Jenny1

Swifts ahoy! Heard them for the first time this year wheeling over East Dulwich at lunch time.

Fingers crossed - appears to be OK now

Hi Anyone else with water supply problems in Melbourne Grove area?

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep eyes and ears open for the arrival of the > swifts... must be any day now, I hope. Here's my > list of the first recorded swifts in ED since 2011 > (from the forum and my own observations): > 2011 ? May 9 > 2012 ? May 1 > 2013 ? May 17 > 2014 ? May 8 > 2015 ? May 9 > 2016 ? May 4 > 2017 ? May 6 > 2018 ? May 7 > 2019 ? May 8 > 2020 ? May 6 > 2021 ? May 9 May 9th - 08:15 swifts ahoy!

The swifts are back! It was very welcome to hear them this morning.

Thanks for that. So to raise issues on national food distribution email [email protected]

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I emailed Mike Coupe yesterday as it is impossible > to get through on the phone. No response, of > course! I think it might be better to be emailing the minister in charge of food, Theresa Villiers. This is a problem that requires central government co-ordination. Email below. [email protected]

.

I guess it's not unusual for people posting on internet forums to misunderstand each other. But I am still struggling a little with your meaning. I don't think anyone would claim that, as yet, we have a fully functioning crystal ball that allows us to see the future. To establish 'facts' about the future if you will. But of course that doesn't mean there's no value in forecasting and planning accordingly. If you believe the Yellowhammer warnings to be significant (while being clear that they are forecasts rather than facts), then that surely means you take them seriously. I also wouldn't claim they are 'facts', but I would say they are professionally produced forecasts that should be heeded. This presumably means we agree about that? Would I also be right in thinking that we agree that the 'Singapore Model' is not a particularly useful or desirable one for the UK to aspire to?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >You've got some balls. Thank you. We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though. I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as being part of a complete debate. So I read the article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of his belief that we should not take the Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the future of the UK - that's what I believe in - rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on the other hand, did not see it that way. You wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as significant, while being careful not to express approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This isn't really a cause for outrage, is it?

OK. I see you did reference Keano77's dismissive comments about Yellow Hammer. But Keano77 had just above reinforced his argument with a link to the Singapore Model article. Does this mean that you put little store by the Yellow Hammer warnings, and agree with Keano77 on that, but disagree with his approval of the Singapore Model of Brexit? If so, fair enough, but you didn't make that clear. If you disapprove of the Singapore Model, what are your reasons for doing so, and what would your alternative model be?

I don't need to look back very far TheCat. You referred approvingly above to what you regarded as the positive 'facts' referenced by Keano77 in the article he posted about the benefits of a 'Singapore Model'.