University joins probe into tsunamis threat to UK (From Daily Echo)

Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now?

May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?

Huey wrote:
May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast

Maybe you should have tweeted that post.

Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

So armed with this trivia, what can we tell about the risk now?

Pretty low risk probley some thing like once in a 1 or 2 thousand years for the UK.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?

The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause.
You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making.

Sorry that should be Romney

Brite Spark wrote:

Huey wrote:
May well happen in the canaries and affect the south coast

Maybe you should have tweeted that post.

Very good point Brite the one island do pose a threat, those hollow lava tubes could give way and drop into the sea.

AndyAndrews wrote:
Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.

"Science" isn't just one big blob of resources that all do the same thing. We can't just take scientists from one field, and switch them over to another. If all anybody ever did was focus on the immediate threat, we'd still be living up trees and terrified of The Fire God.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Well Britian as been hit with 2 that is known about, one was recorded that hit the south coast of Wales and the South west of England (in 1400's or 1600's) recorded by monks, the other hit west Scotland no writen accounts but it did leave scars along the coast that are still visable today

.. well, I’ll help you out on this one southy and confirm part of what you say. It was the Bristol Channel Floods of 30 January 1607, believed to have been caused by a landslip off the Irish coast, but there are alternative theories concerning a very high tide combined with a strong storm surge. It certainly happened, however.

There, now your turn to help me: still waiting for details of “Romley uppers meadow fields”. Is this your bad spelling or just a made up location – i.e. a lie?

The discription was that of a tsunami and not that of High winds or with a high tide, it effected all along the southern welsh coast into the Bristol channel, somerset levels, all the way down to Scilly isles, but the main recording was done by a monk in south Somerset and his discription is what you will see with a tsunami, land slip of the south west coast of Ireland more likely the cause.
You know off Romley marshes well the meadows are on the sea ward side of the slopes of the downs, the upper meadows are the pasture fields for cattle and for hay making.

.. no southy, Romley is not a known location anywhere in the UK.

I have: -
1) googled it - no results.
2) searched Ordnance Survey - no results.
3) searched Street Map - no results.
4) searched Google Maps - no results.

Now, before we go any further and we have to call this another one of your lies, I give you one last chance to tell me where this place is. Have you spelt it correctly? Could that be why it appears to be fictitious? What county is it in? What’s the nearest town?

I do so hope, after the lies of the Rahit Maryada saga, that I have not caught you out making up info just to back up your obvious error on the UK status of the Meadow Fritillary.

southy wrote:
Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous.
Back soon

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous.
Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”.

That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county.

It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy?

It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy?

Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course.

Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim.

Go on, you can do it.

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

sass wrote:

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.

southy wrote:

sass wrote:

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.

Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?

And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

sass wrote:

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.

Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?

I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh
ism/sikh-dharmamanua
l.asp

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.

From a recent post by your friend Paramjit:

" Hi,

On same unconnected with PCC election (on which I agree that an independent candidate is good news, but doubt if he can win?) I contacted office of President of SGPC; the highest democratically elected body of Sikhs in Amritsar.

On 8 August I received following email. This should be sufficient to put an end to confusion on this subject.

It has been copied and pasted, apart from top bit which was form of address/greeting in Punjabi as per Sikh tradition.

Apropos your email dated Aug, 6,2012, Please be informed that 'Sikh
Rehat Maryada' is not at all named after any person whatsoever. You
please send your complete mailing address enabling us to have a copy
of the same in English despached to you, wherein you would find how it
came into being.
"

So you're now accusing the president of the SGPC - in effect, the Sikh Parliament - a liar. Rather bold, don't you think?

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

sass wrote:

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.

Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?

I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh

ism/sikh-dharmamanua

l.asp

Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada?

AndyAndrews wrote:
Waste of money. Spend it on trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, ie a real and increasing problem rather than a remote threat.

I have followed some of your comments today with great interest Mr. Andrews, and there seems to be undeniable and incontrovertible evidence that you sir, are a complete tool.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

sass wrote:

freefinker wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote: Sorry that should be Romney

.. ah, sorry, missed that while replying to your previous. Back soon

are, so it’s Romney Marsh, Kent. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Now for the Meadow Fritillary, Melitaea parthenoides, for which you claim (Romney) “Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk”; and that this species “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent”. That is a very strange claim as there are NO sightings of this species in the UK what-so-ever. Kent Wildlife Trust has a comprehensive website on which you can look up all the butterfly species present in the county. It is therefore very strange that they fail to list this species, despite your claim it has one of the biggest colonies in the UK. Why do you think that is southy? It is also very strange that Butterfly Conservation also seem to have overlooked this species on their website, likewise UK Butterflies. Why do you think that is southy? Could it be that you inadvertently included this species in your list of UK native fritillaries by mistake, and now, like the Rahit Maryada incident, you just can’t bring yourself to admit you made a small error? Seems to be par for the course. Now, before this becomes another saga that goes on for weeks, re-check your facts and come back here and tell us all you got a little confused with this claim. Go on, you can do it.

Never stop learning Southy, never stop learning.

very true Sass I don't unlike Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.

Much of the information in the world that's available to the public IS on the Internet, though, southy. I know you think it's still 1995, when everyone connected over dialup to Compuserve, and there were about 5 websites that weren't porn, but the world has moved on a bit. If there's a snippet of information that's in the public domain, it's pretty much guaranteed to be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. You not believing that is not going to make it any less of a fact.

Besides, the ridiculous lies you made up about the Rahit Maryada have been exposed as such, by a trusted source which was NOT on the Internet. I notice you've neglected to address that matter.

So have you learnt yet how to admit when you're wrong? Or are you going to keep up this ridiculous charade?

I wish it was but in truth its not lees than 50% of the worlds infornation is on the internet which about 60% of the information is controlled.
I will not tell you again Georgem but go onto this web site and tell me where it says Rahit Maryada it dont its only spelled one way and any other way is a translation error.
http://sgpc.net/sikh


ism/sikh-dharmamanua


l.asp

Let's assume for a moment that this is the case (which it isn't). Why, then, did you insist that this document was named after a Sikh man named Rahed Maryada?

60% of the internet is ****, only 40% is anything else, also there is actually "public" information that isn't available online, such as a lot of "public" information from china, because they're scared someone would use it to overthrow their communist reign and it's the same in quite a few countries, not all "public" documents and information can be found online so for once southy is right, a lot of information on the net is controlled, like a lot of the information about 9/11 was controlled and changed to suit president bush.

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.

No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.

I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.

Indeed.

In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth.

It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration.

freefinker wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't agree with southy about the butterflies, even after only 2 minutes of research i can tell that they don't live in Britain, 1 or 2 may get blown over here by the wind from southern France and northern Spain but they soon die when winter hits.

Indeed.

In fact, Ginger_cyclist, we don't even get the 1 or 2 blown over from the continent. When it’s windy this species hankers down in undergrowth.

It's not a species like the Clouded Yellow or Painted Lady which wait for the correct winds to assist their migration.

Indeed, I'd be more inclined to believe it if southy said it was swallow tail butterflies instead.

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.

No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.

And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life?

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

freefinker wrote:

southy wrote:
And freefinker the British Butterfly Conservation do not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them, its the same with the RSPCB never publish the fact that a pair of Ospreys nested near Marchwood a number of years ago, they keep it very quiet that they was there.
Also Rahit is a person name but Reht is not, putting Rahit is a translation error, and proved that point also if you go onto the SGPC web site its only said one way and that is Sikh Reht Maryada and no other way, any other way is a translation error. and they pride them selfs on getting the Translation right. now get off your high horse and debate the matter in hand and stop deliberately taking it off topic.

No, southy, Butterfly Conservation (not British Butterfly Conservation) do indeed keep back some site-specific details of where a very few butterfly species can be found.

Take the very rare Large Blue, extinct in the UK 1979 and re-introduced in 1983 from Swedish stock. There are now only about 90 UK colonies after all this time and conservation effort; and you will only find two sites listed on UK Butterflies and none on the BC site.

However, these two most respected websites on UK butterflies both give a full description of the Large Blue, even though it has UK BAP status of “Priority”. That doesn’t sound to me as though they “not publish all information they keep back the rarer bits of information so get to many people in the area looking for them,” does it?

Now according to you, the Meadow Fritillary “is found on the south coast and have colonys from devon to kent, Romley uppers meadow fields have one of the biggest colonys in the Uk, and have had recordings being here since victorian times.”

That sounds to me to be a species nowhere near as rare, sensitive or as in need of protection as the Large Blue. Very strange that neither BC nor UKB mention the Meadow Fritillary even once. Can you explain that?

Now as for your “Freefinker thinks its all on the internet, to him if its not on the internet then theres no such thing.” Well, I have just counted my UK butterfly books. I actually have 6, ranging from a 1962 edition of The Observer’s Book of Butterflies to the absolute authority on the subject, Thomas and Lewington’s The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland, 2nd edition, 2010. Not one of these 6 mentions the Meadow Fritillary.

Add to that I also have access to Centre for Ecology & Hydrology’s restricted database due to my current and active scientific research on Lepidoptera. Do you know what? Same result – no mention of the Meadow Fritillary.

So, to sum up, we DO have another Rahit Maryada saga. There is NO EVIDENCE in written books or the internet for your assertion.

You have made it up – IT’S ANOTHER SOUTHY DELIBERATE LIE.

I gave you plenty of slack to research again your contribution, but it’s the same old story, isn’t it? southy is NEVER wrong.

And to think you actually made an effort to make this point!! How boring is your life?

.. apparently not quite as boring as yours, stuck as you are in defending the Red tribe against the Blue tribe - when actually there’s not even a gnat’s crotchet of difference between then.

So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions.

forest hump wrote:
So we spend 2.3 million! What will we do with the results? Probably conclude we need to spend more to fully understand. The University must be rubbing its hands together. Put the money to some real use where we will see true results. Let's not subsidise a bunch of geeks who will draw no real conclusions.

ha,ha,ha. yes. brilliantly thought out comment. what HAS scientific endeavour ever brought us, eh? it's all just a bunch of subsidised geeks drawing no real conclusions. moron.