Music0 min ago
Why Should The Environment Agency Spend Money Supporting Gay Issues?
24 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We’d all be better off if the Environment Agency lost all 13,000 of the people it currently employs. It is a ridiculous organisation which purports to employ experts (which it may well do) but is led by politically correct unaccountable Quangocrats, some of whose policies defy belief.
Examples of its recent activities (which have undoubtedly led to the exacerbation of the problems caused by heavy rainfall) is, in one area, to spend far more on the establishment of a bird sanctuary than it did on flood defences and in another to put the protection of the habitat of a rare mollusc above the protection of people and property.
Its support for gay issues makes as much sense as some of its decisions on flood protection.
Examples of its recent activities (which have undoubtedly led to the exacerbation of the problems caused by heavy rainfall) is, in one area, to spend far more on the establishment of a bird sanctuary than it did on flood defences and in another to put the protection of the habitat of a rare mollusc above the protection of people and property.
Its support for gay issues makes as much sense as some of its decisions on flood protection.
// in one area, to spend far more on the establishment of a bird sanctuary than it did on flood defences //
Except it isn't true. The bird sanctuary is at Steart Peninsula and has been built to compensate for birdland lost when Bristol Ports facility was expanded. Part of permission to expand the port said that an habitat of similar size had to be created. The Steart Peninsula was a sparcely populated area whose sea defenses were costly to maintain and offered poor value in terms of the number of people they helped. The idea is to deliberately let the floodwater to gather here so as to save that water from settling in more populated areas upstream. The scheme may have cost £31million, but that did not come from the EAs budget, it came from the Port, the EU and other funders. There is obviously a cost to the EA in building and running the area, but that is offset by not having to maintain or rebuild the sea defenses.
http://
http://
Except it isn't true. The bird sanctuary is at Steart Peninsula and has been built to compensate for birdland lost when Bristol Ports facility was expanded. Part of permission to expand the port said that an habitat of similar size had to be created. The Steart Peninsula was a sparcely populated area whose sea defenses were costly to maintain and offered poor value in terms of the number of people they helped. The idea is to deliberately let the floodwater to gather here so as to save that water from settling in more populated areas upstream. The scheme may have cost £31million, but that did not come from the EAs budget, it came from the Port, the EU and other funders. There is obviously a cost to the EA in building and running the area, but that is offset by not having to maintain or rebuild the sea defenses.
http://
http://
Not sure why the EA are supporting the Pride march.
It would be interesting to establish whether this was one of Lord Smith's 'pet projects'. I mean, is the CEO of Tesco gay?
I only ask, because the Daily Mail took time out to attack the firm for supporting Gay Pride a couple of years ago:
http://
From the figures quoted in the story, it seems odd that the headline leads with the references to mugs and gay pride, rather than the £250,000 spent on private meeting rooms.
One wonders whether attacking Gay Pride is the pet project of Paul Dacre?
It would be interesting to establish whether this was one of Lord Smith's 'pet projects'. I mean, is the CEO of Tesco gay?
I only ask, because the Daily Mail took time out to attack the firm for supporting Gay Pride a couple of years ago:
http://
From the figures quoted in the story, it seems odd that the headline leads with the references to mugs and gay pride, rather than the £250,000 spent on private meeting rooms.
One wonders whether attacking Gay Pride is the pet project of Paul Dacre?
keyplus90
I don't think that's the case. Whilst there have been a number of high profile anti-gay statements made by certain religious leaders and right wing politicians which have broadly been mocked, it doesn't necessarily make those people bad per se.
And think of all the organisations that don't fund Gay Pride.
Are they attacked for being anti-gay?
Not sure that they are.
I don't think that's the case. Whilst there have been a number of high profile anti-gay statements made by certain religious leaders and right wing politicians which have broadly been mocked, it doesn't necessarily make those people bad per se.
And think of all the organisations that don't fund Gay Pride.
Are they attacked for being anti-gay?
Not sure that they are.
sp1814
/// Actually, what it find disturbing about the Daily Mail is it ongoing attacks on gay people. It has been going on for decades. ///
Not on Gays per-se but on their constant need to promote their issues over and over again.
And it is not only Gays that do this, other 'minority groups' are also guilty.
This is what really encourages hatred.
/// Actually, what it find disturbing about the Daily Mail is it ongoing attacks on gay people. It has been going on for decades. ///
Not on Gays per-se but on their constant need to promote their issues over and over again.
And it is not only Gays that do this, other 'minority groups' are also guilty.
This is what really encourages hatred.
AOG
When the Daily Mail says that the identification of 'the gay gene' gives women 'abortion hope', do you think that gay people should stay silent?
Why is it that for hundreds of years, religious leaders and the right wing press been able to freely denounce gay people but it's only in the past couple of decades that gay people have been able stand up for themselves and demand equality.
Thousands of years of hatred and persecution, which is still ongoing, and gay people should be quite?
Do you think that perhaps, civil rights are best talked about and debated?
When Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream", did you write to the papers telling him he should keep it to himself?
When the Daily Mail says that the identification of 'the gay gene' gives women 'abortion hope', do you think that gay people should stay silent?
Why is it that for hundreds of years, religious leaders and the right wing press been able to freely denounce gay people but it's only in the past couple of decades that gay people have been able stand up for themselves and demand equality.
Thousands of years of hatred and persecution, which is still ongoing, and gay people should be quite?
Do you think that perhaps, civil rights are best talked about and debated?
When Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream", did you write to the papers telling him he should keep it to himself?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.