www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Zonda wrote: Many people acknowledge that we are descended from apes, but very few people can see themselves within that group.

Oh I don't know, I was in town the other day and saw plenty of apes wandering around...

Anyway let's stick to the topic in hand...

Zonda:

...we are the all invasive H. sapiens...

I know some who are better described as H.contumacious.

Jack

The issues with apes or butterflies are the same in today's world, Zonda

I've always liked Homo rapiens, coined by Henry Salt:

"Homo Rapiens
The Times, November 6, 1925
In view of the doubt as to the type to which the Leadenhall skull is to be referred, I venture to suggest that, by adopting a more scientific and inclusive nomenclature, we should avoid the somewhat invidious course of flattering the present "man in the street" with the name of Homo Sapiens, while the man under the street, who can hardly have been less sapient than some of his successors, is put off with neanderthalensis. The change, fortunately, need only be that of a single letter; and in Homo Rapiens we shall have a strictly accurate term, applicable alike to ancient and to modern man—to all, in fact, whose, habits are of a rapacious kind. I trust that this proposal will commend itself to anthropologists.
Henry S. Salt
19, Highdown Road, Brighton"

(taken from here: http://www.henrysalt.co.uk/bibliography ... mo_rapiens)

Guy

H.exitialis is more common
or H. ego even.

Yeh! But where was Henry Salt when we needed him,,,,, during the ice age.

Felix wrote:Hmmm. Charley Chaplain by the sound of it.

No, of Anglia Ruskin University here in Cambridge!
He was the one that also likened the Forestry Commission sell-off to a modern-day Act of Enclosure.
I liked that one too!
(And so on-topic!)

BTW - I think your quip is quite witty.....
I couldn't resist replying tho'...!

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/a ... l_off.html

Well-done everyone.....

Blimey Nick.... you're quick off the mark - I'd barely finished reading it!
Neil

Nicely worded I think.
I particularly liked-

and listened to the strong groundswell of opinions amongst its members

Wolfie Smith would have been proud.

And even more press ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ive-policy

Cheers,

- Pete

I am in fact slightly disappointed at the abandonment of the Forest sell-off..

You will recall that I wrote about a “loophole” that was worth exploiting. Even Felix wanted to know more. Well this was a slow build up to an April Fool’s spoof that I was scheming, but now no more.

Earlier I had been hatching a totally different idea for an April Fool but that had to be abandoned as I had inadvertently got rather too close to an unpleasant truth.

Jack

I do hope that those who put pressure on the government to force this U turn, don't just stand around now patting themselves on the back. They should use the momentum ( in word ) to stop the back door FC sales, that, quote from BBC last week ( have been temporarily put on hold, until after the consultation period ) as they will now no doubt resume.

Regards Gruditch

Agreed! It is just the start of what will be a long wriggle by the government to get their own way.....the longer it goes on the more they may be able to get away with!
I'm sure our conservation bodies are aware of that and must stand united in what may become a play-off against different interests by the government.
It is up to us all to keep the pressure up.

NickB wrote:Agreed! It is just the start of what will be a long wriggle by the government to get their own way

You old cynic!

...and I have seen no evidence to suggest that this statement is anywhere near accurate, quite the reverse in fact...

I actually believe that they have backed down under the weight of public opposition, simple as that. They took a punt on a policy and the public objected.

You should be grateful that we now have an administration that is prepared to admit that a policy idea was ill conceived and concede that it was a bad idea. There are other administrations, thankfully no longer with us, that would have pushed this plan through regardless.

You have also neglected to mention that the government have not only halted the public consultation (and surely here it is moot to mention that this was only a public consultation), but have pledged to establish instead a new panel of experts made up of representatives from conservation bodies amongst others which will reportedly be created to examine public access to the woodland and biodiversity issues.

Conservation bodies such as The Woodland Trust now have a medium with which to apply pressure to government and perhaps infuelce future policy that they have never had before. But I suppose that this is wrong as well...

Credit where it's due.

Felix.

What me? Cynical?
Since when has suspecting governments of being devious and underhanded been anything but realistic?

Caroline Spelman has now gone further, announcing that the government "got it wrong" and has apologised...

In what amounts to more than a u-turn, closer actually to a complete reversal of policy and thinking, the environment secretary has announced that a new panel of experts will be set up to look at public access and biodiversity within the publicly owned woodland in direct response to public concerns over the future of publicly owned woodland; having admitted that the government completely underestimated the level of opposition and strength of feeling that there would be towards the pending consultation.

I've said this before; I am not necessarily a fan of the coalition government, but this sort of attitude is a welcome sea change in the political climate of recent decades.

Felix.

...this sort of attitude is a welcome sea change in the political climate...

Pity they won't listen to public opinion in another divisive field. However this is "off limits" except in specialist forums.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:

...this sort of attitude is a welcome sea change in the political climate...

Pity they won't listen to public opinion in another divisive field. However this is "off limits" except in specialist forums.

Jack

Yes, I can just imagine what you're referring to (and I guess most of us would be in 100% agreement).

That said, the forests of England are hardly a cornerstone of the coalition manifesto, so I daresay they were prepared to take a hit on that. There's been no political earthquake as a result although the news is nonetheless most welcome.

..but it does show a growing understanding that, as a minority-party in coalition, whilst it may feel it has a carte-blanche to unravel all the ideological issues it has with the running of our society now it is in government, it does not have any popular support for many of its proposals. So, I would suggest that we will see it pick its fights more carefully in the future, and that we may see a number of "flagship" proposals ditched as they are exposed as badly thought-out and unworkable, just like the FC sell-off proved to be. Make no mistake though, the policies which they do fall-in behind, will be equally unpalatable..... (Sorry, "In my humble opinion")