View Full Version : Bad Science
More on the spin applied to global warming data:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
I remain sceptical. There is so much cash riding on this
bandwagon that the temptation of research departments to produce "the
right figures" must be great.
I do believe the earth is getting hotter, but not by as much as claimed
and not only or principally for the reasons claimed.
The sun is running hotter. From time to time it does that.
Nevertheless I do think we should use less energy and use it more
efficiently so it will last longer; and I do believe we should run a
cleaner show, reducing pollution as much as we can.
I'm with you on that.
I followed the initial scientific debate on the specialized whether forums (a few years ago, when the first figures were published) : most scientists were criticizing the forecast model used (which used data only from 1970 onwards) saying that such a short model was necessarily false and could only be used to promote a distorted view.
Gradually, as political/social organizations were getting focused on it, the scientists criticizing the whole buzz around global warming were accused of several things (including financial interest and connexions with the "old energy model" industry) and got gradually discarded or lost interest.
But, for people being there at the initial debate, things are clear : the forecast model used for "planet warming" is flawed and the whole fuss has more to do with politics than with environment.
Which has nothing to do with your last sentence, of course. ;)
I'm with you on that.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
and the Channel 4 programme is on uTube
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Just a quickie, but anyone interested in man-made global warming and why it isn't happening in quite the way we're being led to believe should read Chill by Peter Taylor. He's no denialist, as a long standing ecologist, consultant to Greenpeace and advisor on numerous government panels over the last 30 years, but his dissection of the bad science, collusion with industry and falsifications of the IPCC (amongst others) is a real eye-opener - especially if his hypothesis is correct, and we are entering a period of global cooling (hence the title). Well worth a read.
have a look here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chill-Reassessment-Global-Warming-Theory/dp/1905570198/ref=pd_sim_b_5) for a better idea.
Jason
Ali Tait
15-12-2009, 17:20
"State Of Fear" by Michael Crichton is worth a read too.One thing that makes me smile is the fact that you have all these "climate scientists" tellling us with a straight face exactly what the climate is going to be like in a century or so,yet weather forecasters struggle to say what the weather is going to be like tomorrow with any great degree of accuracy!
Hi Ali
Yes thats the one that helped turn me on to this as well, amazing that we as the frightened population do not realise we are being conned and controlled. The burying in the darkness to watch X Factor and Celebrity come Morris Dancing and other such mindless dross to give us something to do is truly scary.
Come the day of the glorious revolution we will use the Journalists as a shield for the politicians for the firing squad (I am not sure which are worse for the peddling of misinformation)
Nick
Ali Tait
15-12-2009, 18:08
Sounds like a plan! :lol:
Hi Ali
Yes thats the one that helped turn me on to this as well, amazing that we as the frightened population do not realise we are being conned and controlled. The burying in the darkness to watch X Factor and Celebrity come Morris Dancing and other such mindless dross to give us something to do is truly scary.
Just get shot of the TV. That'll learn 'em!
Beechwoods
15-12-2009, 22:27
I'm no weather / ecosystem expert but I do know there is a consensus amongst the vast majority of the science community that there is a problem, and that we need to do something about it.
The whole debate runs counter to the interests of big business / the controlling forces behind economic growth for the last 100 years and so I can't see how 'climate change' can be a big money ticket for anyone. Why is reducing energy consumption in the benefit of big business or government? The only big stretch I could make concieveably is that it could be a tool to hold back industrialisation in developing countries. But even there, the push is about how we can support 'clean' industrial revolutions in those developling economies, rather than 'dirty' ones.
There is plenty that worries me about the way we are governed, but a lot of it is more fundamental than C02 emmissions and global warming. I found the following video a real eye-opener. Some you have to take with a pinch of salt, but it really does make you think about what it is to be a 'citizen' in a modern 'liberal / democratic' state.
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion
The Grand Wazoo
15-12-2009, 23:25
I tend to resist getting into these sorts of discussions because the work I do is not unrelated to the subject and I know how much shite is spoken about it from both sides. I've earned my living for the last 6 / 7 years directly as a result of people trying to fight climate change and was involved in establishing the project which sought to reduce the fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions of the largest single source of CO2 pollution in western Europe - 21 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Despite doing this work, I'm highly sceptical of a lot of what we're told and the way that the powers that be are behaving. Some of the science that is being spouted is flawed and our knowledge is incomplete.
What's clear to me is that we don't know whether we are the major cause of global warming or not - no emphatic statement by a politician or scientist will change that.
Certainly we may contribute to it. However, the world's termite population produces more CO2 than the human race, and the most prolific greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. We're tackling carbon dioxide because we can - I don't see much activity on methane (over 20 times more polluting than CO2 by weight), nitrous oxide or water vapour.
If (and it's a big if) it is all correct & over the last 100 years, we've done what they say we have, then how the hell will they reverse or just stop that in the space of 20? Would we not be far better expending our energies making provision for coping with the disease than trying to reverse the symptoms?
In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.
There's nothing wrong with trying to curb the shameful profligacy that's exhibited by modern man.
Let's just not fall for the politics of fear. Let's not waste hundreds of billions on trying to stop something that we can't stop. King Canute anyone?
..........oh & don't get me started on the bollocks that's spoken about some forms of renewable energy.
Spectral Morn
15-12-2009, 23:32
Seems to me that we should be planting more trees, after all they are the lungs of the planet and they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. I know its not as simple as that but it would be a start.
Cold or warm the climate changes and has done so, for a long time, and before we had the ability to effect anything, though we have been responsible for mass deforestation through out the last 5 thousand years or so. What effect has that had I wonder ? Vast tracts of land used to be covered in forests and it isn't now.
Regards D S D L
The Vinyl Adventure
16-12-2009, 00:04
I tend to resist getting into these sorts of discussions because the work I do is not unrelated to the subject and I know how much shite is spoken about it from both sides. I've earned my living for the last 6 / 7 years directly as a result of people trying to fight climate change and was involved in establishing the project which sought to reduce the fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions of the largest polluter in western Europe - 21 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
Despite doing this work, I'm highly sceptical of a lot of what we're told and the way that the powers that be are behaving. Some of the science that is being spouted is flawed and our knowledge is incomplete.
What's clear to me is that we don't know whether we are the major cause of global warming or not - no emphatic statement by a politician or scientist will change that.
Certainly we may contribute to it. However, the world's termite population produces more CO2 than the human race, and the most prolific greenhouse gas is actually water vapour. We're tackling carbon dioxide because we can - I don't see much activity on methane (over 20 times more polluting than CO2 by weight), nitrous oxide or water vapour.
If (and it's a big if) it is all correct & over the last 100 years, we've done what they say we have, then how the hell will they reverse or just stop that in the space of 20? Would we not be far better expending our energies making provision for coping with the disease than trying to reverse the symptoms?
In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.
There's nothing wrong with trying to curb the shameful profligacy that's exhibited by modern man.
Let's just not fall for the politics of fear. Let's not waste hundreds of billions on trying to stop something that we can't stop. King Canute anyone?
..........oh & don't get me started on the bollocks that's spoken about some forms of renewable energy.
Seriously, that is about as bang on as anyone could be chris, I completely and utterly, unreservedly agree with everything in that statement!!!
I agree with Chris.
To add a bit more, this "global warming" is still the same old mentality of "the humans are the main, predominant and most important specie on this planet" we are "the beginning and the end of all of it".
How pathetic, really. :(
The Vinyl Adventure
16-12-2009, 00:21
Yep agreed, I hate it when people refer to it as "saving the plannet" .. It should be "saving the plannet for our selves" . Species come and go, it's a shame if we are responsible for their demise, but the one thing that will survive is the plannet!
We can only understand the world we live in with the time that we as individuals exist, it's been around for a lot longer than we have been here and will no doubt outlive us ...
The Grand Wazoo
16-12-2009, 00:37
Seems to me that we should be planting more trees..............
..........we have been responsible for mass deforestation through out the last 5 thousand years or so. What effect has that had I wonder ? Vast tracts of land used to be covered in forests and it isn't now.
Trees are good. We like trees!!!
The Grand Wazoo
16-12-2009, 08:18
.........but the one thing that will survive is the plannet!
.......and the termites. Don't forget the termites! ..............those polluting little six legged bastards are gonna kill us all.
Peter Galbavy
16-12-2009, 08:53
In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with trying to clean up our act - there's always been a good reason not to cause pollution.
... which is my view. Global warming ? Climate Change ? I simply do not care on a personal level. I will be long dead before anyone really notices if the prediction are true. No children, no plans to have children. Doesn't mean I am going to waste and pollute simply because I can - that's just rude, even evil.
Sadly, the belief that people - especially those who wield influence and power - will "do the right thing" is a mistaken one which has taken me most of my life to realise. Just because you/I are "nice" doesn't mean that anyone else is.
Haselsh1
16-12-2009, 09:25
Of course this is only ever going to be my personal view, but;
I do believe in global warming. The problem I have is believing that you and I are to blame. I have an issue believing that driving my car and using a few Watts of energy in my home are comparable to corporate businesses who burn megawatts of energy every single year of their existance and smoke and belch tons of polluting gas into the atmosphere every minute of every day. If you multiply what I have just said by the number of such businesses in the UK alone and then guestimate another multiplacation based on the World, I think you'll get what I am aiming at.
Why are the general public being held to ransom for global warming when we have such an apocalyptic problem with corporate businesses...??? I never hear of the government saying similar things to them. I never hear of the government making them feel guilty.
I worked for twenty seven years in industry as a chemist for a Swiss based chemical company and I have first hand experience of how they hide and snide their way around anything that doesn't quite fit in with their global plans. I'd love to know what they think of global warming. Somehow, I doubt they really care.
I wonder how the "global warming theory" will explain that there's a temperature drop in the 21st century : http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
I wonder how the "global warming theory" will explain that there's a temperature drop in the 21st century : http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
It too early to say there's a meaningful drop from those graphs. In the first graph the blue trend line does not take into account the green provisional data for 2009. If that green line is confirmed data then the drop will become a barely perceptible minor reduction or a small glitch.
One of the outcomes of global warming, whether or not we meaningfully contribute to it, is that we will likely end up in an ice-age. The worry is that temperature and weather are part of a non-linear system. We may be relatively fine for the next 50 or 500 years, except for the many millions of people who are flooded out of their land.... The really big drama for the UK and northern Europe will be when the non-linear system flips and the Gulf Stream weakens, moves or stops. Not quite "Day After Tomorrow" but not that far away from it. Being a non-linear system this could happen at any time, we can't predict when. Can we do anything about it? Probably not but I'm with those who believe in a cleaner and less wasteful way of life.
It too early to say there's a meaningful drop from those graphs. In the first graph the blue trend line does not take into account the green provisional data for 2009. If that green line is confirmed data then the drop will become a barely perceptible minor reduction or a small glitch.
The question is : how can "a minor glitch" (of 3-4 years) be explained, although the CO2 production is supposed to continue growing ? :scratch:
I mean, how can this be explained by the global warming theory ?
I mean, how can this be explained by the global warming theory ?
And why is Mars warming? Too many intercontinental passenger flights?
Ali Tait
18-12-2009, 21:00
Yes,that's a very good point! The polar caps on Mars are shrinking.Guess the little green men are driving their 4 by 4's too much! :doh:
The reality is that we can't know any of this for sure. By the time we are sure, if the news is bad, it will be too late. Looking at temp data samples over 3 or 4 years and then deducing that temps are reducing is using much too small a sample. I think we need to be looking at data for at least 10 years at a time, probably rather more lke 20 or 50.
If Mars is heating up then can be more than one variable at play here. Indeed I'm sure there are many variables. It's dangerous for either side of the discussion to take one fact and then deduce from a single fact.
It's dangerous for either side of the discussion to take one fact and then deduce from a single fact.
Agreed. But we are about to throw billions at CO2 reduction, and if that money could have been better spent . . .
Agreed. But we are about to throw billions at CO2 reduction, and if that money could have been better spent . . .
Quite possibly. CO2 is one thing we can control relatively easily though but yes it's not enough. I suppose in the end it's population control that is needed, whether by ice age, aids, flu; it'll come.
Exterminating Termites would be more effective but then we would come across unexpected side-effects within the food chain. ....Termites produce more CO2 than we do....
The Vinyl Adventure
18-12-2009, 21:31
I heard cows fart is quite bad too, let's kill them, I like steak and there would be over supply so it would be cheap! Actually, we could then give the money to the government (I'm sure the farmers don't need it) to spend very wisely on building some nuclear weapons to protect us against "terrorists" ... I'm only saying this because I like polar bears!
I like polar bears!
I don't. They eat seals. I like seals better. I'm going to keep driving my big cars and leaving my hifi on forever to kill the smug white furry bastards.
I heard cows fart is quite bad too, let's kill them, I like steak and there would be over supply so it would be cheap! Actually, we could then give the money to the government (I'm sure the farmers don't need it) to spend very wisely on building some nuclear weapons to protect us against "terrorists" ... I'm only saying this because I like polar bears!
Cows are a methane problem. I can't help thinking that if we all turn veggie we then become the methane problem!
I heard that it is sheep belching, in Australia they have been doing research into methane emisions and were blaming it on sheep farting but they were looking at the wrong end and it is sheep belching instead, so the Ausies are now trying to breed sheep that don't burp so much, these emsions represent 10% of Australia's gas emisions
The Vinyl Adventure
18-12-2009, 22:12
Do you know jon, I have no idea if that is a joke or not, and I think that in it's self says a great deal about the world!!
It like all the eu straight banannas from a few years back.. It was a load of crap dreamed up by some newspaper.. It is still beloved to be a policy that was discused to save space in transport!
On the subject of fruit, I understand kiwi fruit are quite a polutant whilst in transport...
Potatos are carsonagenic too...
Do you know these days, if you use a waste dump, as a comercial enterprise, to dispose, as best as you can, of a load of fridges... You have to pay - fair enough, but then you have to pay tax on that payment... pushing it? Well then you have to pay vat on top of that tax... Can anyone tell me how tax can b taxed? Value added tax on something that has no value??
Of course I have no idea if any of what I have said is anymore true than anything else I know... And people question apathy in the modern Britain ... I probably be less apathetic if I had the first fucking clue what was going on ...
Just to give you a ferther idea of why I choose to be fairly apathetic - my local conservative mp put a questionaire through the post asking me what I thought thier policys on various things should be ... With multiple choice answers!!! Farce farce farce ... It's all a bloody farce!
The Grand Wazoo
18-12-2009, 22:16
I heard that it is sheep belching, in Australia they have been doing research into methane emisions and were blaming it on sheep farting but they were looking at the wrong end and it is sheep belching instead, so the Ausies are now trying to breed sheep that don't burp so much, these emsions represent 10% of Australia's gas emisions
Nope!
Sheep are nett non-emitters of greenhouse gases.
Take a look at this that I read last week:
33 million woolly walking stores of carbon?
Friday, 4 December 2009, 3:02 pm
Press Release: Federated Farmers - New Zealand
33 million woolly walking stores of carbon?
While the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme remains in flux, the formation of the Australian-led Wool Carbon Alliance is intriguing New Zealand’s fibre farmers.
“The Australians may be clutching at wool on the issue of wool carbon but we need to keep a watching brief on what the Australians are up to,” says Bruce Wills, Federated Farmers Meat & Fibre chairperson.
“The Australians claim that carbon makes up to half of wool’s composition and if true, it would represent a carbon store of 64,000 tonnes walking around New Zealand’s farms right now.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0912/S00119.htm
You can hear it now can't you? The cry emerging from the futures markets around the world:
"Sell Gold!!!!.........Buy jumpers!............Buy mittens!"
What i heard about the sheep was on Radio2, the following week i heard that if you buy a real Christmas tree and chuck it in the bin it then goes to landfill and is buried for the next thousand or so years where it eventually rots down but takes up room in the land fill , but if you have a plastic tree and keep it for 40 odd years it then can be recycled, therefore has a more usefull life and doesn't get buried filling up our tips:doh:, they didn't mention about the fact that you can chip/shred the tree and turn it into mulch.
But I do know from previous experience that real Christmas tree shredding is not as green as they make out and a bit of a falisey because invariably the trees get dumped in land fill anyway shredded or not:scratch:
The Vinyl Adventure
18-12-2009, 22:44
Radio 2? Rings of jeremy vines show to me!
There was a great interview the other day where a guest referd to something as being a "ni###r in the wood pile!" I actually gobbed my tea accros the room! He followed with "can I say that?" jeremy's reply - "no, erm no"
The Grand Wazoo
19-12-2009, 00:01
Please don't buy a plastic tree!!!!
i heard that if you buy a real Christmas tree and chuck it in the bin it then goes to landfill and is buried for the next thousand or so years where it eventually rots down but takes up room in the land fill ,
If you chuck anything in the bin it goes to landfill. The real tree will take maybe 5 years to rot down. The plastic one over a 1000 maybe?
If you put the real one into green waste it will be (usually) aerobically digested (composted) & should end up being used meaningfully. If you put the plastic one into green waste, you'll be fined!!!!
but if you have a plastic tree and keep it for 40 odd years it then can be recycled, therefore has a more usefull life and doesn't get buried filling up our tips, they didn't mention about the fact that you can chip/shred the tree and turn it into mulch.
No-one - I mean no-one keeps a plastic tree for 40 years. 10 at the absolute max. But some people get a new one every couple of years! It's made from oil. They bring them here from China. And no matter what you're told they can't be recycled. The real tree comes from just down the road, possibly from Ireland, just maybe from Denmark at the very furthest. It's a truly renewable resource - they're grown specifically for the trade. While it was growing for between 5 & 7 years it was providing employment for a rural community. It was sequestering carbon. One acre of Christmas trees provides the oxygen needed daily for 18 - 20 people. It was providing a valuable habitat for wildlife.
But I do know from previous experience that real Christmas tree shredding is not as green as they make out and a bit of a falisey because invariably the trees get dumped in land fill anyway shredded or not
Those days are pretty much gone now, Jon. Landfill tax is too high for that game!
The Vinyl Adventure
19-12-2009, 00:09
I quite like the idea of these trees that you buy alive then return to the farm. They keep you name on it and then the next year you get to have the same tree again! I'd def do that if there was a place near me that did it!
The Grand Wazoo
19-12-2009, 00:18
It's a pricey game that, Hamish.
I've persuaded several friends over the years to do it this way. Buy a truly local , fresh cut tree every year. If you go to a good place, half the fun is choosing it. Then get everyone in the family to pay for a tree to be planted by an environmental charity. Better still, buy some trees from a nursery & go out & plant them somewhere yourselves - guerrilla gardening - that's fun too! If you buy forestry transplants, they'll only cost about 50p a pop.
The Vinyl Adventure
19-12-2009, 00:30
With the house situation, I'm not sure we will even be getting one this year :(
Please don't buy a plastic tree!!!!
If you chuck anything in the bin it goes to landfill. The real tree will take maybe 5 years to rot down. The plastic one over a 1000 maybe?
If you put the real one into green waste it will be (usually) aerobically digested (composted) & should end up being used meaningfully. If you put the plastic one into green waste, you'll be fined!!!!
No-one - I mean no-one keeps a plastic tree for 40 years. 10 at the absolute max. But some people get a new one every couple of years! It's made from oil. They bring them here from China. And no matter what you're told they can't be recycled. The real tree comes from just down the road, possibly from Ireland, just maybe from Denmark at the very furthest. It's a truly renewable resource - they're grown specifically for the trade. While it was growing for between 5 & 7 years it was providing employment for a rural community. It was sequestering carbon. One acre of Christmas trees provides the oxygen needed daily for 18 - 20 people. It was providing a valuable habitat for wildlife.
Those days are pretty much gone now, Jon. Landfill tax is too high for that game!
I agree with what you have said, it is the fact that these numptys come a national radio station and spout there version of events that sways people into buying crap intead of the real thing.
But i do know that a lot of green type waste gets buried in tips, these arnt nessessarely land fill type but other forms of tips that only take non toxic type of waste ie soil tree sruuf and hardcore, it is also known as agricultural ground build up or words to that effect
The other problem with green waste is that there are only a few true reycling centres for green waste around because of the time taken to turn around the stuff, the waste is bulky and you then have to turn it over periodicly to keep the rotting process going meaning that your end product is a year or two down the line so you have no income to start with, you then get charged to tip it here which is fair enough.
i'm no expert on this type of thing but have been to these places to buy the mulch and soil improvers for landscaping projects, the space needed is vast to be able to prosess this stuff.
I have to buy in around 200 cubic metres of play bark every year at a cost of around £40 a cubic metre, this is a large part of any councils play budget but the initial instalation of the play equipment with this surfacing is cheaper than it wouild be with a rubber based product, we also install the rubber based safety surfacing some of which is made from recycled lorry tyres mixed with an epoxy type resin, very expensive to buy and a shit job to lay but will last 15 plus years if laid correctly, where as bark needs to be topped up regally and has health and safety issues, giant cat tiolets for one and the little shits have a nasty habit of breaking bottles in them,(thats the kids not the cats)
The point is that Going green is not always the best way sometimes but ethically it should be.;)
My brain is not working to well this morning due to some bird called Famous Grouse to be able to string a sentance together proper like so i'm off out to get some air, i hope this all made some sense bollocks if it don't:cool:
DanJennings
19-12-2009, 11:55
A few things.... re:cows and sheep and things....
It's not cow's farts that emit methane, it is their belching. I don't know about sheep though.
Re: swearing on radio:
did anyone hear rage against the machine performing on radio 5 the other day?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pbq9j/b00pbq8h/5_live_Breakfast_17_12_2009/
it starts at around the 2:58:00 mark, but reaches its climax very near the end.
I have to buy in around 200 cubic metres of play bark every year at a cost of around £40 a cubic metre, this is a large part of any councils play budget
What's wrong with grit? As a boy I often fell off the swings into the grit, and still have little blue speckles in my knees to prove it. Character building!
What's wrong with grit? As a boy I often fell off the swings into the grit, and still have little blue speckles in my knees to prove it. Character building!
One of the top chaps that wrote the original ROSPA book of words as to how we build and position the Play equipment is now going along the lines of "it's too safe for kids and their's no adventure" backtracking perhaps?
The modern kids are not learning the hard way like we did. broken arms etc were all part of growing up when you fell off the slide or whatever and landed on the concrete below it hurt, when was the last time you saw a kid up a tree, all they do is break them now, play today has changed a lot:(
The modern kids are not learning the hard way like we did. broken arms etc were all part of growing up . . . (
Nor are their immune systems. One of the theories about the high frequency of asthma is that the children's immune systems are not sufficiently challenged and do do develop properly. I once knew some very protective parents - my comment to my wife? "That lad needs to be rubbed in the dirt."
My 14 year old climbs trees, very high I might add. He even leaves drinks up there, he loves to go to the top of a tree and look at the Manchester skyline about 12 miles away. He does this even though he broke his hip aged 4 when he fell 11 feet over a banister rail - the big worry at the time was that his growth plates may have been damaged, 2 operations later he's fine at 6ft 2ins tall. Also he's 2nd in England in his age group at high jump (ISA). Doing this stuff seems to be nature, not nurture but of course some parents control their kids too much, and some parents not enough....
Stratmangler
19-12-2009, 16:59
My son is 9 years old and plays in goal for a local football team.
And he gets his fair share of knocks, kicks, balls in the face - you name it.
And he loves it - ok, sometimes he feels pain for a little while after getting into these scrapes, but he wouldn't dream of stopping playing.
At the end of some games it's difficult to tell what colour kit he's wearing.
I think of football as a normal activity, yet in order for him to play competatively he has to be a registered player in a FA approved team. They do not play competative football at school, which I think is a real shame. At school there is more of a "wrapped in cotton wool" mentality. I feel that all of the kids lose out because of this over-protective attitude.
Funny thing is, neither my son or his team mates have much time off school because of illness - and it's not coincidental.
Getting dirty and having scrapes is a perfectly normal part of childhood, and kids should be allowed to embrace this rather than be sheltered from it.
Chris:)
Ali Tait
20-12-2009, 12:47
Some schools now have a policy of no running at playtime.How do you play without running around? Compensation culture gone mad.
And sports without winners - ffs...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.