Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

underage sex trials and similar
there has been a fair old hoo-ha about the likes of bill roache and rolf harris being put on trial for alleged sexual offenses that took place about 40 years ago

the argument runs that (a) the moral code at the time was even more relaxed, (b) girls often deliberately flaunted themselves with intent and (c) too much time has now passed
bill roache has now been found not guilty, and one begins to wonder whether the trials of rolf harris and jimmy tarbuck and others will indeed take place

even if the cases are dropped and/or the accused are found not guilty, the huge stress and publicity that has surrounded them over the last year or more, must be devastating

all of this does indeed make one wonder as to whether these trials have any validity at all, though of course the alleged or supposed victims will claim the most appalling long term damage to their psyches, lives, relationship with their dogs etc etc

so enough of that BUT
what about the trials brought against the likes of peter wright who, at 83, has just been jailed for paedophile offenses committed in the 1960s?

is there really such a vast difference?

I think some of the trials do seem pointless, such as DLT. However the charges against Roache were rape, which need to be pursued despite the time limit. The problem comes down to 'he said, she said'. There is usually no real evidence. If some of these cases had been about non famous people, the police would have dropped them due to the lack of a realistic chance of conviction. Some of the charges against DLT are that he groped some women nearly 50 years ago. Who is to say what the truth is. Different women react differently. I had a woman working for me as a director. At board meeting she said that she had a complaint about sexual harassment. Her complaint was that she wasn't getting any. We decided not to minute her comments.

UMMH.

Trebles all round for the insurance co's.



Eric Pickles: 'We should have dredged'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26107514


Communities Secretary Eric Pickles says the government "made a mistake" and should have dredged the flood-hit Somerset Levels.

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, he apologised "unreservedly" to those affected by the flooding.

But he refused to "nudge" Lord Smith of Finsbury out of his position as head of the Environment Agency.

I wonder what Smiffy has got on them?

I thought a Chairman listened to his committee and rarely had to use his vote.

Suggest that one examines the membership of the various regional committees and also the reasons for the policies and actions.

What has always amazed me is how many unqualified members of the public have such a grasp of "problems" of which they have little actual knowledge.


But as many have said we have one of the Greenest Prime Ministers and Cabinets in recent history.

.

I thought a Chairman listened to his committee and rarely had to use their vote.

Suggest that one examines the membership of the various regional committees and also the reasons for the policies and actions.

What has always amazed me is how many unqualified members of the public have such a grasp of "problems" of which they have little actual knowledge.


But as many have said we have one of the Greenest Prime Ministers and Cabinets in recent history.
--------------

It is no wonder many of the Scots want to escape from the grasps of the disconnected London elitists and the of the little Englanders of the S.E.

I'm not a little Englander Fred, more a Great Britain person.


And I'm not even ingrish by birth.

As an animal lover I can't bring myself to make any reasonable comment about this article.

"Marius the giraffe killed at Copenhagen zoo despite worldwide protests

Young giraffe unsuitable for breeding was shot, dissected in public and then fed to lions despite offers of a new home
Share564




inShare.1
Email


Lars Eriksen in Copenhagen and Maev Kennedy


The Guardian, Sunday 9 February 2014 18.23 GMT










Darius the giraffe is dissected at Darius the giraffe dissected at Copenhagen zoo. WARNING: some viewers may find these images disturbing Link to video: Marius the giraffe dissected at Copenhagen zoo
In the chilly dawn of Sunday morning a healthy young giraffe in a Danish zoo was given its favourite meal of rye bread by a keeper – and then shot in the head by a vet.

The death of Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe considered useless for breeding because his genes were too common, was followed by his dissection in front of a large crowd, including fascinated-looking children, prompting outrage and protests around the world.

Copenhagen zoo carried out the killing despite a small group of protesters at the gates and an international petition which garnered more than 27,000 signatures, as well as offers from several zoos to rehouse the creature. Yorkshire Wildlife Park, near Doncaster, which offered to take Marius, said it was saddened to learn of his fate.

The zoo's decision to conduct the public dissection, and the disclosure that the animal was shot rather than being killed by lethal injection so that it could be fed to the carnivores, fanned the protests and provoked some calls for the zoo to be boycotted or closed. The controversy was fed further by startling images and video of the process, including a picture of a large chunk of meat with an unmistakably spotty hide being fed to the lions.

Bengt Holst, the zoo's scientific director, said he had never considered cancelling the killing, despite the protests. "We have been very steadfast because we know we've made this decision on a factual and proper basis. We can't all of a sudden change to something we know is worse because of some emotional events happening around us.

"It's important that we try to explain why we do it and then hope people understand it. If we are serious about our breeding activities, including participation in breeding programmes, then we have to follow what we know is right. And this is right."

The dissection took almost three hours because of the numbers of spectators, and the zookeepers giving detailed explanations of the process.

Holst said they had previously had public dissections of zebras, snakes and goats, but the giraffe was a first.

"People are fascinated by it, both adults and children, and they would like to hear stories they normally don't have access to. I think that's good. It helps increase the knowledge about animals but also the knowledge about life and death."

When a storm of protest broke over the news that the giraffe was to be killed – the small gene pool among European zoos meant there was a risk of inbreeding if it was allowed to reproduce – the zoo posted a detailed justification on its website. It explained that as part of an international programme, only unrelated animals were allowed to breed: "When breeding success increases, it is sometimes necessary to euthanise."

The zoo also said that giving Marius contraceptives would have had unwanted side-effects and represented poor animal welfare, and that there was no programme for releasing giraffes into the wild.

The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which monitors international standards and of which Copenhagen is a member, said it fully supported the decision of the zoo. It added that zoo animals were very rarely killed for conservation management, but almost always because of ill health.

"Our aim is to safeguard for future generations a genetically diverse, healthy population of animals against their extinction," it said in a statement. "Copenhagen is highly involved in these programmes and took a transparent decision that the young animal in question could not contribute to the future of its species further, and given the restraints of space and resources to hold an unlimited number of animals within our network and programme, should therefore be humanely euthanised."

However, Stine Jensen, from Denmark's Organisation against the Suffering of Animals, disagreed: "It shows that a zoo is not the ethical institution that it wants to portray itself as being, because here you have a waste product – that being Marius."

An online petition had argued: "Marius deserves to live and there must be somewhere for him to go. The zoo has raised him so it is their responsibility to find him a home, no matter how long it takes." It attracted 27,170 signatures before it was closed when news broke that the giraffe was dead.

Yorkshire Wildlife Park (YWP) was among several zoos that offered to rehouse Marius – a private individual apparently also offered to buy him for €50,000 (£41,000) – but received no response. In a statement, the park said without knowing the full details it would be inappropriate to comment further.

Copenhagen zoo's silence was more surprising because Yorkshire's head of hoofed animals is Danish, and the YWP has already taken a young male giraffe from the Danish zoo.

"YWP has a state-of-the-art giraffe house built in 2012 with a bachelor herd of four male giraffes and the capacity to take an extra male, subject to the agreement of the European stud book keeper. One of the YWP giraffes is Palle, who came from Copenhagen zoo in September 2012, when he was the same age as Marius," the statement said.

Holst said that though Yorkshire participated in the giraffe breeding programme, Marius was not the right genetic match, and if they had space it should be reserved for a genetically more valuable giraffe.

London Zoo was unable to offer a home for Marius because it has a non-breeding group of hybrid giraffes."

What does it taste like?

I wish animals could revert the process and treat human life with the equal disdain.

This guy sounds like a final solution type:



Bengt Holst, the zoo's scientific director, said he had never considered cancelling the killing, despite the protests. "We have been very steadfast because we know we've made this decision on a factual and proper basis. We can't all of a sudden change to something we know is worse because of some emotional events happening around us.

"It's important that we try to explain why we do it and then hope people understand it. If we are serious about our breeding activities, including participation in breeding programmes, then we have to follow what we know is right. And this is right."

DB 4,

They do so when they have a chance.

Do you think Wavy Dave will order another U-Turn and save the Kangaroo?

Some light reading

Good to see the Pickle apologizing for Flooding mistakes!

London flooding.

Like Haze suggested I think they should be allowed to flood. No point in resisting it.

It wasn't a simple apology.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has admitted the Government made a "mistake" in not dredging rivers to prevent flooding, because it relied too heavily on Environment Agency advice.

Good to see Cameroon has a united government.

Means they will all sink together.

What will Big Dave do about this?



EU to force Britons to publish details of wills and property

A bill being debated in Brussels would force UK citizens to disclose 'reams' of private, financial information on a public register


Mark Field MP said the EU proposals "threaten a family's right to keep their affairs confidential"


Richard Dyson
By Richard Dyson

6:55AM GMT 09 Feb 2014



New legislation planned in Brussels is set to heap fresh costs and paperwork on families’ financial planning, as well as leaving their affairs open to unwanted public scrutiny.


A European law is being drafted whose original aim was to prevent corporate money-laundering. The objective, supported by the UK, was to force companies to disclose on a register the money and other assets held inside trusts or equivalent legal arrangements.


But officials in Brussels have widened out the proposals as the bill has evolved, to include trusts. The effect could be to force millions of families to compile elaborate accounts of their assets and financial arrangements including insurance policies, property and bequests made in their wills, for entry into a register. And that register, if legislators get their way, could be made available to any member of the public.


British lawyers and tax experts are baffled by the potential implications. Most are bitterly opposed to the costs and intrusion that could result. The use of trusts or what the EU would define as “legal arrangements” is commonplace in Britain and Ireland, but not elsewhere in Europe. As a result many run-of-the-mill transactions between British individuals, or between individuals and financial institutions, would fall within the net of the law if applied to the UK. Similar transactions in Europe would not be affected, lawyers say.


Richard Frimston, partner at solicitors Russell-Cooke, said: “The European Parliament thinks all trusts are the work of the devil designed to aid tax dodgers. But trusts are an integral part of English law and underpin the most everyday of transactions.”


More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10624818/EU-to-force-Britons-to-publish-details-of-wills-and-property.html