolicited, unhelpful, and bigoted as hell.

In favor of labour echo chambers it would seem.

You also might dial back the gratuitous use of "bigoted."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In favor of labour echo chambers it would seem.

It's true. My favourite site just has an image of Thatcher. Something is bothering you, any question really, say, "Scunthorpe traffic woes", you go to the site and there is Thatcher.

It usually makes sense.

I'll stand by Son of Sailor on the "Bigoted " description.  I'm convinced that Trump's main problem with Mayor Khan is that he is Muslim.

The wierd thing is that he never does or says anything that is any different to any other politician on the left.  Nobody in London ever gives his religion a second thought.  That's why it's so jarring when Trump goes out of his way to attack him . 

I'm chuffed to bits that Trump can't come here.

I'll stand by Son of Sailor on the "Bigoted " description.  I'm convinced that Trump's main problem with Mayor Khan is that he is Muslim.

The wierd thing is that he never does or says anything that is any different to any other politician on the left.  Nobody in London ever gives his religion a second thought.  That's why it's so jarring when Trump goes out of his way to attack him . 

I'm chuffed to bits that Trump can't come here.

Trump goes out of his way to attack lots of people.

I'm not sure it's completely irrelevant that the mayor is Muslim when he takes the positions he has on immigration, refugees, and police surveillance/investigation/etc, because he so closely identifies with those specific population groups based on his personal situation, and when the result of those policies does lead to attacks by people who had been under surveillance.

You can think whatever you want, but it should require something more substantial than your opinion to call someone or something bigoted.

As for not coming here, a US trade deal is the most likely to save the UK from Brexit problems. The best terms for that come from & following a direct consultation in the UK. Standing in the way of lowering cost of living, increasing exports, creating jobs, raising salaries... all cause you don't like the idea of someone you hate being in your city? That's a bit beyond silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure it's completely irrelevant that the mayor is Muslim when he takes the positions he has on immigration, refugees, and police surveillance/investigation/etc, because he so closely identifies with those specific population groups based on his personal situation, and when the result of those policies does lead to attacks by people who had been under surveillance.

I'm not sure this follows. I would find it hard to make a trail from Khan's identification "with those specific population groups based on his personal situation" resulting in "attacks by people who had been under surveillance".

It is my understanding that it wasn't Khan who cut police funding to the bone. That was Tory.

I'm not sure this follows. I would find it hard to make a trail from Khan's identification "with those specific population groups based on his personal situation" resulting in "attacks by people who had been under surveillance".

It is my understanding that it wasn't Khan who cut police funding to the bone. That was Tory.

The criticism, which again you may disagree with but is legitimately justified, is...

1) that immigration policy, immigration investigations, law enforcement & intelligence have been pulled back. That is an absolute fact.

2) that in pulling back, threats slipped through and people died. That is also an absolute fact.

3) that the reason or a reason for the pull back was due to political-culture concerns that certain populations would feel unfairly targeted, mistreated, etc & that this would drive some in those communities to be vulnerable to radicalization, to be radicalized, and to lash out violently.

That is the position espoused publicly and at length by the Mayor among others. It is more the extent of his outspokenness and political prominence that make him a lightening rob for that criticism, and he did that to himself.

Mentioning that he's personally Muslim is not strictly relevant to the core criticism, which is fairly directed by the right against the left broadly.

However, it also is not irrelevant to question if his personal circumstance causes undue empathy towards those populations which motivates greater support of that accept casualties in order to not offend philosophy.

To draw a parallel, Trump was criticized for not being outspoken enough in his rejection of right wing extremists. If he'd gone even further and adopted policies that somehow freed them to operate. And if the nutjobs then killed a bunch of people as a result of that freedom... then it would not be fair to blame Trump for the attack, but it would be very fair to criticize him and his policies for contributing to the situation that allowed such an attack to happen.

Those sorts of criticisms happen a lot on both sides. And they really are fair reasonable statements. I'm not saying they're 100% accurate, but they're fair.

Labour of course responds blaming budget cuts.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3) that the reason or a reason for the pull back was due to political-culture concerns that certain populations would feel unfairly targeted, mistreated, etc & that this would drive some in those communities to be vulnerable to radicalization, to be radicalized, and to lash out violently.

This part gets me a bit. First of all I'm not sure it is true. Tory austerity cuts have been made (ignoring Keyenes, but that is another topic).

Too, there are human rights concerns when you start targeting people. I know human rights have become dirty words as of late, but gosh we've seen some pretty nasty things when they are suspended.